Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
In the extremely hypothetical situation of a minority Labour government depending on SNP votes on a case by case basis, the SNP will just have to take a leaf out of Labour’s book and abstain, abstain, abstain. Since these points of difference will likely be on the Tory-lite policies that Labour feel they have to pursue to prove that they’re not wild eyed Marxists to English voters, I’m sceptical that Scotland’s electorate is going to see not supporting those as a betrayal of the left. In any case the instinctive tradition of voting Labour/anti-Tory that was alive and well in Scotland in 1979 is now a distant memory. Labour’s single Scottish mp depending on Tory tactical votes to stay in (admittedly very secure) place is proof of that.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Not impossible. Dietrich Mateschitz[sp] showed that with Red Bull. A difference is that Stroll has his son as a driver, but it's intriguing that he's gone for Aston Martin with the aim of making them almost a British version of Ferrari.
Even given the time to wait I think isam will have gotten a good value bet here. Fair point by Nick Palmer though, I'm eying up the right time for a bet on Tories Most Seats and the odds may shift in the post-conference polling bump.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
To put Isam's bet in perspective, he loses it (Tories 325 seats or fewer - current boundaries) if everything stays the same except the LDs win their top 10 Tory target seats (of which the hardest is Guildford) and Labour win their top 30 Tory targets of which the hardest is Pudsey.
I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.
When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.
The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.
On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.
Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
If Johnson were able to find a third person, equal to the task of levelling up the North, or fixing social care, then I think he would confound expectations again. Free piece of advice: that person is not Dido Harding.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Golden PB rule, further away one is from Scotland, the easier it is to read Sturgeon’s true motives.
There is no need for any pacts. If the electorate want to get rid of this government it will find ways to do it. A ton of Labour supporters voted LibDem in 1997 in seats where the LDs were the challengers - and stuck with them al the way through to 2015. For 20 years or so the anti-Tory party was the biggest in the UK. It has been replaced by the anti-Labour party. I think that's the way to see things, certainly in England. Under FPTP, so many votes are negative, rather than positive. That's why the Tory number is always the most interesting in any opinion poll. Once it starts dipping below 40, things begin to get vaguely interesting.
Correct. Formal pacts are probably more trouble than they're worth, but parties mostly know where to focus their efforts. Labour does much better than the LibDems in in SE outside London in every poll, but the LibDems do better in elections in most seats in the region, simply because in many seats it's obvious that they have a better chance of beating the Tories. The reverse also works up to a point - in Canterbury, even though the LibDems insisted on putting up a candidate when their previous one endorsed Labour, the LD vote dropped by a third as people could see the Tory threat.
The problem with 2019 was the lack of reciprocity. There was a willingness from our side to work with people's vote but Labour refused. The Corbyn cult refused to accept that the Jeremy was not universally adored, and any other vote than Labour would be treason.
Then we had the shameful spectacle of "there's no anti-semitism its all Tory lies" Labour activists being flooded into Finchley and Golders Green knowing that only Berger could take the seat off the Tory incumbent. The uppity jew traitor had to be stopped at all costs.
At a local level there was a concerted effort to do tactical voting. Even where Labour and LibDem candidates are both running you can target different voters.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
The problem with that narrative for BoZo fans is, like Indiana Jones, if you remove him from the picture the result is the same.
Smart capable people delivering things is great, and the fact that BoZo didn't prevent it from happening is a coincidence...
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Golden PB rule, further away one is from Scotland, the easier it is to read Sturgeon’s true motives.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Nippy doesn't want it.
Right now she has all the glory, and none of the pain of actually doing it.
Bit like BoZo. Winning the referendum was not what he wanted.
It just isn't true. The SNP exist for independence. If they didn't want it the easiest thing in the world would be to step back now and say "we can't have it". No, instead it is "we want it and you will give it".
So I believe you are wrong for three reasons. One - the SNP are pressing ahead with the referendum bid Two - the SNP actually believe it the long term aim and benefits Three - the SNP know that if there is no independence coming other parties are available. Let a few years slip past, have more questions asked about murk in the SNP and the idea of Alba taking over isn't daft.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Golden PB rule, further away one is from Scotland, the easier it is to read Sturgeon’s true motives.
I read Scotland from an England where Scotland is visible from a few yards up the road and where huge numbers of lives would be disrupted by an EU border. And, BTW, look at an election map; the Tories hold every Scottish and English seat on the border.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
The problem with that narrative for BoZo fans is, like Indiana Jones, if you remove him from the picture the result is the same.
Smart capable people delivering things is great, and the fact that BoZo didn't prevent it from happening is a coincidence...
To take the example of cycle infrastructure, Andrew Gilligan made a lot more progress than had been made under Livingstone, or has subsequently been made under Khan. He was appointed by Boris Johnson, and the Labour Mayors have either appointed less capable people, or they have been too worried about upsetting the status quo to back cycling infrastructure and create change.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson, but I do like infrastructure for cycling, I want to see change more generally, and it's instructive to look at why change has happened in the past, and why it doesn't.
The vaccine taskforce is also an interesting example, because the whole thing seems to have gone to pieces after Kate Bingham left. Would PM Corbyn or Starmer have appointed her in the first place?
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
The problem with that narrative for BoZo fans is, like Indiana Jones, if you remove him from the picture the result is the same.
Smart capable people delivering things is great, and the fact that BoZo didn't prevent it from happening is a coincidence...
It's called delegation. The idea that ministers (or Prime Ministers) should read every single paper in the government and act on them is insane. No business is run like that.
In the real world, effective leaders appoint effective subordinates to carry out tasks, and give them the resources and latitude to carry it out.
The definition of leadership competence is -
1) The ability to select such subordinates 2) Giving them clear mandates and resources 3) Monitoring them, without jogging their elbows all the time 4) Understanding what is going on to enable 3)
I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.
When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.
The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.
On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.
Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
If Johnson were able to find a third person, equal to the task of levelling up the North, or fixing social care, then I think he would confound expectations again. Free piece of advice: that person is not Dido Harding.
I've just realised. If we have an Election in May '23 as seems likely, then the social care 'fix' will not even have started. It starts in October 2023.
Johnson will have the perfect excuse as to why social care is still shit if it comes up on the campaign trail during which of course anyway he will avoid discussing any serious issue anyway.
1) The ability to select such subordinates 2) Giving them clear mandates and resources 3) Monitoring them, without jogging their elbows all the time 4) Understanding what is going on to enable 3)
If indeed BoZo is a competent leader by those standards, explain the current cabinet?
The evidence suggests the vaccine program was a success despite BoZo.
To put Isam's bet in perspective, he loses it (Tories 325 seats or fewer - current boundaries) if everything stays the same except the LDs win their top 10 Tory target seats (of which the hardest is Guildford) and Labour win their top 30 Tory targets of which the hardest is Pudsey.
Pudsey needs a 3.2 pp swing to fall. Problem is, there's a lot of incumbency bonus in those top 30 targets. This will be mitigated to some extent by boundary changes, but apparently, they help the Tories anyway.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
The problem with that narrative for BoZo fans is, like Indiana Jones, if you remove him from the picture the result is the same.
Smart capable people delivering things is great, and the fact that BoZo didn't prevent it from happening is a coincidence...
To take the example of cycle infrastructure, Andrew Gilligan made a lot more progress than had been made under Livingstone, or has subsequently been made under Khan. He was appointed by Boris Johnson, and the Labour Mayors have either appointed less capable people, or they have been too worried about upsetting the status quo to back cycling infrastructure and create change.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson, but I do like infrastructure for cycling, I want to see change more generally, and it's instructive to look at why change has happened in the past, and why it doesn't.
The vaccine taskforce is also an interesting example, because the whole thing seems to have gone to pieces after Kate Bingham left. Would PM Corbyn or Starmer have appointed her in the first place?
Andrew Gilligan also fixed a big chunk of the river transport issues - he realised that a tiny amount of work would make the wash considerations from a handful of people in houseboats go away, and most importantly, de-prioritised the non-existent commercial traffic on the river.
Enders Analysis: “Right now, there are probably 20,000 or 30,000 people watching [GB News], which is nothing. That is why they have to move towards an extreme to have some sort of impact and continue to be talked about."
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
The problem with that narrative for BoZo fans is, like Indiana Jones, if you remove him from the picture the result is the same.
Smart capable people delivering things is great, and the fact that BoZo didn't prevent it from happening is a coincidence...
It's called delegation. The idea that ministers (or Prime Ministers) should read every single paper in the government and act on them is insane. No business is run like that.
In the real world, effective leaders appoint effective subordinates to carry out tasks, and give them the resources and latitude to carry it out.
The definition of leadership competence is -
1) The ability to select such subordinates 2) Giving them clear mandates and resources 3) Monitoring them, without jogging their elbows all the time 4) Understanding what is going on to enable 3)
True, but for every Kate Bingham BoJo appoints, there's a Dido Harding.
And in politics, it takes a bit more courage to appoint effective subordinates, because they really will be after your job. The PM prefers to appoint weaklings, ninnies and the hopelessly compromised to Cabinet roles in the main.
Right now I think we’re between Hung Parliament and 2015 repeat (which I suppose is quite similar to 1992).
I’ve already laid the Tory majority in 2024 previously and have done so again, I think there is value there.
My gut feeling is that Johnson and that the Tories are disappointing people left, right and centre and that their voter coalition is falling apart.
I think Jeremy Corbyn kept that coalition together - and I supported him so of course take my current thoughts with that in mind - but I think the idea Starmer is going to do worse is for the birds. Right now the polls are saying we have a Hung Parliament despite Starmer having no policies at all and being rather unknown by most. I consider that a substantially better position than Corbyn was in by the end. Not Corbyn is probably worth a few points on its own.
I’ve said for a long time that 2024 is the Lib Dem revival not Labour and ultimately I think what will push us into HP territory is the Lib Dems. I will bet on Guildford and Winchester as being probable Lib Dem gains.
I think there’s a lot of bad coming down the track and the polls show us how fundamentally weak the Tory vote actually is. It was at over 50 at the start of COVID (was it not?) and now it is slowly going below 40.
I also think 2024 could be just a very poor turnout election.
To put Isam's bet in perspective, he loses it (Tories 325 seats or fewer - current boundaries) if everything stays the same except the LDs win their top 10 Tory target seats (of which the hardest is Guildford) and Labour win their top 30 Tory targets of which the hardest is Pudsey.
And @isam has a cushion with the boundary conditions.
There are 8 Welsh seats before Pudsey, but in reality some of these won't exist as independent constituencies but will be merged.
It is not a plump cushion, but I can see it making the difference & delivering a John Major style result for the Tories.
There is a strong incentive for Starmer and Davey to have an informal understanding that their parties won’t put anything like the same effort into a particular seat if the evidence shows that the other one is best placed to beat the Tory.
Starmer appeals to a particular kind of person -- in fact, a leftish LibDemm-er.
Unhappily, these are actually not the kind of people Starmer needs to win the seats he has got to win.
So, I am wary of claims that "informal pacts" will oust the Tories. It may make a difference in < 10 seats.
I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.
When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.
The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.
On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.
Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
If Johnson were able to find a third person, equal to the task of levelling up the North, or fixing social care, then I think he would confound expectations again. Free piece of advice: that person is not Dido Harding.
Indeed. You really need a “Get Sh!t Done” department, with sufficient authority to get rid of the bureaucracy and scope creep that strangles most government delivery of projects.
I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but Cummings was right about this stuff.
A good example coming down the line might be free ports, if they can get a couple up and running before the election.
Not impossible. Dietrich Mateschitz[sp] showed that with Red Bull. A difference is that Stroll has his son as a driver, but it's intriguing that he's gone for Aston Martin with the aim of making them almost a British version of Ferrari.
It's possible but not with how Aston Martin are set up as a Mercedes B team. They'd need for the works team to exit the sport but keep making engines and for McLaren to self-immolate as they did from 2014 until this season.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
Enders Analysis: “Right now, there are probably 20,000 or 30,000 people watching [GB News], which is nothing. That is why they have to move towards an extreme to have some sort of impact and continue to be talked about."
(Telegraph)
More people obsess about this channel on twitter and Facebook than actually watch it.
It’s staggering how this channel continues to live, rent free, in so many peoples heads.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Its the same argument (sometimes made by the same people) as those who say that Boris didn't want to win the 2016 Referendum.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Golden PB rule, further away one is from Scotland, the easier it is to read Sturgeon’s true motives.
That's a tad unfair on Stockholm's finest.
If you're referring to Stuart, I don't remember him ever speculating on Sturgeon's motives unlike the compulsion to do so certain parties have on here.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
In the extremely hypothetical situation of a minority Labour government depending on SNP votes on a case by case basis, the SNP will just have to take a leaf out of Labour’s book and abstain, abstain, abstain. Since these points of difference will likely be on the Tory-lite policies that Labour feel they have to pursue to prove that they’re not wild eyed Marxists to English voters, I’m sceptical that Scotland’s electorate is going to see not supporting those as a betrayal of the left. In any case the instinctive tradition of voting Labour/anti-Tory that was alive and well in Scotland in 1979 is now a distant memory. Labour’s single Scottish mp depending on Tory tactical votes to stay in (admittedly very secure) place is proof of that.
I am sure there will be a lot of abstention. The big calls will be on things like the budget. If that does not pass, it brings the government down. Will the SNP abstain on a redistributive budget and allow the Tories to vote it down?
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Golden PB rule, further away one is from Scotland, the easier it is to read Sturgeon’s true motives.
I read Scotland from an England where Scotland is visible from a few yards up the road and where huge numbers of lives would be disrupted by an EU border. And, BTW, look at an election map; the Tories hold every Scottish and English seat on the border.
Fair enough, a few yards from'seeing' Scotland, or the bit of it which holds a tiny part of its population, is the insight we're all looking for.
At the moment the polling suggests a hung parliament is the likeliest result.
In which case CCHQ will push the idea of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket much as they did with the posters they had of Ed Miliband in Salmond's pocket in 2015 '
I didn’t have a massive bet on it yesterday, I have just been chipping away on Betfair every week or so for a while and hope to have a decent amount for me, maybe 5-10k down by Election Day. My thinking is, as most people have said, an 80 seat majority is hard to lose, and Boris is more well liked and charismatic than Sir Keir - generally LotOs don’t become PM unless their ratings are way ahead of the incumbent. Mid term, and the Tories have just introduced an unpopular policy, had a pandemic, Afghanistan etc and they/he still lead(s) in almost all polls, I think that’s really good for their chances because when GE comes around they’ll be throwing the red meat about, people will see Boris vs Sir Keir on tv, and the latter is not proving to be the game changer Labour need with the public.
Mr. Max, the Mercedes question is an interesting one. Manufacturers can be keen to run away when they aren't winning or just doing well enough.
McLaren is a serious rival but I wonder if Aston Martin's financial muscle is significant enough to make that a battle of equals. For a few seasons, they were the best of the rest or thereabouts so Force India/Racing Point/Aston Martin has a pretty strong record.
One area of weakness is the driver lineup. Norris and Ricciardo, especially now the Aussie has returned to form, would appear to be significantly better than Stroll and Vettel (still not back to his best but improved from his weak last season at Ferrari).
I was looking forward to watching the Norwegian election night show. Unfortunately I totally forgot the election was today. For some reason I thought it was around 20th September. Maybe it'll appear on YouTube to watch retrospectively.
'I was looking forward to watching the Norwegian election night show.'
Only on PB, never mind you have election night shows from Canada and Germany in the next 2 weeks
What's the position on early voting/postal votes in Germany and Canada? I'm curious in case of late polling changes.
Someone said it ws expected to be 33% of the German electorate, perhaps 50% of the turnout. Not sure about Canada.
For those who read Norwegian or can be bothered to run it through deepl, this is a good analysis which can be thought-provoking for other countries' parties:
The Greens (who fell short of 4%) thought it would be a good election for them because climate change has become a really big issue there. The problem was that several other parties noticed and embraced the issue as well. Thus under PR it's better to have a niche issue that really motivates 10% of the electorate than an issue which everyone cares about. The Reds (who broke through the 4% threshold) did it by embracing some niche issues outside their classic marxism like opposition to wind energy stations if it disrupted nature. The Christian Democrats fell short because they focused on their traditional anti-abortion core vote and alienated the moderate Christians who only go to church occasionally.
None of that is very relevant under FPTP, and it illustrates the quite different thinking that a different electoral system produces.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
A Labour government reliant on SNP support to stay in power means indyref2 but also a Yes vote is less likely, as Labour not Boris and the Tories would be in power, Scottish MPs effectively would be in power at Westminster and Starmer would likely offer devomax too.
However if the Scots still voted for independence after that then the Tories as largest party at Westminster would likely still automatically return to power if and when Scottish MPs left the Commons
Not impossible. Dietrich Mateschitz[sp] showed that with Red Bull. A difference is that Stroll has his son as a driver, but it's intriguing that he's gone for Aston Martin with the aim of making them almost a British version of Ferrari.
It's possible but not with how Aston Martin are set up as a Mercedes B team. They'd need for the works team to exit the sport but keep making engines and for McLaren to self-immolate as they did from 2014 until this season.
They’ve also outsourced the power units for their new road cars to Mercedes, the whole structure of the companies rely on each other extensively. I think the F1 cost cap will bring the four Mercedes teams closer together in the coming years, as the works team can’t continue to throw £300m a season at it. There’s already been quite the movement of engineers from Brackley to Woking, Silverstone and Grove.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Golden PB rule, further away one is from Scotland, the easier it is to read Sturgeon’s true motives.
I read Scotland from an England where Scotland is visible from a few yards up the road and where huge numbers of lives would be disrupted by an EU border. And, BTW, look at an election map; the Tories hold every Scottish and English seat on the border.
Fair enough, a few yards from'seeing' Scotland, or the bit of it which holds a tiny part of its population, is the insight we're all looking for.
Ah, it's great to see self-appointed guardians of who can be insightful on a topic, regardless of the accuracy of their post.
(It appears as though anyone you agree with gets a free pass, whereas you try to find a feeble reason to discount the views of anyone you disagree with. They're not Scottish. They don't live in Scotland. They have a name ending in B. They posted at 09.19 in the morning.)
What age range is this? ie does it include 12-16yr olds?
Its share of population so it includes children yes. So it reflects the fact that the UK scientists hadn't greenlighted children's jabs.
Plus its hilarious that those wanting to knock the UK have had to switch from "fully jabbed" (when the UK was running a deliberate single jab policy early on) to now reporting based on "single jabbed" (when the UK has finished double-jabbing adults now). France for instance is catching up with us on fully jabbed, which is unsurprising when we basically finished jabbing months ago, but they're still behind us at it stands.
I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.
When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.
The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.
On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.
Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
If Johnson were able to find a third person, equal to the task of levelling up the North, or fixing social care, then I think he would confound expectations again. Free piece of advice: that person is not Dido Harding.
Indeed. You really need a “Get Sh!t Done” department, with sufficient authority to get rid of the bureaucracy and scope creep that strangles most government delivery of projects.
I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but Cummings was right about this stuff.
A good example coming down the line might be free ports, if they can get a couple up and running before the election.
I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.
When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.
The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.
On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.
Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
If Johnson were able to find a third person, equal to the task of levelling up the North, or fixing social care, then I think he would confound expectations again. Free piece of advice: that person is not Dido Harding.
Indeed. You really need a “Get Sh!t Done” department, with sufficient authority to get rid of the bureaucracy and scope creep that strangles most government delivery of projects.
I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but Cummings was right about this stuff.
A good example coming down the line might be free ports, if they can get a couple up and running before the election.
The problem is the cult of heroic leadership - the leader does everything. So a minister who is "good" reads 20 red boxes a night. And knows the number of bog rolls ordered by a hospital in Luton. But can't actually get anything done, because he has been memorising bog roll orders.
What age range is this? ie does it include 12-16yr olds?
Whole population
Portugal at 86.7% is staggeringly high. It implies a take up of 97% in over 12s looking at their population pyramid. I'd question it even though the Portugese fertility rate is only 1.29 (Not many kids there). I think it's high but 86.7% with 0 - 11 excluded doesn't pass the sniff test.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
Hello all! Not by any means a 'good' morning here. Showers, threats of heavier rain and the central heating doesn't work. However it's 16degC, outside, the plumber is here and he's knows, from having checked last week, what he has to do. So shortly all be well, except, of course, the bill!
Old King Cole, for one reason and another, (and not just because of the prospect of plumbers bill) isn't a very happy old soul. He really, really, doesn't like what the present Government, and not just it's leader, are doing. He agrees that there was de facto, if not de jure Lib-Lab tactical voting from about the early 90's to immediately after 2010, but wonders whether that will actually revive where it's needed. However, he's cheered by the fact that, apparently, a lot of young people who didn't vote in 2019 will next time, will next, and won't vote Tory. Plus by 2024, or even 2023, there will be a lot of people who have achieved 18, and quite few of his generation who won't be on the register by 2023/4.
I've just realised. If we have an Election in May '23 as seems likely, then the social care 'fix' will not even have started. It starts in October 2023.
Johnson will have the perfect excuse as to why social care is still shit if it comes up on the campaign trail during which of course anyway he will avoid discussing any serious issue anyway.
Social care will (unhappily) never, ever be fixed.
It falls into a class of problems (like immigration) which can never be fixed.
1. It is difficult to identify the fair solution, 2. It is difficult to implement the fair solution, once identified. 3. It is difficult to overcome vested interests, with the wailing of the losers always outweighing the plaudits of the gainers. 4. Any gains from solving the problem are long term and won't help a politician win the next GE. In fact, they will actively contribute to a loss.
It is far better to boot the problem down the road. That is what Boris has done with social care (as tbf has every PM since Blair).
How a democracy actually goes about fixing these kind of problems, I have absolutely no idea.
What age range is this? ie does it include 12-16yr olds?
Whole population
Portugal at 86.7% is staggeringly high. It implies a take up of 97% in over 12s looking at their population pyramid. I'd question it even though the Portugese fertility rate is only 1.29 (Not many kids there). I think it's high but 86.7% with 0 - 11 excluded doesn't pass the sniff test.
Its possible though. Portugal has been hit harder than the UK has throughout Covid (not that our media reports the goings on in Portugal much).
Plus antivaxxer memes possibly target the English speaking world more.
97%+ is what we got in the high age groups. If antivaxx sentiment hasn't taken hold in Portugal its possible they'd achieve that throughout. Especially if more people have known people who've died from Covid.
EDIT: Though quite possible of course they're using the wrong denominator.
What age range is this? ie does it include 12-16yr olds?
Whole population
Portugal at 86.7% is staggeringly high. It implies a take up of 97% in over 12s looking at their population pyramid. I'd question it even though the Portugese fertility rate is only 1.29 (Not many kids there). I think it's high but 86.7% with 0 - 11 excluded doesn't pass the sniff test.
I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.
When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.
The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.
On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.
Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
If Johnson were able to find a third person, equal to the task of levelling up the North, or fixing social care, then I think he would confound expectations again. Free piece of advice: that person is not Dido Harding.
Indeed. You really need a “Get Sh!t Done” department, with sufficient authority to get rid of the bureaucracy and scope creep that strangles most government delivery of projects.
I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but Cummings was right about this stuff.
A good example coming down the line might be free ports, if they can get a couple up and running before the election.
Blair was good at this, with his Delivery Unit - it got sh*t done fairly ruthlessly - hospital waiting lists, class sizes, trains on time etc. Michael Barber was a key figure, along with Campbell and Mandelson of course. People disapproved of some of the target setting etc., but it worked.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Golden PB rule, further away one is from Scotland, the easier it is to read Sturgeon’s true motives.
I read Scotland from an England where Scotland is visible from a few yards up the road and where huge numbers of lives would be disrupted by an EU border. And, BTW, look at an election map; the Tories hold every Scottish and English seat on the border.
Fair enough, a few yards from'seeing' Scotland, or the bit of it which holds a tiny part of its population, is the insight we're all looking for.
Ah, it's great to see self-appointed guardians of who can be insightful on a topic, regardless of the accuracy of their post.
(It appears as though anyone you agree with gets a free pass, whereas you try to find a feeble reason to discount the views of anyone you disagree with. They're not Scottish. They don't live in Scotland. They have a name ending in B. They posted at 09.19 in the morning.)
If they spout repetitive clichés I'll certainly judge them.
Speaking of which, you bleating about nasty Nats disparaging PB Sc**** expertise is getting a tad familiar.
I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.
When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.
The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.
On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.
Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
If Johnson were able to find a third person, equal to the task of levelling up the North, or fixing social care, then I think he would confound expectations again. Free piece of advice: that person is not Dido Harding.
I've just realised. If we have an Election in May '23 as seems likely, then the social care 'fix' will not even have started. It starts in October 2023.
Johnson will have the perfect excuse as to why social care is still shit if it comes up on the campaign trail during which of course anyway he will avoid discussing any serious issue anyway.
May '23 is old boundaries.
He can call the election in August/September 2023 and it will be 'fixed' for the following month already, not taken effect yet, and the new boundaries will have kicked in.
Yep it's a good bet and £5-10k is about the right amount to make it worth tying up the money by that time. But I think a lot will come clearer of course nearer the time with the shortened odds, if that is the case, compensated by the time value of money/opportunity cost of using it elsewhere in the meantime.
People saying in here ‘Boris has got to deliver’ but he has delivered - Brexit, Vaccines, and attempted to do something about Social Care
Like it or not he has tangible evidence of delivering what other people couldn’t do/said was impossible.
Vaccines has been good. Brexit opinion will be divided and results will take a very long time to filter into changed opinions, either way around. Social care will get worse not better, the "attempt" is just smoke and mirrors, the money raised is really for general taxation, or NHS if one is feeling generous.
One thing that might temper the amount I bet on this is we just got a £1250 final gas bill upon leaving our rented accommodation! This is despite paying £90 a month Direct Debit. They even mailed us to say the meter reading looked too high, but it is correct. Not had the heating on for 6 months, and the cooker was electric. Does a hot bath most nights cost that much????
Hello all! Not by any means a 'good' morning here. Showers, threats of heavier rain and the central heating doesn't work. However it's 16degC, outside, the plumber is here and he's knows, from having checked last week, what he has to do. So shortly all be well, except, of course, the bill!
Old King Cole, for one reason and another, (and not just because of the prospect of plumbers bill) isn't a very happy old soul. He really, really, doesn't like what the present Government, and not just it's leader, are doing. He agrees that there was de facto, if not de jure Lib-Lab tactical voting from about the early 90's to immediately after 2010, but wonders whether that will actually revive where it's needed. However, he's cheered by the fact that, apparently, a lot of young people who didn't vote in 2019 will next time, will next, and won't vote Tory. Plus by 2024, or even 2023, there will be a lot of people who have achieved 18, and quite few of his generation who won't be on the register by 2023/4.
Hope it’s all sorted for you soon OKC, sending you best wishes.
I agree with your post but every election we hear young people will turn out and every time they sit on their hands.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
Tebbit's speech was at the 1981 Conservative conference - a time when there was serious unemployment everywhere in the UK and would continue to be until the late 1980s.
And even then when there were large scale job opportunities in London and the south-east that coincided with house prices soaring.
The situation now is more promising with job opportunities in many places throughout the country including those with affordable housing.
Again on this thread, there seem to be two groups:
1) Agree with isam et al 2) Its too early so wait and see
I am in group 1 with the majority, but group 3 (disagree and want the opposite bet at current prices) is conspicuously missing, but must be around somewhere. Who are they and why are they not represented at all on a big politics forum? Shy Labour backers?
Again on this thread, there seem to be two groups:
1) Agree with isam et al 2) Its too early so wait and see
I am in group 1 with the majority, but group 3 (disagree and want the opposite bet at current prices) is conspicuously missing, but must be around somewhere. Who are they and why are they not represented at all on a big politics forum? Shy Labour backers?
Hello all! Not by any means a 'good' morning here. Showers, threats of heavier rain and the central heating doesn't work. However it's 16degC, outside, the plumber is here and he's knows, from having checked last week, what he has to do. So shortly all be well, except, of course, the bill!
Old King Cole, for one reason and another, (and not just because of the prospect of plumbers bill) isn't a very happy old soul. He really, really, doesn't like what the present Government, and not just it's leader, are doing. He agrees that there was de facto, if not de jure Lib-Lab tactical voting from about the early 90's to immediately after 2010, but wonders whether that will actually revive where it's needed. However, he's cheered by the fact that, apparently, a lot of young people who didn't vote in 2019 will next time, will next, and won't vote Tory. Plus by 2024, or even 2023, there will be a lot of people who have achieved 18, and quite few of his generation who won't be on the register by 2023/4.
Hope it’s all sorted for you soon OKC, sending you best wishes.
I agree with your post but every election we hear young people will turn out and every time they sit on their hands.
Corbyn did get much higher support from students over the tuition fees issue.
Which means Labour has a problem on whether to keep Corbyn's plan to cancel student debt or to lose many of those votes.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Golden PB rule, further away one is from Scotland, the easier it is to read Sturgeon’s true motives.
I read Scotland from an England where Scotland is visible from a few yards up the road and where huge numbers of lives would be disrupted by an EU border. And, BTW, look at an election map; the Tories hold every Scottish and English seat on the border.
Fair enough, a few yards from'seeing' Scotland, or the bit of it which holds a tiny part of its population, is the insight we're all looking for.
Ah, it's great to see self-appointed guardians of who can be insightful on a topic, regardless of the accuracy of their post.
(It appears as though anyone you agree with gets a free pass, whereas you try to find a feeble reason to discount the views of anyone you disagree with. They're not Scottish. They don't live in Scotland. They have a name ending in B. They posted at 09.19 in the morning.)
If they spout repetitive clichés I'll certainly judge them.
Speaking of which, you bleating about nasty Nats disparaging PB Sc**** expertise is getting a tad familiar.
I haven't mentioned 'nats' have I? I think the only time I've got involved in these conversations recently was when your fellow traveller opined on the evil English from his home in Stockholm. Which, using your 'logic', is fairly hilarious. Especially when his posts are just filled with nasty, repetitive clichés.
At least Malc has charming humour on his side. At least, I think it's meant to be humour...
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
If Starmer gets into office then if he knows Scotland leaving the UK will see the Tories return to power, then he'll be in a position to change more in the constitution than just Scotland's place in it.
Its very dangerous for the Tories to let that happen, which is why if Scotland were to go its better for the Tories that they're the ones in power to manage the fallout from that.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
When the story is Covid is finally written as history, we need to take a lot of things into account. The later lag in vaccines is troubling but less important than being quick off the mark to get a high fraction of the country offered a jab. The UK's vaccine situation is still a success and prevented a lot of deaths.
That said, the early response was dire, and the excess deaths (worse than Belgium, Austria, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Israel, Canada, Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Japan, Singapore, Iceland, Norway, Australia, Taiwan, New Zealand, and a host of other countries) paint a dire picture.
Important to keep the overall response in mind, and a fair summary is that vaccines are not really where the bad news is.
Agree and I was pondering this the other day (why even yesterday I believe) when it came to a discussion with @Gardenwalker about timing of locking down. What was the smoking gun behind those excess deaths. Was it the timing of lockdown? Care homes? Central Line? The Cheltenham Festival (ans: no)? Something else?
I yield to no one in my estimation of Boris as an absolute unfit for government solipsistic twat. But I think some cool heads over the next months and years will and should make the enquiry interesting as to the reason, whether there is blame to be apportioned thereafter or not.
I am generally, and despite my view of Boris, more of a fog of war view of it all.
Hello all! Not by any means a 'good' morning here. Showers, threats of heavier rain and the central heating doesn't work. However it's 16degC, outside, the plumber is here and he's knows, from having checked last week, what he has to do. So shortly all be well, except, of course, the bill!
Old King Cole, for one reason and another, (and not just because of the prospect of plumbers bill) isn't a very happy old soul. He really, really, doesn't like what the present Government, and not just it's leader, are doing. He agrees that there was de facto, if not de jure Lib-Lab tactical voting from about the early 90's to immediately after 2010, but wonders whether that will actually revive where it's needed. However, he's cheered by the fact that, apparently, a lot of young people who didn't vote in 2019 will next time, will next, and won't vote Tory. Plus by 2024, or even 2023, there will be a lot of people who have achieved 18, and quite few of his generation who won't be on the register by 2023/4.
Hope it’s all sorted for you soon OKC, sending you best wishes.
I agree with your post but every election we hear young people will turn out and every time they sit on their hands.
Corbyn did get much higher support from students over the tuition fees issue.
Which means Labour has a problem on whether to keep Corbyn's plan to cancel student debt or to lose many of those votes.
Likewise with Corbyn's WASPI bribe.
I thought the British Elections Study (or whatever it is called) found youth turnout in 2017 wasn’t any higher?
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Golden PB rule, further away one is from Scotland, the easier it is to read Sturgeon’s true motives.
Golden PB rule, ignote what the Nats are saying, its bound to.be half truths and downright lies.
Social Care isn't one thing. Social Care comprises Care for Elderly (aaah, could be my Mum), which everyone thinks ought to be good. It also includes care of people who don't necessarily present quite as well, unless they turn into Paralympians. However both sorts require two things; cash, both upfront, for wages, and as investment, and staff. In other words people willing to do the job.
And, as far as I can see, there's little or no prospect of any realistic attempt to find money, apart from the minor tinkering we've already seen, and while there are odd examples, such as one or two former airline cabin staff becoming carers, there's not a lot of encouragement for people to actually do the job.
One thing that might temper the amount I bet on this is we just got a £1250 final gas bill upon leaving our rented accommodation! This is despite paying £90 a month Direct Debit. They even mailed us to say the meter reading looked too high, but it is correct. Not had the heating on for 6 months, and the cooker was electric. Does a hot bath most nights cost that much????
Have they charged you for the gas you expend on PB, by mistake?
One thing that might temper the amount I bet on this is we just got a £1250 final gas bill upon leaving our rented accommodation! This is despite paying £90 a month Direct Debit. They even mailed us to say the meter reading looked too high, but it is correct. Not had the heating on for 6 months, and the cooker was electric. Does a hot bath most nights cost that much????
It might be an estimated reading or they have read the wrong meter....
Today's unemployment figures appear better than I was expecting, although a million are still on furlough.
A potentially silly question: apparently there are a million job vacancies. How are these actually counted? Through job centres? A survey of companies/organisations?
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
No, the amazing thing about what she did was that she became the first qualifier, in either the men's or women's game, to win a Grand Slam tournament. That is the amazing thing.
The way the left has politicised her victory is desperation writ large, Maybe I missed but I didn't see Farage's or BJ's tweets mentioning that her victory was a vindication of Brexit and that Britain is back on the stage. And what is even more hilarious is that idiots such as Khan could not even spell her name right.
Today's unemployment figures appear better than I was expecting, although a million are still on furlough.
A potentially silly question: apparently there are a million job vacancies. How are these actually counted? Through job centres? A survey of companies/organisations?
Ringing up a couple of dozen famers or care homes?
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
Hello all! Not by any means a 'good' morning here. Showers, threats of heavier rain and the central heating doesn't work. However it's 16degC, outside, the plumber is here and he's knows, from having checked last week, what he has to do. So shortly all be well, except, of course, the bill!
Old King Cole, for one reason and another, (and not just because of the prospect of plumbers bill) isn't a very happy old soul. He really, really, doesn't like what the present Government, and not just it's leader, are doing. He agrees that there was de facto, if not de jure Lib-Lab tactical voting from about the early 90's to immediately after 2010, but wonders whether that will actually revive where it's needed. However, he's cheered by the fact that, apparently, a lot of young people who didn't vote in 2019 will next time, will next, and won't vote Tory. Plus by 2024, or even 2023, there will be a lot of people who have achieved 18, and quite few of his generation who won't be on the register by 2023/4.
Hope it’s all sorted for you soon OKC, sending you best wishes.
I agree with your post but every election we hear young people will turn out and every time they sit on their hands.
Corbyn did get much higher support from students over the tuition fees issue.
Which means Labour has a problem on whether to keep Corbyn's plan to cancel student debt or to lose many of those votes.
Likewise with Corbyn's WASPI bribe.
I thought the British Elections Study (or whatever it is called) found youth turnout in 2017 wasn’t any higher?
Possibly overall but in student seats such as Canterbury it certainly was,
One thing that might temper the amount I bet on this is we just got a £1250 final gas bill upon leaving our rented accommodation! This is despite paying £90 a month Direct Debit. They even mailed us to say the meter reading looked too high, but it is correct. Not had the heating on for 6 months, and the cooker was electric. Does a hot bath most nights cost that much????
Have they charged you for the gas you expend on PB, by mistake?
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
Today's unemployment figures appear better than I was expecting, although a million are still on furlough.
A potentially silly question: apparently there are a million job vacancies. How are these actually counted? Through job centres? A survey of companies/organisations?
Ringing up a couple of dozen famers or care homes?
The Government survey businesses all the time, I complete three a month on turnover, employment, predicted turnover etc
One thing that might temper the amount I bet on this is we just got a £1250 final gas bill upon leaving our rented accommodation! This is despite paying £90 a month Direct Debit. They even mailed us to say the meter reading looked too high, but it is correct. Not had the heating on for 6 months, and the cooker was electric. Does a hot bath most nights cost that much????
Assuming both your initial and final meter readings were correct that seems very high. Possibly a very old and inefficient boiler?
If you still lived there I'd be wondering about a leak too.
I suppose the other possibility is the calibration on the meter could be wrong, and so measuring two units where you've used one, but seems unlikely.
Today's unemployment figures appear better than I was expecting, although a million are still on furlough.
A potentially silly question: apparently there are a million job vacancies. How are these actually counted? Through job centres? A survey of companies/organisations?
Good question.
I think decades back it was the number of vacancies available at job centres (or some such official number).
And it was always said that you could then triple that 'official number' to get what was the 'true number'.
Again on this thread, there seem to be two groups:
1) Agree with isam et al 2) Its too early so wait and see
I am in group 1 with the majority, but group 3 (disagree and want the opposite bet at current prices) is conspicuously missing, but must be around somewhere. Who are they and why are they not represented at all on a big politics forum? Shy Labour backers?
Erh hello? I’ve already bet against Tory majority
So perhaps younger Labour-ites who would be very much under represented on here, but could be over represented on a betting exchange.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
Rationally, yes. But we all know that the rules of logic don't apply when the left is making the point.
Hence, why we get a Black Republican being chased down the street by a white liberal woman wearing a Gorilla mask and the usual loud mouths claiming racism is everywhere suddenly go silent
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
That’s because no-one despises (legal) immigrants, except for Nick Griffin and those who think Tommy Robinson is a left-winger. They are all here to try and better themselves and their families.
People despise governments who lie to them about immigration levels, and don’t understand that adding several million unskilled immigrants with no planning will drive down wages and overwhelm public services.
Not impossible. Dietrich Mateschitz[sp] showed that with Red Bull. A difference is that Stroll has his son as a driver, but it's intriguing that he's gone for Aston Martin with the aim of making them almost a British version of Ferrari.
It's possible but not with how Aston Martin are set up as a Mercedes B team. They'd need for the works team to exit the sport but keep making engines and for McLaren to self-immolate as they did from 2014 until this season.
They’ve also outsourced the power units for their new road cars to Mercedes, the whole structure of the companies rely on each other extensively.
AM are now just a branding and marketing organisation. MB rely on them for nothing beyond very slightly reducing the unit price of M178s. 250,000 employees vs 3,000.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
Mr. Sandpit, the 'child migrants' from Calais being suspiciously adult in appearance and then having screens put up so their wrinkled visages could no longer be seen didn't exactly enhance public trust in such matters (few years ago now).
Comments
Hey Siri, show me what happens when people say immigrants are not welcome here?
The number of vacancies in the UK has exceeded 1 million for the first time, according to latest @ONS survey
And it’s not just demand for lorry drivers.
Firms are trying (and in some cases struggling) to recruit in every sector of the economy and every regions of the UK. https://twitter.com/ITVJoel/status/1437660727087611905/photo/1
https://twitter.com/Motor_Sport/status/1437665416202145792
Not impossible. Dietrich Mateschitz[sp] showed that with Red Bull. A difference is that Stroll has his son as a driver, but it's intriguing that he's gone for Aston Martin with the aim of making them almost a British version of Ferrari.
Right now she has all the glory, and none of the pain of actually doing it.
Bit like BoZo. Winning the referendum was not what he wanted.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
If Johnson were able to find a third person, equal to the task of levelling up the North, or fixing social care, then I think he would confound expectations again. Free piece of advice: that person is not Dido Harding.
Then we had the shameful spectacle of "there's no anti-semitism its all Tory lies" Labour activists being flooded into Finchley and Golders Green knowing that only Berger could take the seat off the Tory incumbent. The uppity jew traitor had to be stopped at all costs.
At a local level there was a concerted effort to do tactical voting. Even where Labour and LibDem candidates are both running you can target different voters.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Smart capable people delivering things is great, and the fact that BoZo didn't prevent it from happening is a coincidence...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1437685637566636033
My read on the new term at Westminster, where MPs who promised to be on their best behaviour are already being tested: https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-conservatives-tories-loyalty-tested-welfare-taxes/
So I believe you are wrong for three reasons.
One - the SNP are pressing ahead with the referendum bid
Two - the SNP actually believe it the long term aim and benefits
Three - the SNP know that if there is no independence coming other parties are available. Let a few years slip past, have more questions asked about murk in the SNP and the idea of Alba taking over isn't daft.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson, but I do like infrastructure for cycling, I want to see change more generally, and it's instructive to look at why change has happened in the past, and why it doesn't.
The vaccine taskforce is also an interesting example, because the whole thing seems to have gone to pieces after Kate Bingham left. Would PM Corbyn or Starmer have appointed her in the first place?
In the real world, effective leaders appoint effective subordinates to carry out tasks, and give them the resources and latitude to carry it out.
The definition of leadership competence is -
1) The ability to select such subordinates
2) Giving them clear mandates and resources
3) Monitoring them, without jogging their elbows all the time
4) Understanding what is going on to enable 3)
It starts in October 2023.
Johnson will have the perfect excuse as to why social care is still shit if it comes up on the campaign trail during which of course anyway he will avoid discussing any serious issue anyway.
The evidence suggests the vaccine program was a success despite BoZo.
(Telegraph)
And in politics, it takes a bit more courage to appoint effective subordinates, because they really will be after your job. The PM prefers to appoint weaklings, ninnies and the hopelessly compromised to Cabinet roles in the main.
I’ve already laid the Tory majority in 2024 previously and have done so again, I think there is value there.
My gut feeling is that Johnson and that the Tories are disappointing people left, right and centre and that their voter coalition is falling apart.
I think Jeremy Corbyn kept that coalition together - and I supported him so of course take my current thoughts with that in mind - but I think the idea Starmer is going to do worse is for the birds. Right now the polls are saying we have a Hung Parliament despite Starmer having no policies at all and being rather unknown by most. I consider that a substantially better position than Corbyn was in by the end. Not Corbyn is probably worth a few points on its own.
I’ve said for a long time that 2024 is the Lib Dem revival not Labour and ultimately I think what will push us into HP territory is the Lib Dems. I will bet on Guildford and Winchester as being probable Lib Dem gains.
I think there’s a lot of bad coming down the track and the polls show us how fundamentally weak the Tory vote actually is. It was at over 50 at the start of COVID (was it not?) and now it is slowly going below 40.
I also think 2024 could be just a very poor turnout election.
There are 8 Welsh seats before Pudsey, but in reality some of these won't exist as independent constituencies but will be merged.
It is not a plump cushion, but I can see it making the difference & delivering a John Major style result for the Tories.
There is a strong incentive for Starmer and Davey to have an informal understanding that their parties won’t put anything like the same effort into a particular seat if the evidence shows that the other one is best placed to beat the Tory.
Starmer appeals to a particular kind of person -- in fact, a leftish LibDemm-er.
Unhappily, these are actually not the kind of people Starmer needs to win the seats he has got to win.
So, I am wary of claims that "informal pacts" will oust the Tories. It may make a difference in < 10 seats.
I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but Cummings was right about this stuff.
A good example coming down the line might be free ports, if they can get a couple up and running before the election.
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support
2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins
2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
It’s staggering how this channel continues to live, rent free, in so many peoples heads.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
In which case CCHQ will push the idea of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket much as they did with the posters they had of Ed Miliband in Salmond's pocket in 2015
'
I didn’t have a massive bet on it yesterday, I have just been chipping away on Betfair every week or so for a while and hope to have a decent amount for me, maybe 5-10k down by Election Day. My thinking is, as most people have said, an 80 seat majority is hard to lose, and Boris is more well liked and charismatic than Sir Keir - generally LotOs don’t become PM unless their ratings are way ahead of the incumbent. Mid term, and the Tories have just introduced an unpopular policy, had a pandemic, Afghanistan etc and they/he still lead(s) in almost all polls, I think that’s really good for their chances because when GE comes around they’ll be throwing the red meat about, people will see Boris vs Sir Keir on tv, and the latter is not proving to be the game changer Labour need with the public.
McLaren is a serious rival but I wonder if Aston Martin's financial muscle is significant enough to make that a battle of equals. For a few seasons, they were the best of the rest or thereabouts so Force India/Racing Point/Aston Martin has a pretty strong record.
One area of weakness is the driver lineup. Norris and Ricciardo, especially now the Aussie has returned to form, would appear to be significantly better than Stroll and Vettel (still not back to his best but improved from his weak last season at Ferrari).
For those who read Norwegian or can be bothered to run it through deepl, this is a good analysis which can be thought-provoking for other countries' parties:
https://www.nrk.no/ytring/et-mindre-gront-stemmeskifte-1.15650978
The Greens (who fell short of 4%) thought it would be a good election for them because climate change has become a really big issue there. The problem was that several other parties noticed and embraced the issue as well. Thus under PR it's better to have a niche issue that really motivates 10% of the electorate than an issue which everyone cares about. The Reds (who broke through the 4% threshold) did it by embracing some niche issues outside their classic marxism like opposition to wind energy stations if it disrupted nature. The Christian Democrats fell short because they focused on their traditional anti-abortion core vote and alienated the moderate Christians who only go to church occasionally.
None of that is very relevant under FPTP, and it illustrates the quite different thinking that a different electoral system produces.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
However if the Scots still voted for independence after that then the Tories as largest party at Westminster would likely still automatically return to power if and when Scottish MPs left the Commons
(It appears as though anyone you agree with gets a free pass, whereas you try to find a feeble reason to discount the views of anyone you disagree with. They're not Scottish. They don't live in Scotland. They have a name ending in B. They posted at 09.19 in the morning.)
Plus its hilarious that those wanting to knock the UK have had to switch from "fully jabbed" (when the UK was running a deliberate single jab policy early on) to now reporting based on "single jabbed" (when the UK has finished double-jabbing adults now). France for instance is catching up with us on fully jabbed, which is unsurprising when we basically finished jabbing months ago, but they're still behind us at it stands.
Like it or not he has tangible evidence of delivering what other people couldn’t do/said was impossible.
Portugal at 86.7% is staggeringly high. It implies a take up of 97% in over 12s looking at their population pyramid.
I'd question it even though the Portugese fertility rate is only 1.29 (Not many kids there). I think it's high but 86.7% with 0 - 11 excluded doesn't pass the sniff test.
That's how competition works.
So shortly all be well, except, of course, the bill!
Old King Cole, for one reason and another, (and not just because of the prospect of plumbers bill) isn't a very happy old soul. He really, really, doesn't like what the present Government, and not just it's leader, are doing.
He agrees that there was de facto, if not de jure Lib-Lab tactical voting from about the early 90's to immediately after 2010, but wonders whether that will actually revive where it's needed. However, he's cheered by the fact that, apparently, a lot of young people who didn't vote in 2019 will next time, will next, and won't vote Tory. Plus by 2024, or even 2023, there will be a lot of people who have achieved 18, and quite few of his generation who won't be on the register by 2023/4.
It falls into a class of problems (like immigration) which can never be fixed.
1. It is difficult to identify the fair solution,
2. It is difficult to implement the fair solution, once identified.
3. It is difficult to overcome vested interests, with the wailing of the losers always outweighing the plaudits of the gainers.
4. Any gains from solving the problem are long term and won't help a politician win the next GE. In fact, they will actively contribute to a loss.
It is far better to boot the problem down the road. That is what Boris has done with social care (as tbf has every PM since Blair).
How a democracy actually goes about fixing these kind of problems, I have absolutely no idea.
Plus antivaxxer memes possibly target the English speaking world more.
97%+ is what we got in the high age groups. If antivaxx sentiment hasn't taken hold in Portugal its possible they'd achieve that throughout. Especially if more people have known people who've died from Covid.
EDIT: Though quite possible of course they're using the wrong denominator.
Looks more accurate
85.3% with a 95.6% takeup. Well done Portugal, that's amazing and about the limit of what a nation can achieve I think with the current guidance.
Speaking of which, you bleating about nasty Nats disparaging PB Sc**** expertise is getting a tad familiar.
He can call the election in August/September 2023 and it will be 'fixed' for the following month already, not taken effect yet, and the new boundaries will have kicked in.
Arsenal to be relegated for example.
I agree with your post but every election we hear young people will turn out and every time they sit on their hands.
And even then when there were large scale job opportunities in London and the south-east that coincided with house prices soaring.
The situation now is more promising with job opportunities in many places throughout the country including those with affordable housing.
1) Agree with isam et al
2) Its too early so wait and see
I am in group 1 with the majority, but group 3 (disagree and want the opposite bet at current prices) is conspicuously missing, but must be around somewhere. Who are they and why are they not represented at all on a big politics forum? Shy Labour backers?
Which means Labour has a problem on whether to keep Corbyn's plan to cancel student debt or to lose many of those votes.
Likewise with Corbyn's WASPI bribe.
At least Malc has charming humour on his side. At least, I think it's meant to be humour...
If Starmer gets into office then if he knows Scotland leaving the UK will see the Tories return to power, then he'll be in a position to change more in the constitution than just Scotland's place in it.
Its very dangerous for the Tories to let that happen, which is why if Scotland were to go its better for the Tories that they're the ones in power to manage the fallout from that.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
I yield to no one in my estimation of Boris as an absolute unfit for government solipsistic twat. But I think some cool heads over the next months and years will and should make the enquiry interesting as to the reason, whether there is blame to be apportioned thereafter or not.
I am generally, and despite my view of Boris, more of a fog of war view of it all.
But perhaps there were some glaring errors.
However both sorts require two things; cash, both upfront, for wages, and as investment, and staff. In other words people willing to do the job.
And, as far as I can see, there's little or no prospect of any realistic attempt to find money, apart from the minor tinkering we've already seen, and while there are odd examples, such as one or two former airline cabin staff becoming carers, there's not a lot of encouragement for people to actually do the job.
A potentially silly question: apparently there are a million job vacancies. How are these actually counted? Through job centres? A survey of companies/organisations?
The way the left has politicised her victory is desperation writ large, Maybe I missed but I didn't see Farage's or BJ's tweets mentioning that her victory was a vindication of Brexit and that Britain is back on the stage. And what is even more hilarious is that idiots such as Khan could not even spell her name right.
It should be nothing more than "get your jab - and if you don't you may die".
No more lockdowns to "save the NHS" or save antivaxxers.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
If you still lived there I'd be wondering about a leak too.
I suppose the other possibility is the calibration on the meter could be wrong, and so measuring two units where you've used one, but seems unlikely.
I think decades back it was the number of vacancies available at job centres (or some such official number).
And it was always said that you could then triple that 'official number' to get what was the 'true number'.
Don't know how they do it now though.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Hence, why we get a Black Republican being chased down the street by a white liberal woman wearing a Gorilla mask and the usual loud mouths claiming racism is everywhere suddenly go silent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrp7qtg0JgM
People despise governments who lie to them about immigration levels, and don’t understand that adding several million unskilled immigrants with no planning will drive down wages and overwhelm public services.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/04/23/a-guest-thread-on-scottish-independence-and-electoral-reform/