Is it true the Tory Shadow Attorney General is Roman Abramovich's lawyer?
Being a lawyer I’m sure he would say he isn’t Roman Abramovich’s lawyer but instead he is a lawyer for a number of companies who have hired him to contest an investigation and freezing of their accounts.
I would too. Unless other European countries commit to a peace keeping force there is going to be a very high cost burden for the UK taxpayer. Either they pay up or commit their own militaries alongside ours. Two countries isn't enough.
An open ended security guarantee will run up tens of billions in costs and I don't see where that comes from other than higher taxes. I would be voting against this until at least Germany and Poland signed up but probably also Finland, Sweden and Denmark too.
Our advantage over Russia is in technology and airpower. The British Army is as small as it's been in a very long time. So why are we focusing on boots on the ground? Because it's the most controversial aspect of our support?
Because it's easy and cheap.
There is also some inclination from the CotW to constrain the level and amount of technology that goes into Ukraine. The post-SMO landscape is unknowable and it's not impossible they end up with a Russia aligned government which will then put all of the gewgaws on the first Candid to Akhtubinsk. Poroshenko could win a presidential election (because he's got loads of fucking money and media access) then turn his cloak (again). BotG is very low risk for them from that perspective.
...I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
That was me. The number in the subsample is not relevant. The weights are. If the poll is weighted then the weights being applied will be national weights, so the subsamples are inaccurately weighted (unless the local weights match the national weights, and they usually don't). This is why subsamples are usually deprecated on PB.
Well, the number is relevant because of sampling error, so Stodge is right to say 2,000 is more than enough. The problem is it isn't the only source of error.
I think sub-sample analysis is perfectly fine as long as you state what you're up to and the limitations.
Yes, I explicitly said this morning it was a sub sample of the main YouGov poll. I would like a full England-only poll as a reasonable comparison but there don't seem to be all that many of those.
Those who just cut and paste from Lord Ashcroft's site without checking the sources are the ones to be hauled over the metaphorical coals but that's too often how this site works - people see something on X which matches their worldview and paste it because developing your own argument is obviously far too much work.
The sub sample has been weaponised by those supportive of the Conservative cause to "suggest" 16-24 year olds are big supporters of the party and the way it is reported on here is as a separate poll of 16-24 year olds only.
I don't see anyone posting the equivalent YouGov sub sample which had the Conservatives on 11% but that doesn't mean the "narrative" some are trying to float on here of a Conservative recovery and Badenoch as the next Prime Minister (or kingmaker).
It's more the "fact" of a Conservative recovery than a "narrative". They are ahead of Labour in every national VI poll now I think, and Badenoch the leader with the most improved ratings in the last three months or so.
I think truth probably lies between interpretations of @stodge and @isam
Kemi is getting act together, but rising support for Tories is barely discernible. They are in second mainly because of Labour decline. Perhaps party support is a lagging indicator?
All this said, a precondition for Tory recovery (not the only one) must be improvement in the leader's credibility. So that is a tick in the box. Long way to go though.
He is calling for deeper European cooperation, and then he'd agree: “If the coalition of the willing was eight, ten, a dozen countries and we could rotate battalions through then I might well say, ‘Yeah, absolutely let’s do it.’ As it is, it will be us and the French completely exposed for an unlimited period of time.”
I would too. Unless other European countries commit to a peace keeping force there is going to be a very high cost burden for the UK taxpayer. Either they pay up or commit their own militaries alongside ours. Two countries isn't enough.
An open ended security guarantee will run up tens of billions in costs and I don't see where that comes from other than higher taxes. I would be voting against this until at least Germany and Poland signed up but probably also Finland, Sweden and Denmark too.
Our advantage over Russia is in technology and airpower. The British Army is as small as it's been in a very long time. So why are we focusing on boots on the ground? Because it's the most controversial aspect of our support?
Because it's easy and cheap.
There is also some inclination from the CotW to constrain the level and amount of technology that goes into Ukraine. The post-SMO landscape is unknowable and it's not impossible they end up with a Russia aligned government which will then put all of the gewgaws on the first Candid to Akhtubinsk. Poroshenko could win a presidential election (because he's got loads of fucking money and media access) then turn his cloak (again). BotG is very low risk for them from that perspective.
The odds of a Ukrainian government aligning with Moscow anytime in the near future must be close to zero.
These sorts of considerations don't seem to have bothered us when expanding Nato.
I would too. Unless other European countries commit to a peace keeping force there is going to be a very high cost burden for the UK taxpayer. Either they pay up or commit their own militaries alongside ours. Two countries isn't enough.
An open ended security guarantee will run up tens of billions in costs and I don't see where that comes from other than higher taxes. I would be voting against this until at least Germany and Poland signed up but probably also Finland, Sweden and Denmark too.
Our advantage over Russia is in technology and airpower. The British Army is as small as it's been in a very long time. So why are we focusing on boots on the ground? Because it's the most controversial aspect of our support?
The troops in Ukraine will be largely symbolic, but symbols are important. I'd imagine that the RAF part of the British contribution will be based in Poland.
It seems Reform have "chosen" their Mayoral candidate for London - was there a vote among members or did Farage decree it?
Laila Cunningham, a Westminster councillor, is also to be the "face" of Reform during the forthcoming local elections. It was laways likely she, rather than Ant Middleton, would end up the Reform standard bearer and it's an interesting ploy to announce your candidate more than two years before the poll.
On the assumption Sadiq Khan stands again it will be even more interesting who the Conservatives select. After the fiasco of 2024, will Susan Hall be allowed near the election? I suspect she'd like another go - she did better than many thought but not as well as those claiming she had "won" before a vote had been counted.
A Hall candidacy would put a lot of pressure on Cunningham as it's not going to be easy to split the two on a number of issues. @HYUFD has advanced James Cleverly as a contender and fair enough, he certainly brings gravitas to the race as a former Cabinet Minister but I suspect he's waiting to see how the Conservatives fare in May before he jumps.
In 2022, the Conservatives polled 25% in the local elections and took a beating - it may be they could poll a similar number in May and do much better taking more seats off Labour than they will lose to Reform but that wouldn't make the Mayoralty any more likely - indeed, it might suggest the Conservatives and Reform will combine to allow Sadiq to win again - we'll see.
IF the Conservatives poll well especially in east and south east London and see off Reform in places like Bromley and Bexley as well as winning back Barnet, Westminster and perhaps Wandsworth, I suspect Cleverly will see that as a mandate to put himself forward in the gope against a weakened Labour and with Reform ineffective, the Conservatives can regain the Mayoralty - again,. we'll see.
It's a sub sample of less than 100 votes from the main More In Common poll.
I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
If you want an alternative take, the YouGov sub sample of 18-24 year olds (weighted 246, Unweighted 204) has:
Green: 38% Liberal Democrat: 19% Labour 18% Conservative: 11% Reform: 10%
This seems a desperate attempt by a few on here to talk up the Conservatives - not sure I understand why given Badenoch's slavish devotion to Trump.
By the way, if you look at the likelihood to vote, guess which group contains the fewest certain to vote...
There are always people prepared to ramp no-hopers. But it is interesting that the Greens are doing so well however you cut it. It's difficult to see what niche Labour fits into anymore
OT: any PBers who are motorcyclists may be interested in this. The government is proposing a raft of changes to bike licencing, and in particular are finally looking to fix the current bizarre system that can see a rider having to do 7 tests over 4 years to upgrade their licence.
There's a public consultation on the proposed changes, which you can fill out here:
They are surprisingly sensible on the whole. But haters of L-plate delivery riders will be disappointed to learn there's no ban on commercial work on L plates. There is a proposal to insert a gap between people taking their CBTs, which would put some delivery riders off the road for a while.
I've never seen so many bloody consultations:
motoring offences ** introducing a minimum learning period for learner drivers (category B driving licence) introducing mandatory eyesight testing for older drivers improving moped and motorcycle training, testing and licensing (categories AM, A1, A2 and A driving licence) mandating vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval
I'm taking that to mean that the Govt are sticking very tightly to things with strong public support, because they are still feeling under pressure from culture war politics, rather than following their principles and evidence *.
And that's all in addition to the mobility aid one I pointed out.
* No dice for the PBI DUI enthusiasts society though; as far as I can see a small reduction in the maximum level of drink driving allowed within the law has about 70-80% public support .
** The motoring offences one may be worth a look, though again it is mainly about things in the public eye, including drug driving (which is the one the Bufton-Tuftons in the Telegraph demand be addressed rather than elderly driver eye tests and drink driving, which affect them.
No mention of some important but not Daily Mail stuff like blocking pavements and drop kerbs etc.
The latter two are the kind of things a Labour government would do if they were up for a fight - particularly as it serves some core constituencies like families with young children, the disabled and the elderly.
And good point about the lowering of the drink drive limit - it does have overwhelming support and it's one of those things PB is way out of kilter on.
...I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
That was me. The number in the subsample is not relevant. The weights are. If the poll is weighted then the weights being applied will be national weights, so the subsamples are inaccurately weighted (unless the local weights match the national weights, and they usually don't). This is why subsamples are usually deprecated on PB.
Well, the number is relevant because of sampling error, so Stodge is right to say 2,000 is more than enough. The problem is it isn't the only source of error.
I think sub-sample analysis is perfectly fine as long as you state what you're up to and the limitations.
Yes, I explicitly said this morning it was a sub sample of the main YouGov poll. I would like a full England-only poll as a reasonable comparison but there don't seem to be all that many of those.
Those who just cut and paste from Lord Ashcroft's site without checking the sources are the ones to be hauled over the metaphorical coals but that's too often how this site works - people see something on X which matches their worldview and paste it because developing your own argument is obviously far too much work.
The sub sample has been weaponised by those supportive of the Conservative cause to "suggest" 16-24 year olds are big supporters of the party and the way it is reported on here is as a separate poll of 16-24 year olds only.
I don't see anyone posting the equivalent YouGov sub sample which had the Conservatives on 11% but that doesn't mean the "narrative" some are trying to float on here of a Conservative recovery and Badenoch as the next Prime Minister (or kingmaker).
It's more the "fact" of a Conservative recovery than a "narrative". They are ahead of Labour in every national VI poll now I think, and Badenoch the leader with the most improved ratings in the last three months or so.
Per Google AI
As of January 2026, the Conservative vote share has declined since Kemi Badenoch became Leader of the Opposition on November 2, 2024.
When Badenoch became leader (November 2024): The Conservative party held an average poll-of-polls rating of 26%. Immediately following her appointment, some individual polls showed a slight "Badenoch bounce," with one More in Common poll placing the party at 29%.
Current vote share (January 2026): The Conservative party now averages approximately 19% in recent poll-of-polls and trackers.
This against the one of the most unpopular prime ministers of recent times (neck and neck with Liz Truss)
I would too. Unless other European countries commit to a peace keeping force there is going to be a very high cost burden for the UK taxpayer. Either they pay up or commit their own militaries alongside ours. Two countries isn't enough.
An open ended security guarantee will run up tens of billions in costs and I don't see where that comes from other than higher taxes. I would be voting against this until at least Germany and Poland signed up but probably also Finland, Sweden and Denmark too.
It's not a peacekeeping force in any meaningful sense of the word that is suggested, unfortunately.
To keep the peace, 'all' that's needed is to keep the Russians away. A lot of heavy lifting in there.
I think Kemi by all accounts and estimation has made a massive improvement (low base) over the past six months. I was however disappointed when on R4 the other day when asked what her Big Idea was for economic growth, replied "binning Net Zero". Not that I do or don't agree with binning net zero (I do) but it is hardly a forward-looking, positive vision of economic growth potential.
I have said many times that the Cons should be hammering on the economy and what they would do to turn ours around and this didn't seem to hit the nail on the head.
In other news, SKS making a joke has to be super cringe, however funny it might be from anyone else.
I agree with Starmer's team that Russia is an awkward point for Reform.
However, that joke just sounds incredibly crass and borderline racist. It may have landed well in the HOC to an audience of cheering Labour MPs, but on paper it's not great.
He is calling for deeper European cooperation, and then he'd agree: “If the coalition of the willing was eight, ten, a dozen countries and we could rotate battalions through then I might well say, ‘Yeah, absolutely let’s do it.’ As it is, it will be us and the French completely exposed for an unlimited period of time.”
What’s wrong with that statement ?
He doesn't want to do it, but doesn't want to seem to not want to do it.
So freights it with conditions in the hope of sinking it.
I would too. Unless other European countries commit to a peace keeping force there is going to be a very high cost burden for the UK taxpayer. Either they pay up or commit their own militaries alongside ours. Two countries isn't enough.
An open ended security guarantee will run up tens of billions in costs and I don't see where that comes from other than higher taxes. I would be voting against this until at least Germany and Poland signed up but probably also Finland, Sweden and Denmark too.
All European countries need to contribute as they will all theoretically benefit from the increased security. Would be nice if Spain stopped crying about Gaza for a bit and stepped up re a bigger problem. Ireland can send some of the tech tax the EU forced them to take - €8b I remember. Too many countries like the security blanket but don’t want to pay or turn up - I could always understand why the US got pissed off with NATO slackers.
The Apple tax the Irish government lost the court case over was more than €14bn.
I think it's a bit wanky to complain about other European countries not contributing to a poxy tiny little troop deployment in Ukraine when Britain can hardly claim to have done its fair share in defending Europe compared to what Ukraine has done for us. It's not too much for Ukraine to ask us to do this and it would be shameful to refuse to do so as part of some petty argument with other European countries about who should be doing what or paying how much. Isn't that precisely the sort of quibbling behaviour we criticise the EU for?
In case you missed it, we are committing to doing it. Along with France. And countries like Poland, the Baltics and Finland, along with Germany, are also doing as much if not more than we are in various ways. So under those circumstances yes I think it is perfactly valid to then criticise some othe countries who are doing bugger all but still expect to be protected.
I do however disagree with MaxPB (and Farage). We should not wait for others to commit before we make the promise (and follow through with it). I would be voting for this and thankfully it looks like there are more than enough MPs who have their heads screwed on right on this subject that it should pass easily. Farage can whine from under his rock.
...I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
That was me. The number in the subsample is not relevant. The weights are. If the poll is weighted then the weights being applied will be national weights, so the subsamples are inaccurately weighted (unless the local weights match the national weights, and they usually don't). This is why subsamples are usually deprecated on PB.
Well, the number is relevant because of sampling error, so Stodge is right to say 2,000 is more than enough. The problem is it isn't the only source of error.
I think sub-sample analysis is perfectly fine as long as you state what you're up to and the limitations.
Yes, I explicitly said this morning it was a sub sample of the main YouGov poll. I would like a full England-only poll as a reasonable comparison but there don't seem to be all that many of those.
Those who just cut and paste from Lord Ashcroft's site without checking the sources are the ones to be hauled over the metaphorical coals but that's too often how this site works - people see something on X which matches their worldview and paste it because developing your own argument is obviously far too much work.
The sub sample has been weaponised by those supportive of the Conservative cause to "suggest" 16-24 year olds are big supporters of the party and the way it is reported on here is as a separate poll of 16-24 year olds only.
I don't see anyone posting the equivalent YouGov sub sample which had the Conservatives on 11% but that doesn't mean the "narrative" some are trying to float on here of a Conservative recovery and Badenoch as the next Prime Minister (or kingmaker).
It's more the "fact" of a Conservative recovery than a "narrative". They are ahead of Labour in every national VI poll now I think, and Badenoch the leader with the most improved ratings in the last three months or so.
Per Google AI
As of January 2026, the Conservative vote share has declined since Kemi Badenoch became Leader of the Opposition on November 2, 2024.
When Badenoch became leader (November 2024): The Conservative party held an average poll-of-polls rating of 26%. Immediately following her appointment, some individual polls showed a slight "Badenoch bounce," with one More in Common poll placing the party at 29%.
Current vote share (January 2026): The Conservative party now averages approximately 19% in recent poll-of-polls and trackers.
This against the one of the most unpopular prime ministers of recent times (neck and neck with Liz Truss)
Isn't this is what as known as a "dead cat bounce"?
Starmer's delivery was pretty bad, even though the joke was decent.
Starmer isn't funny. This will have been written for him and he will have been told to say it.
It's that lack of thought, sincerity or consistency - with a remarkable amount of lack of self-awareness - which is why his delivery is always bad and he's neither liked or respected.
He is calling for deeper European cooperation, and then he'd agree: “If the coalition of the willing was eight, ten, a dozen countries and we could rotate battalions through then I might well say, ‘Yeah, absolutely let’s do it.’ As it is, it will be us and the French completely exposed for an unlimited period of time.”
What’s wrong with that statement ?
He doesn't want to do it, but doesn't want to seem to not want to do it.
So freights it with conditions in the hope of sinking it.
I don’t particularly want to do it, but I don’t see a choice and I think his call for a pan European force is right.
...I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
That was me. The number in the subsample is not relevant. The weights are. If the poll is weighted then the weights being applied will be national weights, so the subsamples are inaccurately weighted (unless the local weights match the national weights, and they usually don't). This is why subsamples are usually deprecated on PB.
Well, the number is relevant because of sampling error, so Stodge is right to say 2,000 is more than enough. The problem is it isn't the only source of error.
I think sub-sample analysis is perfectly fine as long as you state what you're up to and the limitations.
Yes, I explicitly said this morning it was a sub sample of the main YouGov poll. I would like a full England-only poll as a reasonable comparison but there don't seem to be all that many of those.
Those who just cut and paste from Lord Ashcroft's site without checking the sources are the ones to be hauled over the metaphorical coals but that's too often how this site works - people see something on X which matches their worldview and paste it because developing your own argument is obviously far too much work.
The sub sample has been weaponised by those supportive of the Conservative cause to "suggest" 16-24 year olds are big supporters of the party and the way it is reported on here is as a separate poll of 16-24 year olds only.
I don't see anyone posting the equivalent YouGov sub sample which had the Conservatives on 11% but that doesn't mean the "narrative" some are trying to float on here of a Conservative recovery and Badenoch as the next Prime Minister (or kingmaker).
It's more the "fact" of a Conservative recovery than a "narrative". They are ahead of Labour in every national VI poll now I think, and Badenoch the leader with the most improved ratings in the last three months or so.
Per Google AI
As of January 2026, the Conservative vote share has declined since Kemi Badenoch became Leader of the Opposition on November 2, 2024.
When Badenoch became leader (November 2024): The Conservative party held an average poll-of-polls rating of 26%. Immediately following her appointment, some individual polls showed a slight "Badenoch bounce," with one More in Common poll placing the party at 29%.
Current vote share (January 2026): The Conservative party now averages approximately 19% in recent poll-of-polls and trackers.
This against the one of the most unpopular prime ministers of recent times (neck and neck with Liz Truss)
Isn't this is what as known as a "dead cat bounce"?
He was apparently responsible for half of all the boats and engines used for crossings in 2023.
So one would hope a good deal of impact. Not least because most of what he supplied was unfit for purpose so he was sending people off to die in boats he knew were likely to capsize or sink.
There's a route to the Tories becoming popular with young people again, making it easier to buy a home, lowering tax, lowering student debt obligations, creating more jobs, investing more in education, and sponsoring new technologies, but I'm not seeing it yet.
...I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
That was me. The number in the subsample is not relevant. The weights are. If the poll is weighted then the weights being applied will be national weights, so the subsamples are inaccurately weighted (unless the local weights match the national weights, and they usually don't). This is why subsamples are usually deprecated on PB.
Well, the number is relevant because of sampling error, so Stodge is right to say 2,000 is more than enough. The problem is it isn't the only source of error.
I think sub-sample analysis is perfectly fine as long as you state what you're up to and the limitations.
Yes, I explicitly said this morning it was a sub sample of the main YouGov poll. I would like a full England-only poll as a reasonable comparison but there don't seem to be all that many of those.
Those who just cut and paste from Lord Ashcroft's site without checking the sources are the ones to be hauled over the metaphorical coals but that's too often how this site works - people see something on X which matches their worldview and paste it because developing your own argument is obviously far too much work.
The sub sample has been weaponised by those supportive of the Conservative cause to "suggest" 16-24 year olds are big supporters of the party and the way it is reported on here is as a separate poll of 16-24 year olds only.
I don't see anyone posting the equivalent YouGov sub sample which had the Conservatives on 11% but that doesn't mean the "narrative" some are trying to float on here of a Conservative recovery and Badenoch as the next Prime Minister (or kingmaker).
It's more the "fact" of a Conservative recovery than a "narrative". They are ahead of Labour in every national VI poll now I think, and Badenoch the leader with the most improved ratings in the last three months or so.
Per Google AI
As of January 2026, the Conservative vote share has declined since Kemi Badenoch became Leader of the Opposition on November 2, 2024.
When Badenoch became leader (November 2024): The Conservative party held an average poll-of-polls rating of 26%. Immediately following her appointment, some individual polls showed a slight "Badenoch bounce," with one More in Common poll placing the party at 29%.
Current vote share (January 2026): The Conservative party now averages approximately 19% in recent poll-of-polls and trackers.
This against the one of the most unpopular prime ministers of recent times (neck and neck with Liz Truss)
Isn't this is what as known as a "dead cat bounce"?
It's does show Badenoch has a long way to go to get back to her starting point.
Ironically, it's in Labour's interest for her to do so as it splits the opposition.
He was apparently responsible for half of all the boats and engines used for crossings in 2023.
So one would hope a good deal of impact. Not least because most of what he supplied was unfit for purpose so he was sending people off to die in boats he knew were likely to capsize or sink.
Someone else will fill the gap as the demand is there.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
He was apparently responsible for half of all the boats and engines used for crossings in 2023.
So one would hope a good deal of impact. Not least because most of what he supplied was unfit for purpose so he was sending people off to die in boats he knew were likely to capsize or sink.
Someone else will fill the gap as the demand is there.
Of course. I am sure they already have. Doesn't mean it isn't a good thing this scumbag is in prison.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
Taxing something less isn't a subsidy. That money doesn't belong to HMG to piss up the wall; it has been earned by those businesses.
He was apparently responsible for half of all the boats and engines used for crossings in 2023.
So one would hope a good deal of impact. Not least because most of what he supplied was unfit for purpose so he was sending people off to die in boats he knew were likely to capsize or sink.
Someone else will fill the gap as the demand is there.
Of course. I am sure they already have. Doesn't mean it isn't a good thing this scumbag is in prison.
I wasn’t claiming otherwise. Just that this is a sticking plaster and the problem will persist until something is done to tackle it at source.
OT: any PBers who are motorcyclists may be interested in this. The government is proposing a raft of changes to bike licencing, and in particular are finally looking to fix the current bizarre system that can see a rider having to do 7 tests over 4 years to upgrade their licence.
There's a public consultation on the proposed changes, which you can fill out here:
They are surprisingly sensible on the whole. But haters of L-plate delivery riders will be disappointed to learn there's no ban on commercial work on L plates. There is a proposal to insert a gap between people taking their CBTs, which would put some delivery riders off the road for a while.
I've never seen so many bloody consultations:
motoring offences ** introducing a minimum learning period for learner drivers (category B driving licence) introducing mandatory eyesight testing for older drivers improving moped and motorcycle training, testing and licensing (categories AM, A1, A2 and A driving licence) mandating vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval
I'm taking that to mean that the Govt are sticking very tightly to things with strong public support, because they are still feeling under pressure from culture war politics, rather than following their principles and evidence *.
And that's all in addition to the mobility aid one I pointed out.
* No dice for the PBI DUI enthusiasts society though; as far as I can see a small reduction in the maximum level of drink driving allowed within the law has about 70-80% public support .
** The motoring offences one may be worth a look, though again it is mainly about things in the public eye, including drug driving (which is the one the Bufton-Tuftons in the Telegraph demand be addressed rather than elderly driver eye tests and drink driving, which affect them.
No mention of some important but not Daily Mail stuff like blocking pavements and drop kerbs etc.
Let me plug the Offences consultation again; there's quite a lot in there.
He was apparently responsible for half of all the boats and engines used for crossings in 2023.
So one would hope a good deal of impact. Not least because most of what he supplied was unfit for purpose so he was sending people off to die in boats he knew were likely to capsize or sink.
Someone else will fill the gap as the demand is there.
...I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
That was me. The number in the subsample is not relevant. The weights are. If the poll is weighted then the weights being applied will be national weights, so the subsamples are inaccurately weighted (unless the local weights match the national weights, and they usually don't). This is why subsamples are usually deprecated on PB.
Well, the number is relevant because of sampling error, so Stodge is right to say 2,000 is more than enough. The problem is it isn't the only source of error.
I think sub-sample analysis is perfectly fine as long as you state what you're up to and the limitations.
Yes, I explicitly said this morning it was a sub sample of the main YouGov poll. I would like a full England-only poll as a reasonable comparison but there don't seem to be all that many of those.
Those who just cut and paste from Lord Ashcroft's site without checking the sources are the ones to be hauled over the metaphorical coals but that's too often how this site works - people see something on X which matches their worldview and paste it because developing your own argument is obviously far too much work.
The sub sample has been weaponised by those supportive of the Conservative cause to "suggest" 16-24 year olds are big supporters of the party and the way it is reported on here is as a separate poll of 16-24 year olds only.
I don't see anyone posting the equivalent YouGov sub sample which had the Conservatives on 11% but that doesn't mean the "narrative" some are trying to float on here of a Conservative recovery and Badenoch as the next Prime Minister (or kingmaker).
It's more the "fact" of a Conservative recovery than a "narrative". They are ahead of Labour in every national VI poll now I think, and Badenoch the leader with the most improved ratings in the last three months or so.
Per Google AI
As of January 2026, the Conservative vote share has declined since Kemi Badenoch became Leader of the Opposition on November 2, 2024.
When Badenoch became leader (November 2024): The Conservative party held an average poll-of-polls rating of 26%. Immediately following her appointment, some individual polls showed a slight "Badenoch bounce," with one More in Common poll placing the party at 29%.
Current vote share (January 2026): The Conservative party now averages approximately 19% in recent poll-of-polls and trackers.
This against the one of the most unpopular prime ministers of recent times (neck and neck with Liz Truss)
Today's MiC poll has the Tories under Kemi back to 23% though, level with the 23.7% Rishi got in 2024
A very lawyerly letter from Lord Wolfson that takes care not to say Starmer's claim is a lie, presumably because it isn't, while giving the impression it is a lie.
It seems Reform have "chosen" their Mayoral candidate for London - was there a vote among members or did Farage decree it?
Laila Cunningham, a Westminster councillor, is also to be the "face" of Reform during the forthcoming local elections. It was laways likely she, rather than Ant Middleton, would end up the Reform standard bearer and it's an interesting ploy to announce your candidate more than two years before the poll.
On the assumption Sadiq Khan stands again it will be even more interesting who the Conservatives select. After the fiasco of 2024, will Susan Hall be allowed near the election? I suspect she'd like another go - she did better than many thought but not as well as those claiming she had "won" before a vote had been counted.
A Hall candidacy would put a lot of pressure on Cunningham as it's not going to be easy to split the two on a number of issues. @HYUFD has advanced James Cleverly as a contender and fair enough, he certainly brings gravitas to the race as a former Cabinet Minister but I suspect he's waiting to see how the Conservatives fare in May before he jumps.
In 2022, the Conservatives polled 25% in the local elections and took a beating - it may be they could poll a similar number in May and do much better taking more seats off Labour than they will lose to Reform but that wouldn't make the Mayoralty any more likely - indeed, it might suggest the Conservatives and Reform will combine to allow Sadiq to win again - we'll see.
IF the Conservatives poll well especially in east and south east London and see off Reform in places like Bromley and Bexley as well as winning back Barnet, Westminster and perhaps Wandsworth, I suspect Cleverly will see that as a mandate to put himself forward in the gope against a weakened Labour and with Reform ineffective, the Conservatives can regain the Mayoralty - again,. we'll see.
If Kemi is still Leader after the local elections then Cleverly may try for London Mayor but Seb Coe is also apparently a contender for the Tory nomination
It's a sub sample of less than 100 votes from the main More In Common poll.
I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
If you want an alternative take, the YouGov sub sample of 18-24 year olds (weighted 246, Unweighted 204) has:
Green: 38% Liberal Democrat: 19% Labour 18% Conservative: 11% Reform: 10%
This seems a desperate attempt by a few on here to talk up the Conservatives - not sure I understand why given Badenoch's slavish devotion to Trump.
By the way, if you look at the likelihood to vote, guess which group contains the fewest certain to vote...
What both Yougov and MiC agree on though is that the Tories under Kemi are ahead of Reform with 18-24s unlike nationally and with MiC even ahead of Labour and the LDs with 18-24s.
As I said before, Kemi is now the most hip party leader with under 30s in this country after Polanski, her Stamp Duty cut plan has also gone down well with them.
Indeed, I don't think a Tory leader has been as popular with young voters as Kemi has since Cameron pre 2010! That will at least show the Tory party is not dying out and unlike the last few years is not as pensioner heavy as before, with many pensioners now voting Reform
Of course who can forget Ali Dia. And Eric the Eel.
Or Carlton Palmer.
Carlton Palmer played for England.
I’ve always loved that quote by Dave Jones, Palmer’s manager
‘Carlton Palmer covers every blade of grass during a match, which is great as his first touch is crap.’
He moved to the Middle East for a period to work as a teacher / coach. I have a friend who was out there and when they found out it was Carlton Palmer working at their kids school they got him to come along to their weekly kick about as they thought he was so shit (and now old) it would be funny. Apparently he absolutely rinsed everybody left, right and centre even at age of 50+.
When my dad joined the army he was a regular football player but on one occasion they had to play the Ordnance Corp and they had something of a ringer in that they had Duncan Edwards who was then doing his National Service. Although playing largely as a defensive player he scored something like 12 goals. He was already being allowed time off to play for Manchester United and, occasionally, England. My dad said it was something to see, just a completely different game.
My dad, when a youngster, saw Duncan Edwards play. He saw him score. Apparently he struck the ball so hard that he didn't see it until it ballooned the net.
The difference between the talented amateur and pro in every sport is vast and stark. I (talented amateur) have been on a trackday with Sete Gibernau (pro) at Jerez. He was on a stock Fireblade on street tyres and I was on a very racy Fireblade on slicks. I was locking the front and sliding the rear, literally risking death, in every corner. While Sete was sat up, steering with one hand, looking back and taking 2-3 seconds a lap out of me. Humbling.
This is so true. At my absolute tennis peak (and I was an area u17 finalist and might have won the trophy if it weren't for getting chicken pox) I would have struggled to win a single game against the then world number one Jimmy Connors.
A very lawyerly letter from Lord Wolfson that takes care not to say Starmer's claim is a lie, presumably because it isn't, while giving the impression it is a lie.
He’s provided the ammo. Kemi has fired the bullets and made the accusation directly.
Of course who can forget Ali Dia. And Eric the Eel.
Or Carlton Palmer.
Carlton Palmer played for England.
I’ve always loved that quote by Dave Jones, Palmer’s manager
‘Carlton Palmer covers every blade of grass during a match, which is great as his first touch is crap.’
He moved to the Middle East for a period to work as a teacher / coach. I have a friend who was out there and when they found out it was Carlton Palmer working at their kids school they got him to come along to their weekly kick about as they thought he was so shit (and now old) it would be funny. Apparently he absolutely rinsed everybody left, right and centre even at age of 50+.
When my dad joined the army he was a regular football player but on one occasion they had to play the Ordnance Corp and they had something of a ringer in that they had Duncan Edwards who was then doing his National Service. Although playing largely as a defensive player he scored something like 12 goals. He was already being allowed time off to play for Manchester United and, occasionally, England. My dad said it was something to see, just a completely different game.
My dad, when a youngster, saw Duncan Edwards play. He saw him score. Apparently he struck the ball so hard that he didn't see it until it ballooned the net.
The difference between the talented amateur and pro in every sport is vast and stark. I (talented amateur) have been on a trackday with Sete Gibernau (pro) at Jerez. He was on a stock Fireblade on street tyres and I was on a very racy Fireblade on slicks. I was locking the front and sliding the rear, literally risking death, in every corner. While Sete was sat up, steering with one hand, looking back and taking 2-3 seconds a lap out of me. Humbling.
A very lawyerly letter from Lord Wolfson that takes care not to say Starmer's claim is a lie, presumably because it isn't, while giving the impression it is a lie.
On the other hand a very unlawyerly tirade from Kemi Badenoch on the same topic
I’m not allowed to say it in Parliament, but I can here: today the Prime Minister lied and lied and lied again. And he did so to smear a man defending our veterans in court against the Labour government.
Labour have attacked everyone from farmers, to businesses, to veterans, so now they attack David Wolfson, a brilliant KC, to take the attention away from their terrible decisions.
I’m proud to have David in my team. He doesn’t deserve to have his name smeared by low-rent politicians trying to distract from their own failures.
What little integrity the Prime Minister held he surrendered with that shameful performance today.
It's a sub sample of less than 100 votes from the main More In Common poll.
I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
If you want an alternative take, the YouGov sub sample of 18-24 year olds (weighted 246, Unweighted 204) has:
Green: 38% Liberal Democrat: 19% Labour 18% Conservative: 11% Reform: 10%
This seems a desperate attempt by a few on here to talk up the Conservatives - not sure I understand why given Badenoch's slavish devotion to Trump.
By the way, if you look at the likelihood to vote, guess which group contains the fewest certain to vote...
There are always people prepared to ramp no-hopers. But it is interesting that the Greens are doing so well however you cut it. It's difficult to see what niche Labour fits into anymore
The niche they fit into currently is that of a fairly authoritarian conservative party, and fair enough - there is otherwise a space there to fill.
Funny how life goes quickly. It was only last week a video appeared on Twitter from decades ago showing an interview with a young footballer at Scunthorpe and his hopes for the future.
His name. Kevin Keegan. He had Curley hair then too.
It's a sub sample of less than 100 votes from the main More In Common poll.
I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
If you want an alternative take, the YouGov sub sample of 18-24 year olds (weighted 246, Unweighted 204) has:
Green: 38% Liberal Democrat: 19% Labour 18% Conservative: 11% Reform: 10%
This seems a desperate attempt by a few on here to talk up the Conservatives - not sure I understand why given Badenoch's slavish devotion to Trump.
By the way, if you look at the likelihood to vote, guess which group contains the fewest certain to vote...
What both Yougov and MiC agree on though is that the Tories under Kemi are ahead of Reform with 18-24s unlike nationally and with MiC even ahead of Labour and the LDs with 18-24s.
As I said before, Kemi is now the most hip party leader with under 30s in this country after Polanski, her Stamp Duty cut plan has also gone down well with them.
Indeed, I don't think a Tory leader has been as popular with young voters as Kemi has since Cameron pre 2010! That will at least show the Tory party is not dying out and unlike the last few years is not as pensioner heavy as before, with many pensioners now voting Reform
At the 2024 General Election Yougov found Reform beating the Tories 9% to 8% with 18-24s and Ipsos found Reform beating the Tories 8% to 5% with 18-24s, so Kemi has at least put the Tories back ahead of Reform with young people.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
Worse, I think there's a large chunk of the population who'd enthusiastically support it.
I think it was @edmundintokyo who said the British people hate freedom.
I dismissed it at the time, but I increasingly think he was onto something.
...I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
That was me. The number in the subsample is not relevant. The weights are. If the poll is weighted then the weights being applied will be national weights, so the subsamples are inaccurately weighted (unless the local weights match the national weights, and they usually don't). This is why subsamples are usually deprecated on PB.
Well, the number is relevant because of sampling error, so Stodge is right to say 2,000 is more than enough. The problem is it isn't the only source of error.
I think sub-sample analysis is perfectly fine as long as you state what you're up to and the limitations.
Yes, I explicitly said this morning it was a sub sample of the main YouGov poll. I would like a full England-only poll as a reasonable comparison but there don't seem to be all that many of those.
Those who just cut and paste from Lord Ashcroft's site without checking the sources are the ones to be hauled over the metaphorical coals but that's too often how this site works - people see something on X which matches their worldview and paste it because developing your own argument is obviously far too much work.
The sub sample has been weaponised by those supportive of the Conservative cause to "suggest" 16-24 year olds are big supporters of the party and the way it is reported on here is as a separate poll of 16-24 year olds only.
I don't see anyone posting the equivalent YouGov sub sample which had the Conservatives on 11% but that doesn't mean the "narrative" some are trying to float on here of a Conservative recovery and Badenoch as the next Prime Minister (or kingmaker).
It's more the "fact" of a Conservative recovery than a "narrative". They are ahead of Labour in every national VI poll now I think, and Badenoch the leader with the most improved ratings in the last three months or so.
That doesn't alter the fact the "poll" quoted by Lord Ashcroft was just a sub sample.
A quick look at the polls over the past month or so confirms, yes, the Conservatives are more often ahead of Labour than behind but not in all polls and taking into account margin of error, there's little in it and the truth is whatever Badenoch's personal ratings (and I've said on here on a number of occasions she has had a good autumn and stabilised her position after a rocky spell around the May 2025 local elections), the big change has been continued Labour decline rather than strong Conservative advance.
Indeed, take out More In Common and Lord Ashcroft, both of which are very favourable to and for the Conservatives and most polls continue to have the party at or just below 20% where they have sat for months - indeed, if you look at YouGov polls, the Conservatives have not traded above 20% since last April and the same is true of Opinium.
Yes, you are bang right, it was indeed a subsample, and glad that we are indeed agreed that the Conservatives are recovering, ahead of Labour, and Badenoch's ratings are fast improving
Some good news for the govt. The 10 year is now back down to levels not seen since November and well under what it was for 2025 as a whole.
Taz, shares also doing well this week , only wednesday and I am up 14K. Fingers crossed it continues.
Nice one Malc. I’m up too. Probably not that much but I’m still pleased 😀 Hopefully Fridays tariff judgement doesn’t send it into reverse.
Do think it cannot go on forever though Taz, have been derisking a fair bit recently as I will likely retire next year.
I’ve been doing the same. Gradually. Moving more to mixed asset funds, bonds and gilts.
I’m looking at switching accumulation to income funds in a couple of years when my wife retires and drawing that.
I am going to keep some equities and equity funds. That’s something I thought about after discussing investing with Ben Pointer.
As for retiring, based on my experience, don’t hesitate. Life is too short. Enjoy it. I have not regretted it for a single minute. I don’t miss it one bit. Older people in the workplace are not valued, our knowledge and experience isn’t valued. Mind you when I left the guy who replaced me struggled and quit. So my old boss did appreciate what I did then.
I remember seeing a meme. It said ‘somewhere in the world someone the same age as you is living their last day wishing they had more time. Don’t waste what you have left’
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
Worse, I think there's a large chunk of the population who'd enthusiastically support it.
I think it was @edmundintokyo who said the British people hate freedom.
I dismissed it at the time, but I increasingly think he was onto something.
Funny you say that.
Polling during COVID showed a sizeable minority wanted night clubs closed permanently
...I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
That was me. The number in the subsample is not relevant. The weights are. If the poll is weighted then the weights being applied will be national weights, so the subsamples are inaccurately weighted (unless the local weights match the national weights, and they usually don't). This is why subsamples are usually deprecated on PB.
Well, the number is relevant because of sampling error, so Stodge is right to say 2,000 is more than enough. The problem is it isn't the only source of error.
I think sub-sample analysis is perfectly fine as long as you state what you're up to and the limitations.
Yes, I explicitly said this morning it was a sub sample of the main YouGov poll. I would like a full England-only poll as a reasonable comparison but there don't seem to be all that many of those.
Those who just cut and paste from Lord Ashcroft's site without checking the sources are the ones to be hauled over the metaphorical coals but that's too often how this site works - people see something on X which matches their worldview and paste it because developing your own argument is obviously far too much work.
The sub sample has been weaponised by those supportive of the Conservative cause to "suggest" 16-24 year olds are big supporters of the party and the way it is reported on here is as a separate poll of 16-24 year olds only.
I don't see anyone posting the equivalent YouGov sub sample which had the Conservatives on 11% but that doesn't mean the "narrative" some are trying to float on here of a Conservative recovery and Badenoch as the next Prime Minister (or kingmaker).
It's more the "fact" of a Conservative recovery than a "narrative". They are ahead of Labour in every national VI poll now I think, and Badenoch the leader with the most improved ratings in the last three months or so.
Per Google AI
As of January 2026, the Conservative vote share has declined since Kemi Badenoch became Leader of the Opposition on November 2, 2024.
When Badenoch became leader (November 2024): The Conservative party held an average poll-of-polls rating of 26%. Immediately following her appointment, some individual polls showed a slight "Badenoch bounce," with one More in Common poll placing the party at 29%.
Current vote share (January 2026): The Conservative party now averages approximately 19% in recent poll-of-polls and trackers.
This against the one of the most unpopular prime ministers of recent times (neck and neck with Liz Truss)
Who is arguing anything else? They are recovering, and Badenoch's ratings are improving. I don't see what is controversial or arguable about either statement
The polls are odd because Reform are leading by such a margin, so the point that they are only just ahead of one of the least popular PMs of recent times (I was pilloried for predicting would be unpopular) is correct whilst being a bit misleading.
Some good news for the govt. The 10 year is now back down to levels not seen since November and well under what it was for 2025 as a whole.
Taz, shares also doing well this week , only wednesday and I am up 14K. Fingers crossed it continues.
Nice one Malc. I’m up too. Probably not that much but I’m still pleased 😀 Hopefully Fridays tariff judgement doesn’t send it into reverse.
Do think it cannot go on forever though Taz, have been derisking a fair bit recently as I will likely retire next year.
Downside (and there's always one) is that if gilt rates fall again then annuity rates are likely to fall too. Not ideal if retirement is imminent.
On the whole I think its better for retired people if gilt yields are low. That reflects a climate of little inflation, and thus savings retain their value.
Annuity rates are just set once, and for most there seems little value in them anyway. If you plan to live to 120 then fine, but otherwise drawdown seems a better option.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
Worse, I think there's a large chunk of the population who'd enthusiastically support it.
I think it was @edmundintokyo who said the British people hate freedom.
I dismissed it at the time, but I increasingly think he was onto something.
It's worse than that.
We mostly want the freedoms we use/profit from, and hate the ones that others use/we have to pay for.
Joined up thinking. We don't just fail to do it, we often actively cut the connections.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
Some good news for the govt. The 10 year is now back down to levels not seen since November and well under what it was for 2025 as a whole.
Taz, shares also doing well this week , only wednesday and I am up 14K. Fingers crossed it continues.
Nice one Malc. I’m up too. Probably not that much but I’m still pleased 😀 Hopefully Fridays tariff judgement doesn’t send it into reverse.
Do think it cannot go on forever though Taz, have been derisking a fair bit recently as I will likely retire next year.
Downside (and there's always one) is that if gilt rates fall again then annuity rates are likely to fall too. Not ideal if retirement is imminent.
On the whole I think its better for retired people if gilt yields are low. That reflects a climate of little inflation, and thus savings retain their value.
Annuity rates are just set once, and for most there seems little value in them anyway. If you plan to live to 120 then fine, but otherwise drawdown seems a better option.
According to the FCA between 9 and 10% of pots are used for an annuity. They aren’t massively popular.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
I will happily die on the hill of lower and fewer taxes generating more tax revenue.
Some good news for the govt. The 10 year is now back down to levels not seen since November and well under what it was for 2025 as a whole.
Taz, shares also doing well this week , only wednesday and I am up 14K. Fingers crossed it continues.
Nice one Malc. I’m up too. Probably not that much but I’m still pleased 😀 Hopefully Fridays tariff judgement doesn’t send it into reverse.
Do think it cannot go on forever though Taz, have been derisking a fair bit recently as I will likely retire next year.
Downside (and there's always one) is that if gilt rates fall again then annuity rates are likely to fall too. Not ideal if retirement is imminent.
On the whole I think its better for retired people if gilt yields are low. That reflects a climate of little inflation, and thus savings retain their value.
Annuity rates are just set once, and for most there seems little value in them anyway. If you plan to live to 120 then fine, but otherwise drawdown seems a better option.
According to the FCA between 9 and 10% of pots are used for an annuity. They aren’t massively popular.
Some good news for the govt. The 10 year is now back down to levels not seen since November and well under what it was for 2025 as a whole.
Taz, shares also doing well this week , only wednesday and I am up 14K. Fingers crossed it continues.
Nice one Malc. I’m up too. Probably not that much but I’m still pleased 😀 Hopefully Fridays tariff judgement doesn’t send it into reverse.
Do think it cannot go on forever though Taz, have been derisking a fair bit recently as I will likely retire next year.
Downside (and there's always one) is that if gilt rates fall again then annuity rates are likely to fall too. Not ideal if retirement is imminent.
On the whole I think its better for retired people if gilt yields are low. That reflects a climate of little inflation, and thus savings retain their value.
Annuity rates are just set once, and for most there seems little value in them anyway. If you plan to live to 120 then fine, but otherwise drawdown seems a better option.
According to the FCA between 9 and 10% of pots are used for an annuity. They aren’t massively popular.
I’ll be UFPLS or drawdown.
Distorted by the IHT rules of course.
My pension is a vehicle to fund my retirement so I plan to spend it all.
My wife and I agreed, we’ll spend the lot. The beneficiaries can have the house.
It's a sub sample of less than 100 votes from the main More In Common poll.
I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
If you want an alternative take, the YouGov sub sample of 18-24 year olds (weighted 246, Unweighted 204) has:
Green: 38% Liberal Democrat: 19% Labour 18% Conservative: 11% Reform: 10%
This seems a desperate attempt by a few on here to talk up the Conservatives - not sure I understand why given Badenoch's slavish devotion to Trump.
By the way, if you look at the likelihood to vote, guess which group contains the fewest certain to vote...
What both Yougov and MiC agree on though is that the Tories under Kemi are ahead of Reform with 18-24s unlike nationally and with MiC even ahead of Labour and the LDs with 18-24s.
As I said before, Kemi is now the most hip party leader with under 30s in this country after Polanski, her Stamp Duty cut plan has also gone down well with them.
Indeed, I don't think a Tory leader has been as popular with young voters as Kemi has since Cameron pre 2010! That will at least show the Tory party is not dying out and unlike the last few years is not as pensioner heavy as before, with many pensioners now voting Reform
Among 25-34 year olds, according to More In Common, the Conservatives are on 21%, behind Labour (31%) and Reform (24%) but that is of course another polling sub sample so not to be taken too seriously.
According to Wikpedia, at the 2010 election, Labour won 31% with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats tied on 30% among 18-24 year olds. By 2015, Labour were ahead 43-27 among the same age group.
You are right inasmuch as even the 11% recorded by YouGov would be a step forward but if you are going to get carried away by a sub sample of less than 100 people as a basis for building up your party and leader as the alternative Government and Prime Minister (rather than possible junior partners to the real credible alternative) go for it.
Some good news for the govt. The 10 year is now back down to levels not seen since November and well under what it was for 2025 as a whole.
Taz, shares also doing well this week , only wednesday and I am up 14K. Fingers crossed it continues.
Nice one Malc. I’m up too. Probably not that much but I’m still pleased 😀 Hopefully Fridays tariff judgement doesn’t send it into reverse.
Do think it cannot go on forever though Taz, have been derisking a fair bit recently as I will likely retire next year.
Downside (and there's always one) is that if gilt rates fall again then annuity rates are likely to fall too. Not ideal if retirement is imminent.
On the whole I think its better for retired people if gilt yields are low. That reflects a climate of little inflation, and thus savings retain their value.
Annuity rates are just set once, and for most there seems little value in them anyway. If you plan to live to 120 then fine, but otherwise drawdown seems a better option.
There might be a case for government-subsidised annuities, rather than relying on market interest rates on any given retirement date. It would provide stabilisation for unsophisticated pensioners (which is most of them) and a cash injection for HM Treasury.
The few times things actually cross his desk, Mr Forensic Detail doesn't seem very good at detail.
I think an apology might be in order.
What Starmer said was
"How can someone sit in her shadow cabinet, advising someone trying to escape sanctions, and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?”
That is true. Unless you are arguing that Abramovich isn't trying to avoid sanctions.
Wolfson seems to have recused himself from giving advice on Ukraine, so he knows he is compromised.
Taking Wolfson's letter at face value:
He's not in the Shadow Cabinet. I think that's uncontroversial.
He is not advising Abramovich on sanctions, certainly not in the UK.
It is nothing to do with the Ukraine money which are the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea held in the UK.
Parliamentary privilege and all that but a PM should be a lot more careful than that in making accusations in the House of Commons.
Yes, it’s nothing to do with the UK. It’s a fairly tricky case where Abramovich’s companies are fighting an investigation into the 7billion frozen by Jersey as the authorities are going after him on the basis that they allege he made the money from money laundering/corruption.
Shame the UK weren’t a bit more concerned about his source of funds many years ago but we are where we are.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
With great difficulty. It’s fine people saying this is going back to what it was before COVID. COVID changed hospitality and going out, it’s a different landscape.
Anyway, as for Kerridge. He signed up for this.
‘Tom Kerridge is among business leaders who have signed a letter that calls for a change in government to address the economy, which they said had “been beset by instability, stagnation and a lack of long-term focus”.
The letter to The Times, signed by 120 founders and chief executives, said that “Labour has shown it has changed and wants to work with business to achieve the UK’s full economic potential’
Some good news for the govt. The 10 year is now back down to levels not seen since November and well under what it was for 2025 as a whole.
Taz, shares also doing well this week , only wednesday and I am up 14K. Fingers crossed it continues.
Nice one Malc. I’m up too. Probably not that much but I’m still pleased 😀 Hopefully Fridays tariff judgement doesn’t send it into reverse.
Do think it cannot go on forever though Taz, have been derisking a fair bit recently as I will likely retire next year.
Downside (and there's always one) is that if gilt rates fall again then annuity rates are likely to fall too. Not ideal if retirement is imminent.
On the whole I think its better for retired people if gilt yields are low. That reflects a climate of little inflation, and thus savings retain their value.
Annuity rates are just set once, and for most there seems little value in them anyway. If you plan to live to 120 then fine, but otherwise drawdown seems a better option.
Annuities are a much better deal now than they were a few years ago, mainly because of the rise in gilt rates. Capital drawdown may well make sense for some people, particularly those with a range of assets, but when you don't know how long you are going to live the income from an annuity (particularly with a widow's pension as well) is something that should be considered. The problem with draw down is once the money is gone its gone.
Some good news for the govt. The 10 year is now back down to levels not seen since November and well under what it was for 2025 as a whole.
Taz, shares also doing well this week , only wednesday and I am up 14K. Fingers crossed it continues.
Nice one Malc. I’m up too. Probably not that much but I’m still pleased 😀 Hopefully Fridays tariff judgement doesn’t send it into reverse.
Do think it cannot go on forever though Taz, have been derisking a fair bit recently as I will likely retire next year.
Downside (and there's always one) is that if gilt rates fall again then annuity rates are likely to fall too. Not ideal if retirement is imminent.
On the whole I think its better for retired people if gilt yields are low. That reflects a climate of little inflation, and thus savings retain their value.
Annuity rates are just set once, and for most there seems little value in them anyway. If you plan to live to 120 then fine, but otherwise drawdown seems a better option.
There might be a case for government-subsidised annuities, rather than relying on market interest rates on any given retirement date. It would provide stabilisation for unsophisticated pensioners (which is most of them) and a cash injection for HM Treasury.
I presume you mean government-backed rather than subsidised. Yes - that seems at first glance to be sensible (I've not heard the suggestion before, although to some extent that's what NI is)
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
With great difficulty. It’s fine people saying this is going back to what it was before COVID. COVID changed hospitality and going out, it’s a different landscape.
Anyway, as for Kerridge. He signed up for this.
‘Tom Kerridge is among business leaders who have signed a letter that calls for a change in government to address the economy, which they said had “been beset by instability, stagnation and a lack of long-term focus”.
The letter to The Times, signed by 120 founders and chief executives, said that “Labour has shown it has changed and wants to work with business to achieve the UK’s full economic potential’
The few times things actually cross his desk, Mr Forensic Detail doesn't seem very good at detail.
I think an apology might be in order.
What Starmer said was
"How can someone sit in her shadow cabinet, advising someone trying to escape sanctions, and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?”
That is true. Unless you are arguing that Abramovich isn't trying to avoid sanctions.
Wolfson seems to have recused himself from giving advice on Ukraine, so he knows he is compromised.
Taking Wolfson's letter at face value:
He's not in the Shadow Cabinet. I think that's uncontroversial.
He is not advising Abramovich on sanctions, certainly not in the UK.
It is nothing to do with the Ukraine money which are the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea held in the UK.
Parliamentary privilege and all that but a PM should be a lot more careful than that in making accusations in the House of Commons.
Not just Starmer. There were a few Labour MPs and Labour supporting accounts on Twitter attacking him for this, quite wrongly it seems.
“ The Tories’ Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, is representing Roman Abramovich in a legal case that is delaying the transfer of £2.5bn of assets to benefit the people of Ukraine.
I’ve written to @KemiBadenoch about the conflicts of interest this raises.”
The few times things actually cross his desk, Mr Forensic Detail doesn't seem very good at detail.
I think an apology might be in order.
What Starmer said was
"How can someone sit in her shadow cabinet, advising someone trying to escape sanctions, and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?”
That is true. Unless you are arguing that Abramovich isn't trying to avoid sanctions.
Wolfson seems to have recused himself from giving advice on Ukraine, so he knows he is compromised.
Taking Wolfson's letter at face value:
He's not in the Shadow Cabinet. I think that's uncontroversial.
He is not advising Abramovich on sanctions, certainly not in the UK.
It is nothing to do with the Ukraine money which are the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea held in the UK.
Parliamentary privilege and all that but a PM should be a lot more careful than that in making accusations in the House of Commons.
Yes, it’s nothing to do with the UK. It’s a fairly tricky case where Abramovich’s companies are fighting an investigation into the 7billion frozen by Jersey as the authorities are going after him on the basis that they allege he made the money from money laundering/corruption.
Shame the UK weren’t a bit more concerned about his source of funds many years ago but we are where we are.
I don't think we should have been concerned about it then, nor should we be concerned about it now. We should welcome capital fleeing Russia. The Swiss don't ask where the money came from and it hasn't done them any harm.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
With great difficulty. It’s fine people saying this is going back to what it was before COVID. COVID changed hospitality and going out, it’s a different landscape.
Anyway, as for Kerridge. He signed up for this.
‘Tom Kerridge is among business leaders who have signed a letter that calls for a change in government to address the economy, which they said had “been beset by instability, stagnation and a lack of long-term focus”.
The letter to The Times, signed by 120 founders and chief executives, said that “Labour has shown it has changed and wants to work with business to achieve the UK’s full economic potential’
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
The pub he is talking about is not his £200 a head place.
Comments
There is also some inclination from the CotW to constrain the level and amount of technology that goes into Ukraine. The post-SMO landscape is unknowable and it's not impossible they end up with a Russia aligned government which will then put all of the gewgaws on the first Candid to Akhtubinsk. Poroshenko could win a presidential election (because he's got loads of fucking money and media access) then turn his cloak (again). BotG is very low risk for them from that perspective.
Kemi is getting act together, but rising support for Tories is barely discernible. They are in second mainly because of Labour decline. Perhaps party support is a lagging indicator?
All this said, a precondition for Tory recovery (not the only one) must be improvement in the leader's credibility. So that is a tick in the box. Long way to go though.
60/40 Left/right
greens replacing Lib Dem as the trendy lefties
Those on the right not loving reform
Labour sort of stuck as the leftover rump
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2008958750338531461?s=61
These sorts of considerations don't seem to have bothered us when expanding Nato.
We don't need no behaviour control.
Hey! Labour! ..leave our pubs alone!
It seems Reform have "chosen" their Mayoral candidate for London - was there a vote among members or did Farage decree it?
Laila Cunningham, a Westminster councillor, is also to be the "face" of Reform during the forthcoming local elections. It was laways likely she, rather than Ant Middleton, would end up the Reform standard bearer and it's an interesting ploy to announce your candidate more than two years before the poll.
On the assumption Sadiq Khan stands again it will be even more interesting who the Conservatives select. After the fiasco of 2024, will Susan Hall be allowed near the election? I suspect she'd like another go - she did better than many thought but not as well as those claiming she had "won" before a vote had been counted.
A Hall candidacy would put a lot of pressure on Cunningham as it's not going to be easy to split the two on a number of issues. @HYUFD has advanced James Cleverly as a contender and fair enough, he certainly brings gravitas to the race as a former Cabinet Minister but I suspect he's waiting to see how the Conservatives fare in May before he jumps.
In 2022, the Conservatives polled 25% in the local elections and took a beating - it may be they could poll a similar number in May and do much better taking more seats off Labour than they will lose to Reform but that wouldn't make the Mayoralty any more likely - indeed, it might suggest the Conservatives and Reform will combine to allow Sadiq to win again - we'll see.
IF the Conservatives poll well especially in east and south east London and see off Reform in places like Bromley and Bexley as well as winning back Barnet, Westminster and perhaps Wandsworth, I suspect Cleverly will see that as a mandate to put himself forward in the gope against a weakened Labour and with Reform ineffective, the Conservatives can regain the Mayoralty - again,. we'll see.
And good point about the lowering of the drink drive limit - it does have overwhelming support and it's one of those things PB is way out of kilter on.
As of January 2026, the Conservative vote share has declined since Kemi Badenoch became Leader of the Opposition on November 2, 2024.
When Badenoch became leader (November 2024): The Conservative party held an average poll-of-polls rating of 26%. Immediately following her appointment, some individual polls showed a slight "Badenoch bounce," with one More in Common poll placing the party at 29%.
Current vote share (January 2026): The Conservative party now averages approximately 19% in recent poll-of-polls and trackers.
This against the one of the most unpopular prime ministers of recent times (neck and neck with Liz Truss)
BREAKING: President Trump announces steps to ban large institutional investors from buying single-family homes.
"People live in homes, not corporations." - President Donald J. Trump
However, that joke just sounds incredibly crass and borderline racist. It may have landed well in the HOC to an audience of cheering Labour MPs, but on paper it's not great.
So freights it with conditions in the hope of sinking it.
I do however disagree with MaxPB (and Farage). We should not wait for others to commit before we make the promise (and follow through with it). I would be voting for this and thankfully it looks like there are more than enough MPs who have their heads screwed on right on this subject that it should pass easily. Farage can whine from under his rock.
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2008963052222468541?s=61
It's that lack of thought, sincerity or consistency - with a remarkable amount of lack of self-awareness - which is why his delivery is always bad and he's neither liked or respected.
So one would hope a good deal of impact. Not least because most of what he supplied was unfit for purpose so he was sending people off to die in boats he knew were likely to capsize or sink.
There's a route to the Tories becoming popular with young people again, making it easier to buy a home, lowering tax, lowering student debt obligations, creating more jobs, investing more in education, and sponsoring new technologies, but I'm not seeing it yet.
Ironically, it's in Labour's interest for her to do so as it splits the opposition.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
Basically Starmers claim he was acting for Abramovich against the UK govt is a lie.
https://x.com/dxw_kc/status/2008938272542839095?s=61
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kksU9eqUcOM
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-changes-to-penalties-for-motoring-offences/proposed-changes-to-penalities-for-motoring-offences#drink-and-drug-driving-1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cj9r1pd18e3o
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2026/01/07/hajar-abdelkader-barely-able-to-play-tennis-in-pro-event/
As I said before, Kemi is now the most hip party leader with under 30s in this country after Polanski, her Stamp Duty cut plan has also gone down well with them.
Indeed, I don't think a Tory leader has been as popular with young voters as Kemi has since Cameron pre 2010! That will at least show the Tory party is not dying out and unlike the last few years is not as pensioner heavy as before, with many pensioners now voting Reform
I’m not allowed to say it in Parliament, but I can here: today the Prime Minister lied and lied and lied again. And he did so to smear a man defending our veterans in court against the Labour government.
Labour have attacked everyone from farmers, to businesses, to veterans, so now they attack David Wolfson, a brilliant KC, to take the attention away from their terrible decisions.
I’m proud to have David in my team. He doesn’t deserve to have his name smeared by low-rent politicians trying to distract from their own failures.
What little integrity the Prime Minister held he surrendered with that shameful performance today.
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2008940677137154134?s=20
That’s sad. Hopefully he’ll be fine
Funny how life goes quickly. It was only last week a video appeared on Twitter from decades ago showing an interview with a young footballer at Scunthorpe and his hopes for the future.
His name. Kevin Keegan. He had Curley hair then too.
Stopped clock syndrome.
"How can someone sit in her shadow cabinet, advising someone trying to escape sanctions, and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?”
That is true. Unless you are arguing that Abramovich isn't trying to avoid sanctions.
Wolfson seems to have recused himself from giving advice on Ukraine, so he knows he is compromised.
Even if Reform now lead the Tories overall nationally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Results
I think it was @edmundintokyo who said the British people hate freedom.
I dismissed it at the time, but I increasingly think he was onto something.
I’m looking at switching accumulation to income funds in a couple of years when my wife retires and drawing that.
I am going to keep some equities and equity funds. That’s something I thought about after discussing investing with Ben Pointer.
As for retiring, based on my experience, don’t hesitate. Life is too short. Enjoy it. I have not regretted it for a single minute. I don’t miss it one bit. Older people in the workplace are not valued, our knowledge and experience isn’t valued. Mind you when I left the guy who replaced me struggled and quit. So my old boss did appreciate what I did then.
I remember seeing a meme. It said ‘somewhere in the world someone the same age as you is living their last day wishing they had more time. Don’t waste what you have left’
He's not in the Shadow Cabinet. I think that's uncontroversial.
He is not advising Abramovich on sanctions, certainly not in the UK.
It is nothing to do with the Ukraine money which are the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea held in the UK.
Parliamentary privilege and all that but a PM should be a lot more careful than that in making accusations in the House of Commons.
Polling during COVID showed a sizeable minority wanted night clubs closed permanently
The spirit of the PB puritan element.
https://djmag.com/news/over-25-brits-want-clubs-stay-closed-permanently
The polls are odd because Reform are leading by such a margin, so the point that they are only just ahead of one of the least popular PMs of recent times (I was pilloried for predicting would be unpopular) is correct whilst being a bit misleading.
Annuity rates are just set once, and for most there seems little value in them anyway. If you plan to live to 120 then fine, but otherwise drawdown seems a better option.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey after fatal shooting: "To ICE: Get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We don't want you here"
We mostly want the freedoms we use/profit from, and hate the ones that others use/we have to pay for.
Joined up thinking. We don't just fail to do it, we often actively cut the connections.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
I’ll be UFPLS or drawdown.
My wife and I agreed, we’ll spend the lot. The beneficiaries can have the house.
According to Wikpedia, at the 2010 election, Labour won 31% with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats tied on 30% among 18-24 year olds. By 2015, Labour were ahead 43-27 among the same age group.
You are right inasmuch as even the 11% recorded by YouGov would be a step forward but if you are going to get carried away by a sub sample of less than 100 people as a basis for building up your party and leader as the alternative Government and Prime Minister (rather than possible junior partners to the real credible alternative) go for it.
Shame the UK weren’t a bit more concerned about his source of funds many years ago but we are where we are.
Anyway, as for Kerridge. He signed up for this.
‘Tom Kerridge is among business leaders who have signed a letter that calls for a change in government to address the economy, which they said had “been beset by instability, stagnation and a lack of long-term focus”.
The letter to The Times, signed by 120 founders and chief executives, said that “Labour has shown it has changed and wants to work with business to achieve the UK’s full economic potential’
https://www.thecaterer.com/news/tom-kerridge-among-business-leaders-calling-for-change-in-government
I am already taking two DB pensions paying £650 a month. My SIPP pension will top that up and I have the state pension in just over 6 years too.
“ The Tories’ Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, is representing Roman Abramovich in a legal case that is delaying the transfer of £2.5bn of assets to benefit the people of Ukraine.
I’ve written to @KemiBadenoch about the conflicts of interest this raises.”
https://x.com/jakebenrichards/status/2005740736432820403?s=61
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
https://thecoachmarlow.co.uk/lunch-dinner-menu-at-the-coach/
We dont need no beer control
Hey Labour - leave our pubs alone!