Farage, not Starmer, is the anti-Midas – politicalbetting.com
Farage, not Starmer, is the anti-Midas – politicalbetting.com
Does Keir Starmer really have a "reverse Midas touch"? A YouGov experiment does not find such an effect on two policies tested – associating Keir Starmer's name with spending more on veterans and spending more on animal welfare made no difference to resultsyougov.co.uk/politics/art…
2
Comments
The last thing the Tories want is for Reform to win the by-election so standing aside would be utterly stupid.
Why doesn’t he go and join Reform and continue his daily fellation of Farage !
I'm trying to eat my breakfast.
Left of centre voters in particular seem to have a strong aversion to anything that's associated with Farage. It's not a small effect.
My question above, which TSE replied to, was slightly tongue in cheek, but it is an interesting question exactly why this should be.
Is there's a rational component to it, or is it essentially extra-rational transference of the understandably negative emotions he invokes ?
The problem for Reform is Farage is marmite. Some love him but plenty despise him due to Brexit. They won’t overcome that and that will harm them.
None of which distracts from my original point.
“James Bowie: Sometimes... it's just the way you say things, Travis. That's all. I swear to God”
The problem Starmer has is not that he’s hated (in the wider world) but that he is seen as ineffectual. People joke about a policy announcement - “how long to the u-turn?”
He’s even said that he can’t get stuff done. Because of The Blob.
Which, for a politician, is like complaining about bad press. The Blob & The Press are part of the terrain.
Matt Goodwin as his preferred candidate for example.
It's a debate about strategy which would have been incomprehensible on a year or so back.
Ukraine is not losing drone warfare tactically. Ukrainian units still kill large numbers of enemy infantry with FPVs daily.
Ukraine is losing operationally and strategically because it never defined depth ownership as the goal.
https://x.com/RyanO_ChosenCoy/status/2013382825475744075
The arguments over defence procurement for the UK army are still rooted in the time before the Ukraine invasion.
If Goodwin loses I promise to never use that Farage photo again.
I'm averse to "pile ons" myself, but I think you conflate both the kind of criticism of parties you indulge in yourself, and the "fighting fire with fire" with pile ons.
There's no bright line between any those things.
Abuse is abuse, and those of us who indulge in it ought not to be quite so convinced of our own righteousness.
So Labour (about 6.5:1) are the closest thing to a value bet for the byelection ...
(which is not very close).
Good morning, everybody.
The question really is are Reform at 30% or mid to high 20s. Nobody seems to agree.
Ukraine is losing operationally and strategically because of unreliable allies and a slowly metastasising political crisis in Kiev. The corrupt, arbitrary and often violent nature of the conscription process meant Z had to yield to domestic pressure and allow young men to leave the country last year. Half a million said cheers and immediately legged it west. All of that has a lot more to do with Ukraine's problems than a failure to define "depth ownership" as a goal.
One problem for No 10 over Chagos is that some in the admin feel that they expended a lot of capital waving through the Chagos deal on behalf of Britain, I hear. There was appetite to back the Brits against the court ruling but No 10 wanted to press ahead. To some, it was a kind gesture which now looks like a waste.
The Ministry of Defence has formally withdrawn Initial Operating Capability for the Ajax armoured vehicle programme, an extraordinary step that underlines the scale of the crisis surrounding one of the British Army’s most troubled procurement projects.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/army-withdraws-ajax-ioc-after-ministers-misled/
Firstly, people do not listen very exactly to the question, especially if it has more than one concept in it.
Secondly, learning this from politics, people often don't answer with precision the question asked but a significant variant of it.
Thirdly, when a question is compound, the responder picks the bit they find simplest. (A minister has been doing this just now on R4 Today.)
And, specifically with regard to the 'introduce Farage name' question, to answer a pollster you are not under oath. An answer, which anyway is no more than instant opinion, will sometimes want to make a display rather than seek a truth. The responder simply wants to say 'I don't like Farage'. It's a tiny exercise of a relevant power in opinion formation.
("Hitler believed in making the trains run on time do you agree with him on this matter?")
I am popular
These Tories want to join because I am popular
We will be more popular with a more experienced team.
A rather glaring error - the more Tories join, the lower Reform slide in the polls. Am I the only one watching a gradual shaving of their polling data and thinking its the Tory effect?
Had decent Tories been joining then maybe it would be different. But its the scumbag Tories, the toxic Tories, the oh God not them Tories who are joining.
Why are Reform popular? Its way beyond stop the boats - they articulate that the country is broken and they will fix it. That they have no plan to fix it doesn't matter, they at least recognise the lived experience of so many.
But they're now adding in the very Tories who not only are seen to have broken Britain, but sneered at the people who are now Reform voters whilst doing it. Once we start seeing Jenrick, Braverman, Zahawi etc as spokespeople I expect the erosion will speed up ever so slightly.
Reform will do very well in the May elections and we'll be distracted from their polling slow slide by it. But it is there.
And we will never know until Farage walks away because I don’t think UKIP is the best example to extrapolate from
Plaid are going to do very well at the expense of labour and reform
Medium term I think it also gives space for the Conservatives to create a more coherent brand, although not sure if they will take or continue the perpetual in fighting of the last decade.
Labour leapfrog into second in this week’s voting intention on 22%. Reform’s lead drops to 7 on 29%, with the Tories third on 20%.
➡️ REF UK 29% (-2)
🌹 LAB 22% (+2)
🌳 CON 20% (-1)
🔶 LIB DEM 13% (nc)
🌍 GREEN 10% (-1)
🟡 SNP 3% (+1)
MoreInCommon
N = 2,016 | 23 - 25/01| Change w 21/01
Leader approvals - it’s very close at the top with Davey on -12 and Badenoch and Farage on -14. Starmer is far behind on -41 though this is higher than he’s been since Autumn, which from qual seems to reflect a recurring international affairs bounce."
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2016426715556262299
There have been a number of media types standing for parliament but how many of them have actually been successful?
I note that in County Durham the council is cutting back on street cleaning and verge cutting - so one of the more visible things will be getting worse (not a dig really, it’s impossible for council tax to keep up with care costs so everything else has to go - it just means Reform is going to cop the blame).
If however labour hang on then May becomes the moment of truth for him, good or bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v81b0XllvgI
The reality is that I think it unlikely Sir Keir goes this year. He will not lead Labour into the election but he’ll quit maybe next year or year after and give somebody a clear run at Reform.
Personally I think Labour’s policies will start to bear fruit over the next 18 months or so and a new leader will have a decent inheritance. I suspect we will hear more on the small boats in the spring and that is really a test for what Labour can or can’t do.
I think people here are far too keen to declare an election in 2029, in 2026.
But I also think Badenoch is doing a decent job so what do I know really?
If Labour can get back up to 26% and squeeze the Greens, repeating 2024 (the victory, not the seats) really doesn’t sound so stupid to me.
What is this "more coherent brand"? I'm told there's a "gap" in the market for something which might be called Conservative but again it all seems very fuzzy and ill-defined.
We even have some extoling "One Nation" though without a scintilla of idea as to what that means in the mid to late 2020s.
"What do the Conservatives stand for?" used to be a question no one asked but now it's a question worth asking. If we start from the basic questions around economic growth and the competing demands of an insecure, ageing society which needs more funds on both defence and social care simultaenously, how can any of this be funded within the current socio-economic framework?
The Revolutionary Communsts would have you believe "the billionaires" are the answer - some might call it legalised extortion and others might argue said billionaires can probably more quicker than a sclerotic Government and take their funds away.
Yes, we can tax a little more and spend a little less and that might help - we can wait for technology to play its part to boost productivity (which is probably the core issue) - why pay a barista to get your coffee order wrong when a machine can get it wrong for you more quickly and efficiently?
I think there's been a values change too again possibly related to the pandemic, possibly related to demographics around the kind of lives we want to live and the role of work and the importance of material acquisition within that life. That's by no means true of everyone and for many it remains a struggle from one week to the next and alleviating that struggle would be a help.
https://x.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/2016427386540003808
@SophyRidgeSky
I asked Liz Kendall about *that* video of @GoodwinMJ that Labour have put out
Presumably that will jump back up again when they do well.
I happen to think that the electorate isn't quite as stupid as pollsters and the more cynical of the posters on here think. Enough voters will support policies regarded as "nasty" in the short term if the long term benefits are explained to them and they are convinced. Ditching policies you know are right because focus groups tell you to worked triumphantly for a once-in-a-generation political genius like Blair, who benefited hugely from the prosperity caused by those policies, but for a second-rate Blair clone like Cameron and the more cynical of his followers, it just made them look even more dishonest and phoney than Tony. It may have just about passed pre-2007, but it didn't really work in the much harsher economic climate of the 2010s.
The vet bills policy less so. I cannot see what the gain is. If they just list prices so people can shop around. People can do that anyway.
Btw hope you’re well. Nice to see you back
One canary in the coalmine will be local independent shops where charges are currently held artificially low.
Time will tell.
On a separate note, I have not seen whether it is retrospective, or applies to commercial properties.
For vets, aiui the problem is that it is turning into an oligopolistic market. 60% of the market is owned by 6 corporate groups, with vertical integration. 15 year ago it was 10% of the market.
I’m in a Reform-Labour seat and would consider Reform but not if it’s a failed Tory tribute act, not if it fiscally imprudent and not if Darren Grimes is the candidate.
Everything sane they've tried to do, they've U-turned on because their back benches won't wear it.
Most of the insane stuff they've tried to do they've either U-turned on or gutted, because it's been obvious the country won't wear it or can't afford it.
About the only things they appear to have achieved are putting VAT on private schools, and taxing businesses lots more to pay for bungs to public sector workers and those on benefits.
The only sort of fruit any of that is likely to produce will resemble a turd. It's hardly laying the foundations of a new golden age...
He's now got a bench of experienced politicians looking over his shoulder.
But, yes, it could have unintended consequences. Once the bill is published we will get more of an idea.
The govt is in a difficult position here as they need to get it right and ensure there’s no unintended consequences but they are already being accused of caving into freeholders by a very vocal and well supported by the media, anti freehold lobbying group.
Do any of the other parties really offer that? Certainly not Reform, that's for sure.
It was a key element of Thatcherism, and the Tories have a certain degree of historical credibility with their emphasis on the "property-owning democracy" and lower the tax burden, especially on business. (In fact, businesses are a very much neglected interest group which, I imagine, is why Street and Davidson have so much emphasised that during the ProsperUK launch. Focusing on that would be way of moving on from the Brexit wars which trashed the party;s reputation with much of the business community.)
Applicants will be allowed to work in any sector to help curb ‘institutional racism that only fuels exploitation and racist hatred’"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/01/27/spain-half-million-migrants-legal-status-defeat-far-right
Edit yep first 2 figures I found were 25.5% and 29% - so this idea is utterly insane
It might help with young people though who were less keen on Brexit and back Kemi's Stamp Duty abolition proposal
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
Members of the UK team are all on "disposable burner phone numbers and temporary email addresses", our political editor Chris Mason reports from the flight to Beijing. Modern tech like iPads and earbuds have all been "left at home under the bed", swapped for "notepads and pens" and other kit "that they might not bring back", he says. "Such is the anxiety about security, about bugging, about spying."
I was advised this for even non-mainland like Hong Kong, as it is now not deemed safe from spying by many Western companies with valuable IP.
It helps Labour because it gives them an opportunity to win back some of the voters they have lost in cities and the north, and it helps the Tories - probably only marginally - by making their party a little less repellent.
Reform needs to lose and this just gives them another attack line against labour
1) +38
2) +4
3) 55
4) 47
5) Ref 14%
6) 24%
7) 10
8) Starmer
9) No
10) £129.5 billion
11)1.7%
12) England
Don't forget - entries must be posted or PM'ed to me by midnight on Saturday 31 January.
New empty laptop, different email address - rebuilt on return (it was a one off visit, otherwise you had a separate going to the US laptop).
The 2015 and 2019 Conservative campaigns were more successful as they focused on lower middle class and skilled working class swing voters and the economy and Brexit respectively
What they do need to do is focus on working age people more widely - the youngest cohorts of voters will probably always be stony ground for the sensible right - and escape from the cul-de-sac of appealing only to retired baby-boomers.
The question isn't how oppositions win but how Governments lose. We've only had three changes of Government since 1979 which is remarkable. I would argue in all three cases there wasn't so much a huge outpouring of enthusiasm for the opposition as much as a fatigue with the incumbent Government which had been in office for over a decade (albeit with different Prime Ministers).
Whether we are going back to a period of alternating one term Governments I don't know - it's also perfectly possible for deeply unpopular Governments to recover support as an election approaches but it doesn't always happen.
The emergence of Reform might or might not complicate things - it's too early to tell, the SDP were supposed to break the mould but didn't and there's no guarantee Reform's lustre will still be the same in what may look a very different world in 2029.
The paradox is voters often call for "honesty" from politicians but the voters run away from honesty if it's not what they want to hear so there's no electoral incentive for politicians to be honest.
An "honest" debate about immigration for example wouldn't start from where we are in terms of perceptions of numbers vs reality. We now have ethno-nationalism as a growing albeit still minority viewpoint so we've gone well beyond "boats" - it's about people who look different, sound different, worship a different God etc, etc. That cuts through to fundamental questions about the kind of Britain we want to live in and whether that model is any way economically and socially viable.