I dont think anyone has commented on latest YouGov opinion poll from Wales for Senedd elections.
Plaid 33% Reform 30% Labour 10% !!! Conservative 10% Green 9% LibDem 6%
This would give (around): Plaid 39 seats Reform 34 seats Labour 10 seats Conservatives 6 seats LibDem 4 seats Green 3 seats
The finishing line (in new 96 member Senedd) is 49,
So Plaid & Lab = 49 Reform & Con = 40
But with a small movement in seats it might be possible for Plaid to form a coalition with Green & LD...consigning Labour to the back benches. Popcorn supplies on order....
Labour at 10% in Wales is utterly devastating for them but well earned
They would still be back in government as junior partner to Plaid, only a vote for Reform or the Conservatives can definitely remove Labour from power in Wales
We don't know just how much Plaid would want to be associated with labour in Wales
£570mn a year for Erasmus?! I see the Chagos negotiators have already found a new job in government.
We need a comparator on that.
The requested contribution for 2021 that the UK Govt walked away from was £600 million per annum: *
Under Erasmus+, the UK already contributed significantly more than we got out in the form of receipts, and the only terms of offer for continued participation would have required an annual gross contribution of £600 million, or a net contribution in the region of £2 billion over the course of the programme.
£600 million a year in 2027 with 2021->2027 inflation of 30% (about right) would be £780 million pro-rata, so £570 million is a like for like reduction of 27%.
Is that a good deal? I think that probably depends on how well we fill our quota of 100k students.
Back in 2020 there was funding for 55.7k students to be involved, and we sent 10k and received 16k. It's up to us to use it fully. I think in that case it will be good value, especially in undermining the xenophobia that poisons our politics. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4ng7ee9vwo
It's not a zero sum game anyway - just as with our membership of the EU. There's cake in hosting the best and brightest from the continent - and vice versa.
Christ, that Jane Austen style shipping forecast on R4 is total cringe. If they didn’t cobble it together using AI they made every effort to make it sound as if they did.
I find it impentrable but restful. It's good if some things don't change!
It's a weird yet comforting incantation to wake up to.
Moderate to good.
i used to listen before I went to sleep, after Sailing By.
Sailing By always makes me feel immensely melancholy for some reason.
Christ, that Jane Austen style shipping forecast on R4 is total cringe. If they didn’t cobble it together using AI they made every effort to make it sound as if they did.
I find it impentrable but restful. It's good if some things don't change!
It's a weird yet comforting incantation to wake up to.
Moderate to good.
i used to listen before I went to sleep, after Sailing By.
Sailing By always makes me feel immensely melancholy for some reason.
I remember the UK medley!
Ha, it always made me think I had been transported in time to the 1940s with a nice patriotic jolly-up. I liked it and hated it at the same time if that is possible.
£570mn a year for Erasmus?! I see the Chagos negotiators have already found a new job in government.
We need a comparator on that.
The requested contribution for 2021 that the UK Govt walked away from was £600 million per annum: *
Under Erasmus+, the UK already contributed significantly more than we got out in the form of receipts, and the only terms of offer for continued participation would have required an annual gross contribution of £600 million, or a net contribution in the region of £2 billion over the course of the programme.
£600 million a year in 2027 with 2021->2027 inflation of 30% (about right) would be £780 million pro-rata, so £570 million is a like for like reduction of 27%.
Is that a good deal? I think that probably depends on how well we fill our quota of 100k students.
Back in 2020 there was funding for 55.7k students to be involved, and we sent 10k and received 16k. It's up to us to use it fully. I think in that case it will be good value, especially in undermining the xenophobia that poisons our politics. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4ng7ee9vwo
It's not a zero sum game anyway - just as with our membership of the EU. There's cake in hosting the best and brightest from the continent - and vice versa.
It's the little Britainers who oppose such deals.
I think it does highlight the increasingly transactional nature of our current relationship with the EU.
When we were members we notably failed to use the relationship to our best advantage - I would argue at least in part because of complacent, woolly brains high in the civil service, arse sitting rathe rather than paying continuing attention, and inconsistent policy.
The only advantage of running Kamala again is to say to the electorate they have a chance to undo Trump. They picked the wrong one last time, they can rectify that this time.
The only advantage of running Kamala again is to say to the electorate they have a chance to undo Trump. They picked the wrong one last time, they can rectify that this time.
Telling people they are wrong…
Quite a lot of the people have noticed that they were wrong.
Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.
Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.
Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)
It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.
'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.
Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.
Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”
[...]
Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.
He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'
SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.
PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.
I dont think anyone has commented on latest YouGov opinion poll from Wales for Senedd elections.
Plaid 33% Reform 30% Labour 10% !!! Conservative 10% Green 9% LibDem 6%
This would give (around): Plaid 39 seats Reform 34 seats Labour 10 seats Conservatives 6 seats LibDem 4 seats Green 3 seats
The finishing line (in new 96 member Senedd) is 49,
So Plaid & Lab = 49 Reform & Con = 40
But with a small movement in seats it might be possible for Plaid to form a coalition with Green & LD...consigning Labour to the back benches. Popcorn supplies on order....
A Ref/Con coalition is still a possibility if the shares shift a bit.
I dont think anyone has commented on latest YouGov opinion poll from Wales for Senedd elections.
Plaid 33% Reform 30% Labour 10% !!! Conservative 10% Green 9% LibDem 6%
This would give (around): Plaid 39 seats Reform 34 seats Labour 10 seats Conservatives 6 seats LibDem 4 seats Green 3 seats
The finishing line (in new 96 member Senedd) is 49,
So Plaid & Lab = 49 Reform & Con = 40
But with a small movement in seats it might be possible for Plaid to form a coalition with Green & LD...consigning Labour to the back benches. Popcorn supplies on order....
A Ref/Con coalition is still a possibility if the shares shift a bit.
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.
Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.
Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)
It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.
'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.
Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.
Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”
[...]
Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.
He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'
SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.
PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.
Have had some contact with T & D guys (Transmission and Distribution) over the years and this is a common issue with any new Grid installation. People always want the lines (400kv?) buried but don't accept that there will be significant environmental damage and cost if you do bury it. I also know the area well as my OH is from there and beautiful as it is, it's not that special.
This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.
Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.
If they’d actually had primaries and nominated a candidate who wasn’t terrible, they might even have beaten Trump.
Biden hanging on till the last moment didn't help
With the support of his cabinet and the Dem establishment.
Compare how the cabinet and MPs forced Boris out here to the lickspittle loyalty Buttigieg and the others showed to Biden.
Yes and forcing Boris out led to a landslide Labour victory and loss of the all the Conservative redwall seats, Biden I suspect would still have done better in the rustbelt than Harris did as he did in 2020
Boris was on a bizarre journey of self-destruction, he would never had lasted to 2024.
What you Conservatives need to ask yourselves is why you never made any attempt to control Boris's behaviour as PM.
Had Boris remained Conservative leader, Reform would not have got 14% at the last GE and Reform would not now be leading the polls.
Indeed Sunak might now be leading the polls as the new LOTO, Rishi made a stupid political move resigning to remove Boris
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.
Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.
Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)
It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.
'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.
Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.
Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”
[...]
Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.
He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'
SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.
PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.
Have had some contact with T & D guys (Transmission and Distribution) over the years and this is a common issue with any new Grid installation. People always want the lines (400kv?) buried but don't accept that there will be significant environmental damage and cost if you do bury it. I also know the area well as my OH is from there and beautiful as it is, it's not that special.
This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.
I dont think anyone has commented on latest YouGov opinion poll from Wales for Senedd elections.
Plaid 33% Reform 30% Labour 10% !!! Conservative 10% Green 9% LibDem 6%
This would give (around): Plaid 39 seats Reform 34 seats Labour 10 seats Conservatives 6 seats LibDem 4 seats Green 3 seats
The finishing line (in new 96 member Senedd) is 49,
So Plaid & Lab = 49 Reform & Con = 40
But with a small movement in seats it might be possible for Plaid to form a coalition with Green & LD...consigning Labour to the back benches. Popcorn supplies on order....
A Ref/Con coalition is still a possibility if the shares shift a bit.
Not going to happen
Definitely not. Tories not wanting it aside, any national deal and Zia Yusuf wont be able to spend all day every day Tory dissing and he clearly values that above forming policy or anything else
Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.
Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.
Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)
It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.
'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.
Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.
Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”
[...]
Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.
He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'
SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.
PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.
Have had some contact with T & D guys (Transmission and Distribution) over the years and this is a common issue with any new Grid installation. People always want the lines (400kv?) buried but don't accept that there will be significant environmental damage and cost if you do bury it. I also know the area well as my OH is from there and beautiful as it is, it's not that special.
This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.
'The vast majority of appeals are considered and decided by Scottish Government reporters. The reporter is appointed by Scottish Ministers to make the decision on their behalf.
A very small number of appeals are not delegated to reporters for decision; but instead are 'recalled' by Scottish Ministers who will then make the final decision themselves. In those cases, the appeal will still be examined by a reporter, who will then write a report and make a recommendation for Ministers to consider before they make their decision. Ministers do not have to agree with the reporter's recommendation.'
Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.
Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.
Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)
It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.
'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.
Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.
Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”
[...]
Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.
He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'
SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.
PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.
Have had some contact with T & D guys (Transmission and Distribution) over the years and this is a common issue with any new Grid installation. People always want the lines (400kv?) buried but don't accept that there will be significant environmental damage and cost if you do bury it. I also know the area well as my OH is from there and beautiful as it is, it's not that special.
This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
After four years of Trump, the Democrats need to find a unifying candidate. Harris isn’t that person.
I don't think Harris is the best choice for the Democrats in 2028, but I don't think it's fair to say she can't be a unifying candidate. She's in the middle of some of the party's internal debates. She has some gravitas as a former VP and candidate. She would be more of a unifying candidate than Newsom or AOC, two other names mentioned in this discussion.
Also, do the Democrats need to find a unifying candidate? The Republicans didn't win in 2024 with a unifying candidate. They won with about the least unifying candidate in the history of US Presidential elections. Maybe the Democrats need a firebrand candidate who's good on social media (a role AOC and Newsom are both auditioning for). Whoever they pick, the Republicans and Musk's Twitter will pump out the claim that they are a dangerous woke obsessed radical!
If Trump and Vance's approval rating is below 45% in 2028 the Democrats will likely win the presidency whoever they nominate.
If Trump gets his approval rating back up to 45-50% then they likely need a centrist charismatic candidate to have a chance
If the Democrats think they can just pick whoever they want because Trump's ratings are poor there is a good chance they will lose.
You'd think they might try a safety first approach but that doesn't seem to be their mentality right now. If the Republicans can win with a divider why can't we?
Yes and as I said if Trump's ratings remain under 45% even AOC could probably win in 2028
Why "even"? I think the analysis of candidates as being more or less centrist worked in the past, but maybe today's electorate is more concerned with the charismatic social-media-savvy candidate, and AOC is good there.
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.
Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.
Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)
It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.
'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.
Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.
Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”
[...]
Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.
He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'
SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.
PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.
Have had some contact with T & D guys (Transmission and Distribution) over the years and this is a common issue with any new Grid installation. People always want the lines (400kv?) buried but don't accept that there will be significant environmental damage and cost if you do bury it. I also know the area well as my OH is from there and beautiful as it is, it's not that special.
This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.
'The vast majority of appeals are considered and decided by Scottish Government reporters. The reporter is appointed by Scottish Ministers to make the decision on their behalf.
A very small number of appeals are not delegated to reporters for decision; but instead are 'recalled' by Scottish Ministers who will then make the final decision themselves. In those cases, the appeal will still be examined by a reporter, who will then write a report and make a recommendation for Ministers to consider before they make their decision. Ministers do not have to agree with the reporter's recommendation.'
Is the service statutorily independent, like the Planning Inspectorate, who are required to rule according to law and precedent, which means that political interventions (see Bungalow Bob Jenrick) are at least clearly seen?
This is significant in terms of who replaces Starmer.
It's not significant in terms of Burnham's ability to become an MP, because Starmer's hold on the NEC is still pretty overwhelming, so Burnham is still pretty well out of the running.
Where Unison's change of direction will matter is in terms of the actual votes in a leadership election. The electorate is not just Labour members, but also include members of affiliated organisations paying the political levy. The trade unions are in contact with their members and can contact them to campaign strongly for one candidate. In (say) a Streeting v Rayner contest, you could now expect both of the two largest affiliated unions (Unite and Unison) to campaign strongly to encourage their members to vote for Rayner. And that matters - in the 2010 Labour leadership contest Unite's strong campaigning for E Miliband is widely credited as getting him over the line. So it is bad news for Streeting, whoever he faces to his left.
Christ, that Jane Austen style shipping forecast on R4 is total cringe. If they didn’t cobble it together using AI they made every effort to make it sound as if they did.
I find it impentrable but restful. It's good if some things don't change!
It's a weird yet comforting incantation to wake up to.
Moderate to good.
i used to listen before I went to sleep, after Sailing By.
Sailing By always makes me feel immensely melancholy for some reason.
I remember the UK medley!
Ha, it always made me think I had been transported in time to the 1940s with a nice patriotic jolly-up. I liked it and hated it at the same time if that is possible.
Totally anachronistic but a lovely way to wake up in the morning
I dont think anyone has commented on latest YouGov opinion poll from Wales for Senedd elections.
Plaid 33% Reform 30% Labour 10% !!! Conservative 10% Green 9% LibDem 6%
This would give (around): Plaid 39 seats Reform 34 seats Labour 10 seats Conservatives 6 seats LibDem 4 seats Green 3 seats
The finishing line (in new 96 member Senedd) is 49,
So Plaid & Lab = 49 Reform & Con = 40
But with a small movement in seats it might be possible for Plaid to form a coalition with Green & LD...consigning Labour to the back benches. Popcorn supplies on order....
A Ref/Con coalition is still a possibility if the shares shift a bit.
The only advantage of running Kamala again is to say to the electorate they have a chance to undo Trump. They picked the wrong one last time, they can rectify that this time.
Telling people they are wrong…
Quite a lot of the people have noticed that they were wrong.
Yes but going to the electoral and saying “you voted against this person last time do you want to try again” is like slapping them in the face with a wet fish
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?
My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.
Interesting, that latter point.
The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.
Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?
In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.
The law of unintended consequences.
And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.
We offer lower grade entry to kids from poor backgrounds (essentially based on the postcode being in a deprived area).
We have an "Access to Medicine" course for such applicants as a 6th year of Med School. They have to meet the same academic standards when on the course.
I am mid-interview cycle for our applicants and recently I have been thinking on Bourdieu's concept of Social Reproduction in terms of our Medical School entry, and I think it remains presemt despite our efforts. I am not quite sure where we should go next.
Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.
If they’d actually had primaries and nominated a candidate who wasn’t terrible, they might even have beaten Trump.
Biden hanging on till the last moment didn't help
With the support of his cabinet and the Dem establishment.
Compare how the cabinet and MPs forced Boris out here to the lickspittle loyalty Buttigieg and the others showed to Biden.
Yes and forcing Boris out led to a landslide Labour victory and loss of the all the Conservative redwall seats, Biden I suspect would still have done better in the rustbelt than Harris did as he did in 2020
Boris was on a bizarre journey of self-destruction, he would never had lasted to 2024.
What you Conservatives need to ask yourselves is why you never made any attempt to control Boris's behaviour as PM.
Had Boris remained Conservative leader, Reform would not have got 14% at the last GE and Reform would not now be leading the polls.
Indeed Sunak might now be leading the polls as the new LOTO, Rishi made a stupid political move resigning to remove Boris
He got to put “former PM” on his CV
Boris self-immolated - which tends to be ignored by his former supporters who like to pretend internal opposition sprung from the aether for no reason, and therefore he could have easily continued on with no issues* - and the gap needed to be filled. The party had a very good chance of losing the next election no matter what, and he wasn't going to be the type to do a Miliband and come back in 10 years to have another go - so it really was probably his only chance to become PM and at least try to turn things around, than sit back.
* it may well be so that ultimately the party would have done a bit better had he not gone, the chaos of swiftly changing leaders once again really damaged them, but given his self sabotage the odds are good he would not have turned things around. We just cannot assume it would have stayed at precisely where it was when he left, because the whole reason the MPs got rid of him was he was continually getting them into messes of his own making.
Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.
Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.
Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)
It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.
'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.
Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.
Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”
[...]
Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.
He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'
SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.
PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.
Have had some contact with T & D guys (Transmission and Distribution) over the years and this is a common issue with any new Grid installation. People always want the lines (400kv?) buried but don't accept that there will be significant environmental damage and cost if you do bury it. I also know the area well as my OH is from there and beautiful as it is, it's not that special.
This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.
'The vast majority of appeals are considered and decided by Scottish Government reporters. The reporter is appointed by Scottish Ministers to make the decision on their behalf.
A very small number of appeals are not delegated to reporters for decision; but instead are 'recalled' by Scottish Ministers who will then make the final decision themselves. In those cases, the appeal will still be examined by a reporter, who will then write a report and make a recommendation for Ministers to consider before they make their decision. Ministers do not have to agree with the reporter's recommendation.'
Is the service statutorily independent, like the Planning Inspectorate, who are required to rule according to law and precedent, which means that political interventions (see Bungalow Bob Jenrick) are at least clearly seen?
IANAE but it sounds similar - see this from SPICe (the Westminster equivalent being the HoC Library):
Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.
If they’d actually had primaries and nominated a candidate who wasn’t terrible, they might even have beaten Trump.
Biden hanging on till the last moment didn't help
With the support of his cabinet and the Dem establishment.
Compare how the cabinet and MPs forced Boris out here to the lickspittle loyalty Buttigieg and the others showed to Biden.
Yes and forcing Boris out led to a landslide Labour victory and loss of the all the Conservative redwall seats, Biden I suspect would still have done better in the rustbelt than Harris did as he did in 2020
Boris was on a bizarre journey of self-destruction, he would never had lasted to 2024.
What you Conservatives need to ask yourselves is why you never made any attempt to control Boris's behaviour as PM.
Had Boris remained Conservative leader, Reform would not have got 14% at the last GE and Reform would not now be leading the polls.
Indeed Sunak might now be leading the polls as the new LOTO, Rishi made a stupid political move resigning to remove Boris
Very true. Boris would have got minimum 30% and the Tories would have held many of the seats lost to the LDs and we would likely still be in a Duopoly in England
Deluded nonsense. The LDs were able to sweep many of our southern counties because of Boris. HY is in denial because he was told in advance that Boris wasn’t fit for office and would destroy both himself and his party, and so it came to pass. In many of their gains, the LDs pulled in 50% of the vote, or close to it, and to describe their wins as being down to Reform really is missing the point. For example, Chichester, seemingly safe for the Tories with 58% to the LD’s 23% in 2019, was won by the LDs by 49% to 26%, with Reform on 15%. When you consider that a fair few Reform voters wouldn’t touch the Tories with a barge pole, it’s clear that HY is simply trying to p**s out of a train window, and then wondering why he is getting himself so wet.
The only advantage of running Kamala again is to say to the electorate they have a chance to undo Trump. They picked the wrong one last time, they can rectify that this time.
Telling people they are wrong…
Quite a lot of the people have noticed that they were wrong.
Yes but going to the electoral and saying “you voted against this person last time do you want to try again” is like slapping them in the face with a wet fish
Better to come up with a plan for the future
Yes, there have certainly been occasions it has worked (more frequently in the past than recently), but it is high risk.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?
My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.
Interesting, that latter point.
The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.
Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?
In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.
The law of unintended consequences.
And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.
We offer lower grade entry to kids from poor backgrounds (essentially based on the postcode being in a deprived area).
We have an "Access to Medicine" course for such applicants as a 6th year of Med School. They have to meet the same academic standards when on the course.
I am mid-interview cycle for our applicants and recently I have been thinking on Bourdieu's concept of Social Reproduction in terms of our Medical School entry, and I think it remains presemt despite our efforts. I am not quite sure where we should go next.
I once watched a documentary on candidates applying for officer training at Sandhurst. Interviews conducted by 'chaps' - mostly well off background, usually private school, played rugby not football but may have called it football etc. Tended to think that applicants from that kind of background did best at interview...
Lots to unpick. How good is the interview at predicting future success? Are the interviewers aware of their own biases? How do you overcome that in a system?
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
I'm not sure I agree. Thinking in terms of clever politics and identity is probably a mistake, as it gratuitously narrows the field. Obama wasn't the majority of those things, and Biden didn't tick all your boxes.
Americans expect to be inspired by their politicians' rhetoric much more than we do. So the Democrats need someone with charisma who can deliver inspiring speeches, or, in Obama's case, mediocre speeches inspiringly (Biden couldn't, but he was running against Trump during a pandemic). If that person can get the base to turn out and not terrify the moderates, their race, gender, etc don't matter.
Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.
If they’d actually had primaries and nominated a candidate who wasn’t terrible, they might even have beaten Trump.
Biden hanging on till the last moment didn't help
With the support of his cabinet and the Dem establishment.
Compare how the cabinet and MPs forced Boris out here to the lickspittle loyalty Buttigieg and the others showed to Biden.
Yes and forcing Boris out led to a landslide Labour victory and loss of the all the Conservative redwall seats, Biden I suspect would still have done better in the rustbelt than Harris did as he did in 2020
Boris was on a bizarre journey of self-destruction, he would never had lasted to 2024.
What you Conservatives need to ask yourselves is why you never made any attempt to control Boris's behaviour as PM.
Had Boris remained Conservative leader, Reform would not have got 14% at the last GE and Reform would not now be leading the polls.
Indeed Sunak might now be leading the polls as the new LOTO, Rishi made a stupid political move resigning to remove Boris
Very true. Boris would have got minimum 30% and the Tories would have held many of the seats lost to the LDs and we would likely still be in a Duopoly in England
Deluded nonsense. The LDs were able to sweep many of our southern counties because of Boris. HY is in denial because he was told in advance that Boris wasn’t fit for office and would destroy both himself and his party, and so it came to pass. In many of their gains, the LDs pulled in 50% of the vote, or close to it, and to describe their wins as being down to Reform really is missing the point. For example, Chichester, seemingly safe for the Tories with 58% to the LD’s 23% in 2019, was won by the LDs by 49% to 26%, with Reform on 15%. When you consider that a fair few Reform voters wouldn’t touch the Tories with a barge pole, it’s clear that HY is simply trying to p**s out of a train window, and then wondering why he is getting himself so wet.
If the Tories had polled 30% nationally, theyd probably have held a number (at least 20 or 30) of the seats lost to the LDs and nothing before Truss indicated they were looking at sub 30 as most likely outcome. A closer race between Lab and Con (as every indication prior to BJ's resignation suggested) would have focussed (some) minds away from mass tactical voting as we saw in 2024 (in my opinion, obviously we cant know for certain)
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
Whoever the Democrats choose, the Republicans will characterise them as a Wokester with a problematic reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala were far less "woke" than many. They are both centrists within the party. Harris's problem when she stood to be the candidate was that she was seen within the party as too tough on crime and not woke enough.
There are, sure, strong arguments for picking a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. But I don't think the Dems need to convince the MAGA crowd to vote for them. They need to convince independents and non-MAGA Republicans who are getting ever more annoyed with Trump to vote for them.
Of course, a lot depends on where the US is by 2027/8. How will the economy be doing? Will Trump even be in office? Will inflation have exploded?
The only advantage of running Kamala again is to say to the electorate they have a chance to undo Trump. They picked the wrong one last time, they can rectify that this time.
Telling people they are wrong…
Quite a lot of the people have noticed that they were wrong.
Yes but going to the electoral and saying “you voted against this person last time do you want to try again” is like slapping them in the face with a wet fish
Better to come up with a plan for the future
Yes, there have certainly been occasions it has worked (more frequently in the past than recently), but it is high risk.
Mmm. The people who have already decided they made a mistake last time are probably going to vote for you (or more accurately, against the incumbent) anyway; putting up somebody new gives you a chance to attract the votes of the rest without rubbing their noses in the fact they've changed their minds.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.
Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.
Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)
It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.
'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.
Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.
Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”
[...]
Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.
He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'
SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.
PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.
Have had some contact with T & D guys (Transmission and Distribution) over the years and this is a common issue with any new Grid installation. People always want the lines (400kv?) buried but don't accept that there will be significant environmental damage and cost if you do bury it. I also know the area well as my OH is from there and beautiful as it is, it's not that special.
This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.
Edit: Fochabers is the back of beyond and Lhanbryde is even more insignificant, so it's quite bizarre they can cause this disruption.
It'll surely go to the Scotgov reporter, who will take one look at it, see its a net zero project, and pass it. Not surprised there is this objection, the councillors are only representing their constituents. Neither Beauly or Peterhead are in Moray, so the line is going over the top of them to benefit others. It'll eventually join up with other pylons and head down the east coast to power England.
What's in it for Moray, are there quite a few jobs locally during the construction phase? Or will it be guys who come in to do the job for a bit then head off - cant see there being much longer term work once the pylons are up.
It's futile objecting to it, but probably the right thing for those councillors to do if theres huge concern locally
Of course, Mr Miliband could have opened his magic sweety tub and offered communities hosting infrastructure more cash or benefits, but he has chosen not to
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
For data as to Reform voters’ otherwise preferences, we are reduced to looking at Scottish data, the Scots being wise enough to use the critically acclaimed STV voting system for its local government elections, whereas in England and Wales the votes for losing candidates simply get transferred to the WPB.
The Falkirk South by-election of October 2024 is a rare example where the Reform candidate was eliminated with the Tory still in the race. The Tory candidate in that election got 34% of the transferred Reform votes, the SNP getting 9% and Labour 8%, with 50% of the Reform votes becoming non- transferable (meaning those voters either expressed no further preference or wanted their votes transferred to an already-eliminated candidate - the LibDem, Green, or an Independent).
That only a third of the Reform votes transferred to the Tory ought to be food for thought.
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
I'm not sure I agree. Thinking in terms of clever politics and identity is probably a mistake, as it gratuitously narrows the field. Obama wasn't the majority of those things, and Biden didn't tick all your boxes.
Americans expect to be inspired by their politicians' rhetoric much more than we do. So the Democrats need someone with charisma who can deliver inspiring speeches, or, in Obama's case, mediocre speeches inspiringly (Biden couldn't, but he was running against Trump during a pandemic). If that person can get the base to turn out and not terrify the moderates, their race, gender, etc don't matter.
I'm perhaps more with Burgessian on this one.
As I see it, a big chunk of the Republican Right take their values essentially from the Jim Crow and KKK traditions, currently minus actual lynchings *, and with different targets for their xenophobia - for example Irish, Italian and Jewish (to an extent) people are now allowed to be "us" not "them". And Trump was able to exploit that.
For good or ill, that's part of the environment in which the Democrats will have to operate.
( Though Trump's own demonising attacks on civil officials, and his indifference to actual attacks on political figures, are revealing.)
£570mn a year for Erasmus?! I see the Chagos negotiators have already found a new job in government.
I have no problem re-joining Eramus but it seems strange that our granddaughter spent her penultimate Leeds degree course in 2024 in Turin University so what is the difference that will cost £570million pa ?
The £570m is the membership fee.
Taking money from the working class and giving it to the children of the middle classes.
For the first time in my life I am contemplating voting Labour.
Slowly but surely Starmer is unravelling Brexit.
Erasmus is a euro-federalist creation machine so money well spent.
I enjoyed it a lot. I got to spend a year in Marseilles instead of Durham. I learned shitloads about French literature and culture while taking massive amounts of PEDs and racing as semi-pro cyclist.
That the Tories have come out publicly against this small improvement in opportunity for our young people (cf. Cleverley on today’s WATO) does them no credit, and simply reminds us that so far they have learned very little from all of their past mistakes.
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
I'm not sure I agree. Thinking in terms of clever politics and identity is probably a mistake, as it gratuitously narrows the field. Obama wasn't the majority of those things, and Biden didn't tick all your boxes.
Americans expect to be inspired by their politicians' rhetoric much more than we do. So the Democrats need someone with charisma who can deliver inspiring speeches, or, in Obama's case, mediocre speeches inspiringly (Biden couldn't, but he was running against Trump during a pandemic). If that person can get the base to turn out and not terrify the moderates, their race, gender, etc don't matter.
I'm perhaps more with Burgessian on this one.
As I see it, a big chunk of the Republican Right take their values essentially from the Jim Crow and KKK traditions, currently minus actual lynchings, and with different targets for their xenophobia - for example Irish, Italian and Jewish (to an extent) people are now allowed to be "us" not "them". And Trump was able to exploit that.
For good or ill, that's part of the environment in which the Democrats will have to operate.
My supposition is that the Democrat most likely to succeed in 2028 is whoever can command the strongest street presence, potentially for months on end, is equipped with the most effective lawyers, and can depend on the loyalty of at least 50% of the military. See Belarus, Turkey, Georgia and elsewhere for guidance.
Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?
My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.
Interesting, that latter point.
The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.
Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?
In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.
The law of unintended consequences.
And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.
We offer lower grade entry to kids from poor backgrounds (essentially based on the postcode being in a deprived area).
We have an "Access to Medicine" course for such applicants as a 6th year of Med School. They have to meet the same academic standards when on the course.
I am mid-interview cycle for our applicants and recently I have been thinking on Bourdieu's concept of Social Reproduction in terms of our Medical School entry, and I think it remains presemt despite our efforts. I am not quite sure where we should go next.
I once watched a documentary on candidates applying for officer training at Sandhurst. Interviews conducted by 'chaps' - mostly well off background, usually private school, played rugby not football but may have called it football etc. Tended to think that applicants from that kind of background did best at interview...
Lots to unpick. How good is the interview at predicting future success? Are the interviewers aware of their own biases? How do you overcome that in a system?
Research shows interviews are fairly poor at predicting performance.
Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?
My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.
Interesting, that latter point.
The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.
Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?
In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.
The law of unintended consequences.
And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.
We offer lower grade entry to kids from poor backgrounds (essentially based on the postcode being in a deprived area).
We have an "Access to Medicine" course for such applicants as a 6th year of Med School. They have to meet the same academic standards when on the course.
I am mid-interview cycle for our applicants and recently I have been thinking on Bourdieu's concept of Social Reproduction in terms of our Medical School entry, and I think it remains presemt despite our efforts. I am not quite sure where we should go next.
I once watched a documentary on candidates applying for officer training at Sandhurst. Interviews conducted by 'chaps' - mostly well off background, usually private school, played rugby not football but may have called it football etc. Tended to think that applicants from that kind of background did best at interview...
Lots to unpick. How good is the interview at predicting future success? Are the interviewers aware of their own biases? How do you overcome that in a system?
We do have a feedback system where we look at in course performance and look back at positive and negative indicators at interview, and modify these accordingly. This does rather beg the question as to whether our in couse assessments are also influenced by Social Reproduction!
I think Univrrsity does act as a finishing school for the middle classes, and this has both good and bad aspects, in particular it does enable some upward social mobility as per Educating Rita. From the narrow political perspective it is also why Labour shouldn't defund universities. They are a major source of future voters and ecenomic reviaval in Northern towns.
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
Defending what they already have is something Lib Dems tend to be really good at, at least whilst they remain in opposition. On top of that, there are a fair few seats where they can run the "two horse race" shtick and make some more gains.
The trickier question is how to expand into different types of seats. I've got bad vibes about this- voters seem very keen on "A Strong Voice For Ourown against Westminster" types, even if they have minimal chance of actually forming a government.
See the SNP, Plaid. Or the appeal of Andy Burnham.
Indeed, I wonder if not sullying themselves with government and its compromises is the point.
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
For data as to Reform voters’ otherwise preferences, we are reduced to looking at Scottish data, the Scots being wise enough to use the critically acclaimed STV voting system for its local government elections, whereas in England and Wales the votes for losing candidates simply get transferred to the WPB.
The Falkirk South by-election of October 2024 is a rare example where the Reform candidate was eliminated with the Tory still in the race. The Tory candidate in that election got 34% of the transferred Reform votes, the SNP getting 9% and Labour 8%, with 50% of the Reform votes becoming non- transferable (meaning those voters either expressed no further preference or wanted their votes transferred to an already-eliminated candidate - the LibDem, Green, or an Independent).
That only a third of the Reform votes transferred to the Tory ought to be food for thought.
Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?
My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.
Interesting, that latter point.
The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.
Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?
In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.
The law of unintended consequences.
And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.
We offer lower grade entry to kids from poor backgrounds (essentially based on the postcode being in a deprived area).
We have an "Access to Medicine" course for such applicants as a 6th year of Med School. They have to meet the same academic standards when on the course.
I am mid-interview cycle for our applicants and recently I have been thinking on Bourdieu's concept of Social Reproduction in terms of our Medical School entry, and I think it remains presemt despite our efforts. I am not quite sure where we should go next.
I once watched a documentary on candidates applying for officer training at Sandhurst. Interviews conducted by 'chaps' - mostly well off background, usually private school, played rugby not football but may have called it football etc. Tended to think that applicants from that kind of background did best at interview...
Lots to unpick. How good is the interview at predicting future success? Are the interviewers aware of their own biases? How do you overcome that in a system?
Research shows interviews are fairly poor at predicting performance.
Which is why it is the final hurdle after academic (usually A levels) and UK Clinical Aptitude Test.
I agree interviews as sole barrier are pretty unreliable.
Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?
My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.
Interesting, that latter point.
The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.
Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?
In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.
The law of unintended consequences.
And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.
Yes, the parents of the better schools around here, such as Monifieth, talk about very little else but the availability of tutors. The poorer schools, not so much. It is at least one of the reasons why the Scottish Government's policy of "closing the attainment gap" has achieved nothing since it was launched many years ago now. Some kids from the private sector even return to the state sector for their final year so that they are held to a lower standard.
All of which shows, as usual, that our politicians are incredibly thick and incompetent and apparently oblivious to the ways that people will always game any system to their own advantage.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
For data as to Reform voters’ otherwise preferences, we are reduced to looking at Scottish data, the Scots being wise enough to use the critically acclaimed STV voting system for its local government elections, whereas in England and Wales the votes for losing candidates simply get transferred to the WPB.
The Falkirk South by-election of October 2024 is a rare example where the Reform candidate was eliminated with the Tory still in the race. The Tory candidate in that election got 34% of the transferred Reform votes, the SNP getting 9% and Labour 8%, with 50% of the Reform votes becoming non- transferable (meaning those voters either expressed no further preference or wanted their votes transferred to an already-eliminated candidate - the LibDem, Green, or an Independent).
That only a third of the Reform votes transferred to the Tory ought to be food for thought.
Of course, being both right-wing parties, it isn’t a surprise that many of their voters have preferences for both. But the key point is that a significant number don’t - what evidence there is suggests that Reform voters only prefer the Tories to centre-left parties by a margin of 2:1, and a significant number of them don’t have any further preference at all, and would otherwise simply sit on their arse at home.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
Defending what they already have is something Lib Dems tend to be really good at, at least whilst they remain in opposition. On top of that, there are a fair few seats where they can run the "two horse race" shtick and make some more gains.
The trickier question is how to expand into different types of seats. I've got bad vibes about this- voters seem very keen on "A Strong Voice For Ourown against Westminster" types, even if they have minimal chance of actually forming a government.
See the SNP, Plaid. Or the appeal of Andy Burnham.
Indeed, I wonder if not sullying themselves with government and its compromises is the point.
At GE level 97, 01 and 05 was the height of LD consolidation, 2010 was pretty poor (iro holding seats) given it was such a strong % with gross 13 seat losses. 2029 (?) Will be the first national poll since 2015 with a large number of seats to defend. If they can recapture 97 to 2010's vibe theyll do well
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I've worked in plenty of private sector offices where keycards were used. I never saw the need to wear it around my neck; nor did my colleagues. Isn't that what wallets are for holding?
What do the US electorate in 2028 think? Are they, like, "Enough of this constant drama, I just want a safe, boring, non-senile, competent President?" In which case, you pick a safe, boring Governor as candidate. Or are they more, "This has been so bad, we need a brand, new start, a complete clear out, a counter-revolution?" In which case, you want more of a firebrand politician.
Of course, what you want is both: the person who can look like a safe pair of hands, but who will also deliver radical action.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
This is the LD fallacy that gets whipped up at conferences. Yet they have simply never made the breakthrough to being a truly national party.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
Yesterday, I left my ID card at home when I came into the office. I had to use the emergency spare lanyard and keycard!
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Here's the Lib Dem "General Election" review published in Jan 2025.
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
For data as to Reform voters’ otherwise preferences, we are reduced to looking at Scottish data, the Scots being wise enough to use the critically acclaimed STV voting system for its local government elections, whereas in England and Wales the votes for losing candidates simply get transferred to the WPB.
The Falkirk South by-election of October 2024 is a rare example where the Reform candidate was eliminated with the Tory still in the race. The Tory candidate in that election got 34% of the transferred Reform votes, the SNP getting 9% and Labour 8%, with 50% of the Reform votes becoming non- transferable (meaning those voters either expressed no further preference or wanted their votes transferred to an already-eliminated candidate - the LibDem, Green, or an Independent).
That only a third of the Reform votes transferred to the Tory ought to be food for thought.
Of course, being both right-wing parties, it isn’t a surprise that many of their voters have preferences for both. But the key point is that a significant number don’t - what evidence there is suggests that Reform voters only prefer the Tories to centre-left parties by a margin of 2:1, and a significant number of them don’t have any further preference at all, and would otherwise simply sit on their arse at home.
No argument there. Grizzly NOTAs abound in their VI
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
Defending what they already have is something Lib Dems tend to be really good at, at least whilst they remain in opposition. On top of that, there are a fair few seats where they can run the "two horse race" shtick and make some more gains.
The trickier question is how to expand into different types of seats. I've got bad vibes about this- voters seem very keen on "A Strong Voice For Ourown against Westminster" types, even if they have minimal chance of actually forming a government.
See the SNP, Plaid. Or the appeal of Andy Burnham.
Indeed, I wonder if not sullying themselves with government and its compromises is the point.
Seriously, I doubt many of them are thinking about significant advance. Many LibDems are people who could have sailed into political careers simply by choosing between Tory and Labour, yet devoted themselves to sowing their seeds in stony ground. Until relatively recently, even securing a quarter of the national vote only delivered a tiny handful of MPs, hence closing off any prospect of a parliamentary career to all of them (us), barring a fortuitous by-election descending on our patch allowing us to become a half-term wonder. That the party now has a solid block of seats, almost in line with our national support, is a tremendous achievement - and one that is fragile depending on how future politics pans out. The LDs will be entirely focused on how to wall itself in, across the seats it now holds, and maybe picking up a few more around the edges. No-one at LD HQ will be planning a campaign based on double or quits. Which, possibly, is a shame and to our country’s detriment.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
This is the LD fallacy that gets whipped up at conferences. Yet they have simply never made the breakthrough to being a truly national party.
Sean F's analysis is bang on.
Given that they used to run Ashfield District, and came within 200 votes of taking the seat in 2010, I suggest the potential is there.
Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?
My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.
Interesting, that latter point.
The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.
Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?
In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.
The law of unintended consequences.
And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.
We offer lower grade entry to kids from poor backgrounds (essentially based on the postcode being in a deprived area).
We have an "Access to Medicine" course for such applicants as a 6th year of Med School. They have to meet the same academic standards when on the course.
I am mid-interview cycle for our applicants and recently I have been thinking on Bourdieu's concept of Social Reproduction in terms of our Medical School entry, and I think it remains presemt despite our efforts. I am not quite sure where we should go next.
I once watched a documentary on candidates applying for officer training at Sandhurst. Interviews conducted by 'chaps' - mostly well off background, usually private school, played rugby not football but may have called it football etc. Tended to think that applicants from that kind of background did best at interview...
The first question at my Admiralty Board interview in 1988 was "What does your father do?" An inquiry obviously freighted with the subliminal prejudices and expectations of the British class system. I languidly replied, "Mainly annoy my mother but he also seems to have some role as a minor functionary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office." They fucking loved this response. If I'd said "E's a fuckin brickie, like." I'd have been out on my arse.
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
What do you think?
Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.
Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next. None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
Whoever the Democrats choose it must not be someone who can be characterised as a Wokester with a problematic beltway reputation to defend. Hillary and Kamala could have been chosen by Trump to be his opponents. Dreadful candidates, whatever other merits they may have possessed.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
As tipped earlier, Andy Beshear from Kentucky.
Polling around 3%, and I would guess with fundraising to match. It's not completely impossible, but he seems far more likely as a VP pick.
Meantime: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5641006-gavin-newsom-presidential-run-2028/ ..The governor, sources familiar with his political actions say, has accrued more than 100,000 contributors who hadn’t previously donated to his campaigns. And more than half of those small dollar donors live outside of California, something that speaks to his presidential prospects. “It’s a massive list, and it’s not from 10 years ago. It’s current,” said Garry South, a Democratic strategist in the state who worked for Newsom. “Even if there’s falloff, and there will be, he starts out with a nationwide fundraising base which none of these other candidates have..
One of the reasons I don't think Harris will get it is that Newsom running takes away the fundraising advantage that she'd otherwise have as the Democrat running from wealthy California.
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
This is the LD fallacy that gets whipped up at conferences. Yet they have simply never made the breakthrough to being a truly national party.
Sean F's analysis is bang on.
How is it a “fallacy” when, after decades of work, they’ve now managed to win most of the seats where they had “a decent chance of winning”, despite seemingly having derisory levels of support in the many other seats where they don’t?
Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?
My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.
Interesting, that latter point.
The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.
Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?
In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.
The law of unintended consequences.
And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.
We offer lower grade entry to kids from poor backgrounds (essentially based on the postcode being in a deprived area).
We have an "Access to Medicine" course for such applicants as a 6th year of Med School. They have to meet the same academic standards when on the course.
I am mid-interview cycle for our applicants and recently I have been thinking on Bourdieu's concept of Social Reproduction in terms of our Medical School entry, and I think it remains presemt despite our efforts. I am not quite sure where we should go next.
I once watched a documentary on candidates applying for officer training at Sandhurst. Interviews conducted by 'chaps' - mostly well off background, usually private school, played rugby not football but may have called it football etc. Tended to think that applicants from that kind of background did best at interview...
Lots to unpick. How good is the interview at predicting future success? Are the interviewers aware of their own biases? How do you overcome that in a system?
We do have a feedback system where we look at in course performance and look back at positive and negative indicators at interview, and modify these accordingly. This does rather beg the question as to whether our in couse assessments are also influenced by Social Reproduction!
I think Univrrsity does act as a finishing school for the middle classes, and this has both good and bad aspects, in particular it does enable some upward social mobility as per Educating Rita. From the narrow political perspective it is also why Labour shouldn't defund universities. They are a major source of future voters and ecenomic reviaval in Northern towns.
That feedback system sounds interesting - we are going to be looking at something like that ourselves (in our case primarily about ethnicity and outcomes).
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
Yesterday, I left my ID card at home when I came into the office. I had to use the emergency spare lanyard and keycard!
Broadly. Imo, Labour continue to leak support, Tories are still at 'core' but certainty to vote amongst core firming (thus bumping VI) alongside Badenochs figures improving, Greens picking up WNV/DNV, Corbyn curious and Labour defectors which is restricting Reform/taking some of their 'NOTA' who are near ceiling and LDs are drifting somewhat aimlessly whilst they work out best approach
I'd mostly agree, except I would say the LDs are drifting aimlessly so much as have maxed out their support. Despite the common accusation at election time being they are no different from Labour that's not how they are perceived in many places, and they've already swept most of the southern anti-Tory vote, whilst those areas who want more exciting non-Tory options have Reform, Greens, or Corbyn's mob (plus PC and SNP in specific regions).
Certainly the LDs have a tricky job to advance. How well they defend whats currently theirs will be interesting
The good news for the Lib Dems is they scarcely register in 550 seats. It makes it easy to concentrate resources in the 72 seats they hold, and the 30 they have a fair chance in.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
Thats simply not true. LD votes are heavily weighted to certain seats for sure, but the demographics of the LD vote are much less skewed by other demographic markers such as age, SE class, education etc than other parties, at least in England.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
This is the LD fallacy that gets whipped up at conferences. Yet they have simply never made the breakthrough to being a truly national party.
Sean F's analysis is bang on.
How is it a “fallacy” when, after decades of work, they’ve now managed to win most of the seats where they had “a decent chance of winning”, despite seemingly having derisory levels of support in the many other seats where they don’t?
'There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.'
'They'd like us if only we had a chance of winning'
Its about as close to logic fallacy as you get in politics.
What do the US electorate in 2028 think? Are they, like, "Enough of this constant drama, I just want a safe, boring, non-senile, competent President?" In which case, you pick a safe, boring Governor as candidate. Or are they more, "This has been so bad, we need a brand, new start, a complete clear out, a counter-revolution?" In which case, you want more of a firebrand politician.
Of course, what you want is both: the person who can look like a safe pair of hands, but who will also deliver radical action.
Those are more likely to be able to deliver radical action. Revolutionaries put people off, you can get away with more if you seem boring - not that the government here has made use of that.
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Traditionally they put that kind of thing on mugs.
What do the US electorate in 2028 think? Are they, like, "Enough of this constant drama, I just want a safe, boring, non-senile, competent President?" In which case, you pick a safe, boring Governor as candidate. Or are they more, "This has been so bad, we need a brand, new start, a complete clear out, a counter-revolution?" In which case, you want more of a firebrand politician.
Of course, what you want is both: the person who can look like a safe pair of hands, but who will also deliver radical action.
Those are more likely to be able to deliver radical action. Revolutionaries put people off, you can get away with more if you seem boring - not that the government here has made use of that.
You say revolutionaries put people off, but Trump got elected, twice (albeit only because of the electoral college the first time, with a big deficit in vote share compared to Clinton).
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
I know you think thats an achievement; almost all done by Rishi. But the scale is still massive. You're comparing with a ridiculously high number. Since 2010 the public have been voting and expressing their desire for reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. Too many people have put their fingers in their ears from both Tories and Labour
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
Why miss out 2024 which was 345,000
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
I know you think thats an achievement; almost all done by Rishi. But the scale is still massive. You're comparing with a ridiculously high number. Since 2010 the public have been voting and expressing their desire for reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. Too many people have put their fingers in their ears from both Tories and Labour
And: there's immigration and immigration. No-one's going to be thanked for less overall immigration if at the same time you're getting more small boats.
What comes over at this PMQs is Starmer's utter obsession with Farage and Reform
Dinner Party politics.
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
He has reduced immigration.
Lol. Put that on a bus and see how it goes down.....
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000 Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
I know you think thats an achievement; almost all done by Rishi. But the scale is still massive. You're comparing with a ridiculously high number. Since 2010 the public have been voting and expressing their desire for reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. Too many people have put their fingers in their ears from both Tories and Labour
And: there's immigration and immigration. No-one's going to be thanked for less overall immigration if at the same time you're getting more small boats.
And net migration is a poor measure because it's down in part because more ambitious young British citizens are leaving for Dubai and America, being replaced by illegal immigrants on boats. I don't think that's really in the national interest.
Keir Starmer: "I have a Christmas message for Reform. If mysterious men from the east come bearing gifts...this time, report it to the police."
I see the intention... but it doesn't really work as a joke.
One of Starmer's biggest problems is that he seems entirely humourless. It is basically impossible to warm to him unless you're also a paid up member of the Fabian Human Rights Lawyer Lanyard Class
Ooh lanyards again! This is the edgy content we come here for.
I know some of you think the idea of a lanyard class is pretty funny/stupid. But I wonder if you think the same of the term 'mondeo man' or 'urban progressives'? Clearly not every mondeo man drove a mondeo, nor was every mondeo driver a mondeo owner, but the point was to identify some characteristic.
Not everyone who wears a lanyard is of the lanyard class. But take NHS Fife - you can bet your bottom dollar that those who wrongly suspended Sandie Peggie, and dragged out her investigation etc were all 'lanyard class'.
Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?
My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.
Interesting, that latter point.
The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.
Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?
In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.
The law of unintended consequences.
And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.
We offer lower grade entry to kids from poor backgrounds (essentially based on the postcode being in a deprived area).
We have an "Access to Medicine" course for such applicants as a 6th year of Med School. They have to meet the same academic standards when on the course.
I am mid-interview cycle for our applicants and recently I have been thinking on Bourdieu's concept of Social Reproduction in terms of our Medical School entry, and I think it remains presemt despite our efforts. I am not quite sure where we should go next.
I once watched a documentary on candidates applying for officer training at Sandhurst. Interviews conducted by 'chaps' - mostly well off background, usually private school, played rugby not football but may have called it football etc. Tended to think that applicants from that kind of background did best at interview...
The first question at my Admiralty Board interview in 1988 was "What does your father do?" An inquiry obviously freighted with the subliminal prejudices and expectations of the British class system. I languidly replied, "Mainly annoy my mother but he also seems to have some role as a minor functionary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office." They fucking loved this response. If I'd said "E's a fuckin brickie, like." I'd have been out on my arse.
If you’d preceded it with ‘Pa has much in common with Churchill’ you might have got away with it.
What do the US electorate in 2028 think? Are they, like, "Enough of this constant drama, I just want a safe, boring, non-senile, competent President?" In which case, you pick a safe, boring Governor as candidate. Or are they more, "This has been so bad, we need a brand, new start, a complete clear out, a counter-revolution?" In which case, you want more of a firebrand politician.
Of course, what you want is both: the person who can look like a safe pair of hands, but who will also deliver radical action.
Those are more likely to be able to deliver radical action. Revolutionaries put people off, you can get away with more if you seem boring - not that the government here has made use of that.
You say revolutionaries put people off, but Trump got elected, twice (albeit only because of the electoral college the first time, with a big deficit in vote share compared to Clinton).
But in 2024, IIRC, he was seen as less extreme than his opponent. He was seen as the less revolutionary option. (I can't remember if there was an equivalent question in 2016.)
Comments
There's cake in hosting the best and brightest from the continent - and vice versa.
It's the little Britainers who oppose such deals.
Nice attempt at defection though.
When we were members we notably failed to use the relationship to our best advantage - I would argue at least in part because of complacent, woolly brains high in the civil service, arse sitting rathe rather than paying continuing attention, and inconsistent policy.
I'd say the lesson is more important now.
'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.
Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.
Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”
[...]
Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.
He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'
SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.
PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.
It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable
This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.
https://www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/projects/project-planned-areas/?projectId={6e129490-ccf0-4fff-af42-9e8b156f7cca}
Edit: Fochabers is the back of beyond and Lhanbryde is even more insignificant, so it's quite bizarre they can cause this disruption.
I think they need a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. Sorry to have to use those terms, but no use employing wishful thinking when dealing with MAGA and the Trump crowd. They cannot afford to lose in 2028 for all our sakes.
We know them well down here.
Where do Planning Appeals go in Scotland?
https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-appeals-guide/
Often decided by a designated Reporter.
'The vast majority of appeals are considered and decided by Scottish Government reporters. The reporter is appointed by Scottish Ministers to make the decision on their behalf.
A very small number of appeals are not delegated to reporters for decision; but instead are 'recalled' by Scottish Ministers who will then make the final decision themselves. In those cases, the appeal will still be examined by a reporter, who will then write a report and make a recommendation for Ministers to consider before they make their decision. Ministers do not have to agree with the reporter's recommendation.'
He ought to be obsessed with tackling the issues that are leading to Reform's rise. Reduce immigration, grow the economy so that living standards rise for all.
You can get we are going to pay more in future
(Source Reddit, so treat appropriately)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3wdv7rg67o
This is significant in terms of who replaces Starmer.
It's not significant in terms of Burnham's ability to become an MP, because Starmer's hold on the NEC is still pretty overwhelming, so Burnham is still pretty well out of the running.
Where Unison's change of direction will matter is in terms of the actual votes in a leadership election. The electorate is not just Labour members, but also include members of affiliated organisations paying the political levy. The trade unions are in contact with their members and can contact them to campaign strongly for one candidate. In (say) a Streeting v Rayner contest, you could now expect both of the two largest affiliated unions (Unite and Unison) to campaign strongly to encourage their members to vote for Rayner. And that matters - in the 2010 Labour leadership contest Unite's strong campaigning for E Miliband is widely credited as getting him over the line. So it is bad news for Streeting, whoever he faces to his left.
https://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/thinking-wales/consolidation-not-conversion-understanding-waless-ongoing-realignment/
Better to come up with a plan for the future
I am mid-interview cycle for our applicants and recently I have been thinking on Bourdieu's concept of Social Reproduction in terms of our Medical School entry, and I think it remains presemt despite our efforts. I am not quite sure where we should go next.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_reproduction#:~:text=All four of Pierre Bourdieu,the system of social stratification.
Starmer’s advocating killing babies!! 😳🤯
* it may well be so that ultimately the party would have done a bit better had he not gone, the chaos of swiftly changing leaders once again really damaged them, but given his self sabotage the odds are good he would not have turned things around. We just cannot assume it would have stayed at precisely where it was when he left, because the whole reason the MPs got rid of him was he was continually getting them into messes of his own making.
https://spice-spotlight.scot/2025/05/20/planning-appeals-in-scotland/
Lots to unpick. How good is the interview at predicting future success? Are the interviewers aware of their own biases? How do you overcome that in a system?
So we need to make sure that we exploit the benefits to the full, and get a "bulk discount" for being in the full next 6 year period..
Americans expect to be inspired by their politicians' rhetoric much more than we do. So the Democrats need someone with charisma who can deliver inspiring speeches, or, in Obama's case, mediocre speeches inspiringly (Biden couldn't, but he was running against Trump during a pandemic). If that person can get the base to turn out and not terrify the moderates, their race, gender, etc don't matter.
There are, sure, strong arguments for picking a white, male, straight, Governor from a swing-state. But I don't think the Dems need to convince the MAGA crowd to vote for them. They need to convince independents and non-MAGA Republicans who are getting ever more annoyed with Trump to vote for them.
Of course, a lot depends on where the US is by 2027/8. How will the economy be doing? Will Trump even be in office? Will inflation have exploded?
What's in it for Moray, are there quite a few jobs locally during the construction phase? Or will it be guys who come in to do the job for a bit then head off - cant see there being much longer term work once the pylons are up.
It's futile objecting to it, but probably the right thing for those councillors to do if theres huge concern locally
Of course, Mr Miliband could have opened his magic sweety tub and offered communities hosting infrastructure more cash or benefits, but he has chosen not to
The Falkirk South by-election of October 2024 is a rare example where the Reform candidate was eliminated with the Tory still in the race. The Tory candidate in that election got 34% of the transferred Reform votes, the SNP getting 9% and Labour 8%, with 50% of the Reform votes becoming non- transferable (meaning those voters either expressed no further preference or wanted their votes transferred to an already-eliminated candidate - the LibDem, Green, or an Independent).
That only a third of the Reform votes transferred to the Tory ought to be food for thought.
As I see it, a big chunk of the Republican Right take their values essentially from the Jim Crow and KKK traditions, currently minus actual lynchings *, and with different targets for their xenophobia - for example Irish, Italian and Jewish (to an extent) people are now allowed to be "us" not "them". And Trump was able to exploit that.
For good or ill, that's part of the environment in which the Democrats will have to operate.
( Though Trump's own demonising attacks on civil officials, and his indifference to actual attacks on political figures, are revealing.)
I think Univrrsity does act as a finishing school for the middle classes, and this has both good and bad aspects, in particular it does enable some upward social mobility as per Educating Rita. From the narrow political perspective it is also why Labour shouldn't defund universities. They are a major source of future voters and ecenomic reviaval in Northern towns.
The trickier question is how to expand into different types of seats. I've got bad vibes about this- voters seem very keen on "A Strong Voice For Ourown against Westminster" types, even if they have minimal chance of actually forming a government.
See the SNP, Plaid. Or the appeal of Andy Burnham.
Indeed, I wonder if not sullying themselves with government and its compromises is the point.
https://electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-power-of-preferences-stv-in-scottish-local-elections/
I agree interviews as sole barrier are pretty unreliable.
All of which shows, as usual, that our politicians are incredibly thick and incompetent and apparently oblivious to the ways that people will always game any system to their own advantage.
The bad news is that's the limit. They have a substantial niche vote, of well to do, centrist voters. But, they have very little appeal beyond that niche.
There's a lot more potential LD voters out there if they can be convinced that LDs have a decent chance of winning.
Of course, what you want is both: the person who can look like a safe pair of hands, but who will also deliver radical action.
Sean F's analysis is bang on.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2025/01/GeneralElectionReview2024.pdf
Somewhere there's a "strategy for the future" paper from Mark Pack, too.
Though when? Dunno
It's not completely impossible, but he seems far more likely as a VP pick.
Meantime:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5641006-gavin-newsom-presidential-run-2028/
..The governor, sources familiar with his political actions say, has accrued more than 100,000 contributors who hadn’t previously donated to his campaigns. And more than half of those small dollar donors live outside of California, something that speaks to his presidential prospects.
“It’s a massive list, and it’s not from 10 years ago. It’s current,” said Garry South, a Democratic strategist in the state who worked for Newsom.
“Even if there’s falloff, and there will be, he starts out with a nationwide fundraising base which none of these other candidates have..
One of the reasons I don't think Harris will get it is that Newsom running takes away the fundraising advantage that she'd otherwise have as the Democrat running from wealthy California.
'They'd like us if only we had a chance of winning'
Its about as close to logic fallacy as you get in politics.
Well, for the past century.
Net immigration year ending March 2023 = 944,000
Net immigration year ending June 2025 = 204,000
That's a 78% drop. If you want reduced immigration, Starmer has absolutely delivered reduced immigration. And the figures are still trending downwards.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
Even with the cool down next week the record looks odds on.
The reduction is the result of the conservative tightening rules and little to do with Starmer
Not everyone who wears a lanyard is of the lanyard class. But take NHS Fife - you can bet your bottom dollar that those who wrongly suspended Sandie Peggie, and dragged out her investigation etc were all 'lanyard class'.
Any case, bit of a cheap shot but I like it. I'm fronting my very own "people like" grouping.
Few attain this ✊️
(I can't remember if there was an equivalent question in 2016.)