David Davis slams the voter ID requirement – politicalbetting.com

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

"“For a big rump of voters if there was an option for a change candidate they would take it,” Frayne said. “But that isn’t Labour at the moment.

“It is a very consistent message we hear that people don’t see Starmer as a viable change candidate. They don’t see him as a proper leader but as someone who moans from the sidelines.”

I think we will see this position evolve over time. Labour's 5 pledges open the door to some pretty substantial solutions. Which they may or may not be too frit to propose...

Maybe. The trouble is that Starmer has left it a bit bloody late to set out his vision for change.

There's only 18 months left. Blair had been doing it for years at this stage. But, Starmer has had to compress Kinnock's reforms to claw the party back from the crazies (c.1983 to 1992) and Smith/Blair's bit into just 3 years, whereas they had near 14.

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

"“For a big rump of voters if there was an option for a change candidate they would take it,” Frayne said. “But that isn’t Labour at the moment.

“It is a very consistent message we hear that people don’t see Starmer as a viable change candidate. They don’t see him as a proper leader but as someone who moans from the sidelines.”

I think we will see this position evolve over time. Labour's 5 pledges open the door to some pretty substantial solutions. Which they may or may not be too frit to propose...

Maybe. The trouble is that Starmer has left it a bit bloody late to set out his vision for change.

There's only 18 months left. Blair had been doing it for years at this stage. But, Starmer has had to compress Kinnock's reforms to claw the party back from the crazies (c.1983 to 1992) and Smith/Blair's bit into just 3 years, whereas they had near 14.

This is a bit of a myth. Blair was very good at not saying very much in detail. Much better than Starmer is. There were no big Labour policies 18 months out from May 1997. There was a lot of stuff about what Labour wouldn’t do. The “Education, education, education” speech was in October 1996, for example.

Blair was saying "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" in 1993.

He laid foundations very early.

That’s not a policy - it’s a very good sound bite. But it is definitely true that Blair was much, much better at those than Starmer is (and Sunak is, of course).

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Any grand national tips?

I fear the eco terrorists may win today.

I believe they might. As for horses much better to watch the race without a bet so you aren't willing horses to do badly.

If you want to satisfy your betting urge you can get 22s about Boris being Cons leader at the next election.

SandyRentool said:

Bradford Council has sent out an email reminding voters that ID is required. It advises that it will take longer at the polling station while everyone has their documents checked. Probably not a big deal for low turnout local elections, but potentially long queues next year at the GE.

They have also included a photo of a dog at a polling station, which is nice.

Alanbrooke said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

LostPassword said:

Jonathan said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

MikeL said:

YouGov also has:

Q: Will economy improve or get worse over the next 12 months?

After Autumn Statement:
Improve 7
Get worse 68

Now:
Improve 17
Get worse 52

So IF in 12 months time people feel the economy has improved then lots of people are going to be surprised on the upside- which may (or may not!) feed into voting intention.

Sunak has already saved the Conservatives from catastrophe.

The really interesting question is how much better they'd be doing if Truss had never been elected, and he'd won the original contest.

The polling on economic credibility among undecided voters does suggest that the Truss Calamity has not had the lasting impact on attitudes that I expected.

Starmer has a window of opportunity to seal the deal with the electorate and it begins to look like he fluffed it.

I think you might overestimate what agency the opposition has in these situations. They don’t make the economic weather,

The situation was that the government had been forced to change Prime Minister for the second time in less than two months after creating an economic crisis. The opportunity for the opposition to present themselves as a government-in-waiting was unprecedented.

Starmer has failed to tell a story of how he wants to change the country and he's not convincing as a steady reliable hand on the tiller either. It's not enough to be a vacuum and wait for the government to cock-up.

If Starmer does fail to become PM after the next election, after everything that has happened, the failure will be entirely his.

Yep, I agree with that. And such an outcome certainly would take us to 1992 territory, with an unloved, worn out Tory administration in hock to its lunatic tendency.

Vote Sunak, get Braverman.

Braverman's great - Labourites cant get at her. She hits all the things Labour pretends to respect bur doesnt - a woman from an ethnic background married to a jew. In minority Top Trumps she beat you hands down

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

And it seems some Labour politicians haven't drunk the kool-aid either:

"This is backed up by — admittedly anecdotal — evidence from MPs, ministers and shadow ministers who have used the Easter recess to fan out across the country, campaigning before the elections next month. They say that from talking to people on the doorstep Labour’s current 18 point poll lead is an overestimation of the party’s true support and that much of that apparent endorsement is “soft”.

One shadow minister said: “The polls simply aren’t a reflection of what I’m seeing on the ground when I go out canvassing. There is simply no way that we are twenty points ahead — ten or twelve at the most.”

We are heading to a hung parliament.

Hung Parliament means Starmer as PM, albeit with an unstable government.

If the Tories lose 50 seats, they are out. Kinnock gained 42 in 1992, so Starmer only needs to do slightly better to be in Number 10.

Can the LibDems be relied upon not to get into bed with the Tories again?

If the Tories are down by 50 or more it seems unlikely there will be enough LDs to give them a working majority.

So even in the unlikely event that we can’t, the point would be moot.

It seems somewhat odd to rely on there being too few LD MPs to avoid another LD Tory deal.

Surely they have learned from the last time they opened Pandora’s box and sent us down this path.

Good morning

It does seem sereal that in the course of a few weeks we have moved from an extinction election for the conserovatives to even Sunak beating all odds and holding off labour

I would suggest it is labour's to lose, but my regret is the party failed to listen to Sunak's warning about Truss which proved prescient

Of course it would be a political disaster for labour supporters, but personally I would be content to see a Sunak led government post GE24

I don’t feel enthusiasm for any of them but a starmer led govt would probably not be too bad. He’d certainly hold back the more idiotic members of the labour PLP.

Can we say the same of Sunak post 2024 ?

If Sunak beats all odds and remains in office he will be in an unassailable position

Like Boris in 2019 or Major in 1992?

Honestly, how anyone intelligent of any political persuasion can look at this government and think, yep let’s have some more of that, just makes me sad.

The problem is Starmer who simply fails to impress, and if Sunak is able to put behind the end of the Johnson Truss period then good luck to him

No. It would be catastrophic for the country if the Tories are rewarded with another five years, however skilled Sunak might be at technocratic management of decline.

Many would see Starmer and labour as catastrophic for the country to be fair

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

And it seems some Labour politicians haven't drunk the kool-aid either:

"This is backed up by — admittedly anecdotal — evidence from MPs, ministers and shadow ministers who have used the Easter recess to fan out across the country, campaigning before the elections next month. They say that from talking to people on the doorstep Labour’s current 18 point poll lead is an overestimation of the party’s true support and that much of that apparent endorsement is “soft”.

One shadow minister said: “The polls simply aren’t a reflection of what I’m seeing on the ground when I go out canvassing. There is simply no way that we are twenty points ahead — ten or twelve at the most.”

We are heading to a hung parliament.

Hung Parliament means Starmer as PM, albeit with an unstable government.

If the Tories lose 50 seats, they are out. Kinnock gained 42 in 1992, so Starmer only needs to do slightly better to be in Number 10.

Can the LibDems be relied upon not to get into bed with the Tories again?

If the Tories are down by 50 or more it seems unlikely there will be enough LDs to give them a working majority.

So even in the unlikely event that we can’t, the point would be moot.

It seems somewhat odd to rely on there being too few LD MPs to avoid another LD Tory deal.

Surely they have learned from the last time they opened Pandora’s box and sent us down this path.

Good morning

It does seem sereal that in the course of a few weeks we have moved from an extinction election for the conserovatives to even Sunak beating all odds and holding off labour

I would suggest it is labour's to lose, but my regret is the party failed to listen to Sunak's warning about Truss which proved prescient

Of course it would be a political disaster for labour supporters, but personally I would be content to see a Sunak led government post GE24

I don’t feel enthusiasm for any of them but a starmer led govt would probably not be too bad. He’d certainly hold back the more idiotic members of the labour PLP.

Can we say the same of Sunak post 2024 ?

If Sunak beats all odds and remains in office he will be in an unassailable position

Like Boris in 2019 or Major in 1992?

Honestly, how anyone intelligent of any political persuasion can look at this government and think, yep let’s have some more of that, just makes me sad.

Its not great, indeed its disheartening. And then you contrast it with Starmer and think oh shit, it couild be worse.

“It could be even worse” will certainly be the central Tory message in 2024. I am not sure it’s a winning one, though.

Casino_Royale said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

And it seems some Labour politicians haven't drunk the kool-aid either:

"This is backed up by — admittedly anecdotal — evidence from MPs, ministers and shadow ministers who have used the Easter recess to fan out across the country, campaigning before the elections next month. They say that from talking to people on the doorstep Labour’s current 18 point poll lead is an overestimation of the party’s true support and that much of that apparent endorsement is “soft”.

One shadow minister said: “The polls simply aren’t a reflection of what I’m seeing on the ground when I go out canvassing. There is simply no way that we are twenty points ahead — ten or twelve at the most.”

We are heading to a hung parliament.

Hung Parliament means Starmer as PM, albeit with an unstable government.

If the Tories lose 50 seats, they are out. Kinnock gained 42 in 1992, so Starmer only needs to do slightly better to be in Number 10.

Can the LibDems be relied upon not to get into bed with the Tories again?

If the Tories are down by 50 or more it seems unlikely there will be enough LDs to give them a working majority.

So even in the unlikely event that we can’t, the point would be moot.

It seems somewhat odd to rely on there being too few LD MPs to avoid another LD Tory deal.

Surely they have learned from the last time they opened Pandora’s box and sent us down this path.

Good morning

It does seem sereal that in the course of a few weeks we have moved from an extinction election for the conserovatives to even Sunak beating all odds and holding off labour

I would suggest it is labour's to lose, but my regret is the party failed to listen to Sunak's warning about Truss which proved prescient

Of course it would be a political disaster for labour supporters, but personally I would be content to see a Sunak led government post GE24

I don’t feel enthusiasm for any of them but a starmer led govt would probably not be too bad. He’d certainly hold back the more idiotic members of the labour PLP.

Can we say the same of Sunak post 2024 ?

If Sunak beats all odds and remains in office he will be in an unassailable position

Like Boris in 2019 or Major in 1992?

Honestly, how anyone intelligent of any political persuasion can look at this government and think, yep let’s have some more of that, just makes me sad.

The problem is Starmer who simply fails to impress, and if Sunak is able to put behind the end of the Johnson Truss period then good luck to him

Starmer and Sunak are equally uncharismatic.

Both have had some success in purging their respective parties of nerwellto dos. Starmer has been more ruthless, which can be placed as a tick in the credit column. Sunak on the other hand selected Braverman as Home Secretary and this placed her in pole position as his successor, which puts a big ❌ in the debit column.

I appreciate you don't like Sunak and you are on the Left but he definitely has more charisma than Starmer. He has a flourish of presentation - when not reading out a speech - and isn't boring to listen to.

Rishi's dishes didn't take off for nothing.

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

"“For a big rump of voters if there was an option for a change candidate they would take it,” Frayne said. “But that isn’t Labour at the moment.

“It is a very consistent message we hear that people don’t see Starmer as a viable change candidate. They don’t see him as a proper leader but as someone who moans from the sidelines.”

I think we will see this position evolve over time. Labour's 5 pledges open the door to some pretty substantial solutions. Which they may or may not be too frit to propose...

Maybe. The trouble is that Starmer has left it a bit bloody late to set out his vision for change.

There's only 18 months left. Blair had been doing it for years at this stage. But, Starmer has had to compress Kinnock's reforms to claw the party back from the crazies (c.1983 to 1992) and Smith/Blair's bit into just 3 years, whereas they had near 14.

Unless Sir Keith Donkey really is frit, they will have to start setting out what these pledges mean with regards to policies. I think the hesitation is that some of them will be weaponised by the Tories / right wing moron media.

Witness the row over migration. Labour have a plan to tackle this which includes going after the traffickers and having them jailed and confiscating the boats - working with the French to do so. The Tories keep screeching that Labour have no plan AND that they are traitors for not backing their latest crayon sketch to Stop The Boats.

That no boats are being stopped by the Tories seems to be ignored by the moron media. This kind of the lie is the truth and the truth is a lie positioning still has the potential to damage Labour's chances amongst the voters still desperately waiting for their Brexit moon on a stick to be dished out.

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

And it seems some Labour politicians haven't drunk the kool-aid either:

"This is backed up by — admittedly anecdotal — evidence from MPs, ministers and shadow ministers who have used the Easter recess to fan out across the country, campaigning before the elections next month. They say that from talking to people on the doorstep Labour’s current 18 point poll lead is an overestimation of the party’s true support and that much of that apparent endorsement is “soft”.

One shadow minister said: “The polls simply aren’t a reflection of what I’m seeing on the ground when I go out canvassing. There is simply no way that we are twenty points ahead — ten or twelve at the most.”

We are heading to a hung parliament.

Hung Parliament means Starmer as PM, albeit with an unstable government.

If the Tories lose 50 seats, they are out. Kinnock gained 42 in 1992, so Starmer only needs to do slightly better to be in Number 10.

Can the LibDems be relied upon not to get into bed with the Tories again?

If the Tories are down by 50 or more it seems unlikely there will be enough LDs to give them a working majority.

So even in the unlikely event that we can’t, the point would be moot.

It seems somewhat odd to rely on there being too few LD MPs to avoid another LD Tory deal.

Surely they have learned from the last time they opened Pandora’s box and sent us down this path.

Good morning

It does seem sereal that in the course of a few weeks we have moved from an extinction election for the conserovatives to even Sunak beating all odds and holding off labour

I would suggest it is labour's to lose, but my regret is the party failed to listen to Sunak's warning about Truss which proved prescient

Of course it would be a political disaster for labour supporters, but personally I would be content to see a Sunak led government post GE24

I don’t feel enthusiasm for any of them but a starmer led govt would probably not be too bad. He’d certainly hold back the more idiotic members of the labour PLP.

Can we say the same of Sunak post 2024 ?

If Sunak beats all odds and remains in office he will be in an unassailable position

Like Boris in 2019 or Major in 1992?

Honestly, how anyone intelligent of any political persuasion can look at this government and think, yep let’s have some more of that, just makes me sad.

The problem is Starmer who simply fails to impress, and if Sunak is able to put behind the end of the Johnson Truss period then good luck to him

Starmer and Sunak are equally uncharismatic.

Both have had some success in purging their respective parties of nerwellto dos. Starmer has been more ruthless, which can be placed as a tick in the credit column. Sunak on the other hand selected Braverman as Home Secretary and this placed her in pole position as his successor, which puts a big ❌ in the debit column.

Ghedebrav said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

"“For a big rump of voters if there was an option for a change candidate they would take it,” Frayne said. “But that isn’t Labour at the moment.

“It is a very consistent message we hear that people don’t see Starmer as a viable change candidate. They don’t see him as a proper leader but as someone who moans from the sidelines.”

I think we will see this position evolve over time. Labour's 5 pledges open the door to some pretty substantial solutions. Which they may or may not be too frit to propose...

Maybe. The trouble is that Starmer has left it a bit bloody late to set out his vision for change.

There's only 18 months left. Blair had been doing it for years at this stage. But, Starmer has had to compress Kinnock's reforms to claw the party back from the crazies (c.1983 to 1992) and Smith/Blair's bit into just 3 years, whereas they had near 14.

This is a bit of a myth. Blair was very good at not saying very much in detail. Much better than Starmer is. There were no big Labour policies 18 months out from May 1997. There was a lot of stuff about what Labour wouldn’t do. The “Education, education, education” speech was in October 1996, for example.

Blair was saying "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" in 1993.

He laid foundations very early.

That’s not a policy - it’s a very good sound bite. But it is definitely true that Blair was much, much better at those than Starmer is (and Sunak is, of course).

“Tough on boats, tough on the causes of boats.”

But is that a Tory policy, or the SNP’s?

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Any grand national tips?

I fear the eco terrorists may win today.

It will be won by a horse carrying a jockey.

kle4 said:

I've never been in favour of the voter ID policy, but it might be worth speculating at this point what will happen if the local elections in May are not, in fact, a disaster.

I believe most voters are generically in favour of policies like this as they sound reasonable - who doesn't think voting security should be high? - and the actual results this time are likely to be a Tory bloodbath, so it won't look like they have gained any advantage (even if that was the intent I'm sceptical it would have worked).

Which means election chaos and administrative problems are key. Councils and others have done as much as they can to remind people of the new rules, but there's still been a lot of warnings it could go very badly.

So what if it doesn't?

My worry is we get a few teething problems but nothing too dramatic, and it becomes one of those rules oppositions criticise but dont bother to change once they get in.

ThomasNashe said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

And it seems some Labour politicians haven't drunk the kool-aid either:

"This is backed up by — admittedly anecdotal — evidence from MPs, ministers and shadow ministers who have used the Easter recess to fan out across the country, campaigning before the elections next month. They say that from talking to people on the doorstep Labour’s current 18 point poll lead is an overestimation of the party’s true support and that much of that apparent endorsement is “soft”.

One shadow minister said: “The polls simply aren’t a reflection of what I’m seeing on the ground when I go out canvassing. There is simply no way that we are twenty points ahead — ten or twelve at the most.”

We are heading to a hung parliament.

Hung Parliament means Starmer as PM, albeit with an unstable government.

If the Tories lose 50 seats, they are out. Kinnock gained 42 in 1992, so Starmer only needs to do slightly better to be in Number 10.

Can the LibDems be relied upon not to get into bed with the Tories again?

If the Tories are down by 50 or more it seems unlikely there will be enough LDs to give them a working majority.

So even in the unlikely event that we can’t, the point would be moot.

It seems somewhat odd to rely on there being too few LD MPs to avoid another LD Tory deal.

Surely they have learned from the last time they opened Pandora’s box and sent us down this path.

Good morning

It does seem sereal that in the course of a few weeks we have moved from an extinction election for the conserovatives to even Sunak beating all odds and holding off labour

I would suggest it is labour's to lose, but my regret is the party failed to listen to Sunak's warning about Truss which proved prescient

Of course it would be a political disaster for labour supporters, but personally I would be content to see a Sunak led government post GE24

I don’t feel enthusiasm for any of them but a starmer led govt would probably not be too bad. He’d certainly hold back the more idiotic members of the labour PLP.

Can we say the same of Sunak post 2024 ?

If Sunak beats all odds and remains in office he will be in an unassailable position

Like Boris in 2019 or Major in 1992?

Honestly, how anyone intelligent of any political persuasion can look at this government and think, yep let’s have some more of that, just makes me sad.

The problem is Starmer who simply fails to impress, and if Sunak is able to put behind the end of the Johnson Truss period then good luck to him

No. It would be catastrophic for the country if the Tories are rewarded with another five years, however skilled Sunak might be at technocratic management of decline.

Many would see Starmer and labour as catastrophic for the country to be fair

Worse than Truss and Johnson? I really don’t think so.

ClippP said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

And it seems some Labour politicians haven't drunk the kool-aid either:

"This is backed up by — admittedly anecdotal — evidence from MPs, ministers and shadow ministers who have used the Easter recess to fan out across the country, campaigning before the elections next month. They say that from talking to people on the doorstep Labour’s current 18 point poll lead is an overestimation of the party’s true support and that much of that apparent endorsement is “soft”.

One shadow minister said: “The polls simply aren’t a reflection of what I’m seeing on the ground when I go out canvassing. There is simply no way that we are twenty points ahead — ten or twelve at the most.”

We are heading to a hung parliament.

Hung Parliament means Starmer as PM, albeit with an unstable government.

If the Tories lose 50 seats, they are out. Kinnock gained 42 in 1992, so Starmer only needs to do slightly better to be in Number 10.

Can the LibDems be relied upon not to get into bed with the Tories again?

Yes, this time I think so.

I am pretty sure of it. Having spent five years in a reasonably competent and amicable government, with lots of sensible Lib Dem policies introduced, despite opposition from Tory backwoodsmen most of the time, the Lib Dems were stabbed in the back atthe election by their former colleagues.

The final straw came when the Tories claimed credit for the popular Coalition policies which they had opposed while in governemnt - and they still do to this day.

Nobody in his right mind would trust the Tories with anything.

And any suggestion of a deal would have to be ratified by a Lib Dem Party Conference. As OGH has often pointed out, the Conservatives are uncoalitionable.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Malmesbury, I'm shockingly unfamiliar with Cicero, I'm afraid. I did hear recently that the Romans were widely prejudiced but it wasn't so much skin colour as just not being Roman. Probably with an honourable(ish) exception for Greeks.

That also tallies with the Greeks having two types of foreigner (the worse kind being barbarians), and the Eastern Romans and latter day Persians disliking each other but admitting they were both civilised and practically everybody else was a barbarian.

Being from Africa certainly wasn't a bar to Septimius Severus becoming emperor (unsure if he was born there, think so, to senatorialish parents... been a while since I read his bio).

malcolmg said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Any grand national tips?

I fear the eco terrorists may win today.

I believe they might. As for horses much better to watch the race without a bet so you aren't willing horses to do badly.

If you want to satisfy your betting urge you can get 22s about Boris being Cons leader at the next election.

You going WOKE as well Topping

DavidL said:

On topic I have always held the view that this was a solution in search of a problem but if David Davis is opposed to it I may need to think again.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

1

malcolmg said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Any grand national tips?

I fear the eco terrorists may win today.

I believe they might. As for horses much better to watch the race without a bet so you aren't willing horses to do badly.

If you want to satisfy your betting urge you can get 22s about Boris being Cons leader at the next election.

My horses for National

Corach Rambler
Delta Work
Gallard Du Mesnil

Good Luck to everyone having a Flutter

With respect malc, I hope people bet their house, life savings, kids inheritance and the shirts on their backs but lose the lot in some bizarre loophole caused by cancellation of the race due to animal rights protests. A niche aspiration, I grant you. If it has to be run, let's hope it's the jockeys who get hurt, and the horses have a bit of a shake, trot off and have a nibble on some grass.

TOPPING said:

malcolmg said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Any grand national tips?

I fear the eco terrorists may win today.

I believe they might. As for horses much better to watch the race without a bet so you aren't willing horses to do badly.

If you want to satisfy your betting urge you can get 22s about Boris being Cons leader at the next election.

You going WOKE as well Topping

Not at all. I just don't like to will another horse to tip up at the last if it's upsides my selection.

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

And it seems some Labour politicians haven't drunk the kool-aid either:

"This is backed up by — admittedly anecdotal — evidence from MPs, ministers and shadow ministers who have used the Easter recess to fan out across the country, campaigning before the elections next month. They say that from talking to people on the doorstep Labour’s current 18 point poll lead is an overestimation of the party’s true support and that much of that apparent endorsement is “soft”.

One shadow minister said: “The polls simply aren’t a reflection of what I’m seeing on the ground when I go out canvassing. There is simply no way that we are twenty points ahead — ten or twelve at the most.”

We are heading to a hung parliament.

Hung Parliament means Starmer as PM, albeit with an unstable government.

If the Tories lose 50 seats, they are out. Kinnock gained 42 in 1992, so Starmer only needs to do slightly better to be in Number 10.

Can the LibDems be relied upon not to get into bed with the Tories again?

If the Tories are down by 50 or more it seems unlikely there will be enough LDs to give them a working majority.

So even in the unlikely event that we can’t, the point would be moot.

It seems somewhat odd to rely on there being too few LD MPs to avoid another LD Tory deal.

Surely they have learned from the last time they opened Pandora’s box and sent us down this path.

Good morning

It does seem sereal that in the course of a few weeks we have moved from an extinction election for the conserovatives to even Sunak beating all odds and holding off labour

I would suggest it is labour's to lose, but my regret is the party failed to listen to Sunak's warning about Truss which proved prescient

Of course it would be a political disaster for labour supporters, but personally I would be content to see a Sunak led government post GE24

I don’t feel enthusiasm for any of them but a starmer led govt would probably not be too bad. He’d certainly hold back the more idiotic members of the labour PLP.

Can we say the same of Sunak post 2024 ?

If Sunak beats all odds and remains in office he will be in an unassailable position

Like Boris in 2019 or Major in 1992?

Honestly, how anyone intelligent of any political persuasion can look at this government and think, yep let’s have some more of that, just makes me sad.

The problem is Starmer who simply fails to impress, and if Sunak is able to put behind the end of the Johnson Truss period then good luck to him

Starmer and Sunak are equally uncharismatic.

Both have had some success in purging their respective parties of nerwellto dos. Starmer has been more ruthless, which can be placed as a tick in the credit column. Sunak on the other hand selected Braverman as Home Secretary and this placed her in pole position as his successor, which puts a big ❌ in the debit column.

I appreciate you don't like Sunak and you are on the Left but he definitely has more charisma than Starmer. He has a flourish of presentation - when not reading out a speech - and isn't boring to listen to.

Rishi's dishes didn't take off for nothing.

I have met Rishi. Had a 1on1 conversation with him. He is a charming and personable guy. But from what I have been told so is Starmer. As we now know so was Major. And yet all of them in public were wooden and grey and boring.

When not reading a speech Sunak is as you say. But he is PM. Which means speeches. And he reads them out in a comedic Jackanory voice. As he did Stop The Boats. Even if he was announcing a cure for cancer validated by the greatest medical minds his presentation would both send you to sleep and make you think its a lie.

I genuinely like Rishi. Was an early ramper of his on this forum. But please, don't try and make him out to be some kind of people person in a way Starmer is not. Please. Because its nonsense.

SouthamObserver said:

It seems that for Sunak it is enough not to be Truss or Johnson. Starmer, though, has to be at the level of pre-1997 Tony Blair. As ever, the Tories and Labour are judged to very different standards!!

Neither of them is that impressive. But they're both decent administrators. Given that, time for a change doesn't look or feel dangerous - especially after the last few years.

SouthamObserver said:

It seems that for Sunak it is enough not to be Truss or Johnson. Starmer, though, has to be at the level of pre-1997 Tony Blair. As ever, the Tories and Labour are judged to very different standards!!

Neither of them is that impressive. But they're both decent administrators. Given that, time for a change doesn't look or feel dangerous - especially after the last few years.

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

On topic I have always held the view that this was a solution in search of a problem but if David Davis is opposed to it I may need to think again.

The solution is lets find a way to discourage the young from voting.
The problem is postal vote fraud.

But they like postal votes because that is Tory votes in the bag.

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Malmesbury, I'm shockingly unfamiliar with Cicero, I'm afraid. I did hear recently that the Romans were widely prejudiced but it wasn't so much skin colour as just not being Roman. Probably with an honourable(ish) exception for Greeks.

That also tallies with the Greeks having two types of foreigner (the worse kind being barbarians), and the Eastern Romans and latter day Persians disliking each other but admitting they were both civilised and practically everybody else was a barbarian.

Being from Africa certainly wasn't a bar to Septimius Severus becoming emperor (unsure if he was born there, think so, to senatorialish parents... been a while since I read his bio).

Egypt was Rome's granary, and the wealthiest province outside of Rome.
The particular kind of prejudices developed during a few centuries of European colonialism simply didn't exist back then.

They had their own, very different ideas of the civilised and the barbarian (words which they generously gave us).

I was told at a diversity and inclusion seminar thingy last year that Henry the Navigator has been called the first racist, which was a surprise to me. Seems pretty clear there's always been plenty of racism, it just won't have looked exactly like how we view racism today, with the baggage if the last 300 years and the cultural factors in play.

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

And it seems some Labour politicians haven't drunk the kool-aid either:

"This is backed up by — admittedly anecdotal — evidence from MPs, ministers and shadow ministers who have used the Easter recess to fan out across the country, campaigning before the elections next month. They say that from talking to people on the doorstep Labour’s current 18 point poll lead is an overestimation of the party’s true support and that much of that apparent endorsement is “soft”.

One shadow minister said: “The polls simply aren’t a reflection of what I’m seeing on the ground when I go out canvassing. There is simply no way that we are twenty points ahead — ten or twelve at the most.”

We are heading to a hung parliament.

Hung Parliament means Starmer as PM, albeit with an unstable government.

If the Tories lose 50 seats, they are out. Kinnock gained 42 in 1992, so Starmer only needs to do slightly better to be in Number 10.

Can the LibDems be relied upon not to get into bed with the Tories again?

If the Tories are down by 50 or more it seems unlikely there will be enough LDs to give them a working majority.

So even in the unlikely event that we can’t, the point would be moot.

It seems somewhat odd to rely on there being too few LD MPs to avoid another LD Tory deal.

Surely they have learned from the last time they opened Pandora’s box and sent us down this path.

Good morning

It does seem sereal that in the course of a few weeks we have moved from an extinction election for the conserovatives to even Sunak beating all odds and holding off labour

I would suggest it is labour's to lose, but my regret is the party failed to listen to Sunak's warning about Truss which proved prescient

Of course it would be a political disaster for labour supporters, but personally I would be content to see a Sunak led government post GE24

I don’t feel enthusiasm for any of them but a starmer led govt would probably not be too bad. He’d certainly hold back the more idiotic members of the labour PLP.

Can we say the same of Sunak post 2024 ?

If Sunak beats all odds and remains in office he will be in an unassailable position

Like Boris in 2019 or Major in 1992?

Honestly, how anyone intelligent of any political persuasion can look at this government and think, yep let’s have some more of that, just makes me sad.

The problem is Starmer who simply fails to impress, and if Sunak is able to put behind the end of the Johnson Truss period then good luck to him

Starmer and Sunak are equally uncharismatic.

Both have had some success in purging their respective parties of nerwellto dos. Starmer has been more ruthless, which can be placed as a tick in the credit column. Sunak on the other hand selected Braverman as Home Secretary and this placed her in pole position as his successor, which puts a big ❌ in the debit column.

I appreciate you don't like Sunak and you are on the Left but he definitely has more charisma than Starmer. He has a flourish of presentation - when not reading out a speech - and isn't boring to listen to.

Rishi's dishes didn't take off for nothing.

I have met Rishi. Had a 1on1 conversation with him. He is a charming and personable guy. But from what I have been told so is Starmer. As we now know so was Major. And yet all of them in public were wooden and grey and boring.

When not reading a speech Sunak is as you say. But he is PM. Which means speeches. And he reads them out in a comedic Jackanory voice. As he did Stop The Boats. Even if he was announcing a cure for cancer validated by the greatest medical minds his presentation would both send you to sleep and make you think its a lie.

I genuinely like Rishi. Was an early ramper of his on this forum. But please, don't try and make him out to be some kind of people person in a way Starmer is not. Please. Because its nonsense.

SouthamObserver said:

Sunak is clearly much better than Truss and Johnson, but there is not much polling evidence he is viewed more favourably than Starmer. They seem to be pretty level on best PM, while Starmer does better on net favourability.

TOPPING said:

boulay said:

TOPPING said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

1

malcolmg said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Any grand national tips?

I fear the eco terrorists may win today.

I believe they might. As for horses much better to watch the race without a bet so you aren't willing horses to do badly.

If you want to satisfy your betting urge you can get 22s about Boris being Cons leader at the next election.

My horses for National

Corach Rambler
Delta Work
Gallard Du Mesnil

Good Luck to everyone having a Flutter

With respect malc, I hope people bet their house, life savings, kids inheritance and the shirts on their backs but lose the lot in some bizarre loophole caused by cancellation of the race due to animal rights protests. A niche aspiration, I grant you. If it has to be run, let's hope it's the jockeys who get hurt, and the horses have a bit of a shake, trot off and have a nibble on some grass.

How are you planning to dispose of the tens of thousands of racehorses once you've ended racing.

Value/own brand frozen Lasagnes.

That would be some value. Sea the Stars is currently standing at Gilltown Stud at EUR180,000.

malcolmg said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

It seems that for Sunak it is enough not to be Truss or Johnson. Starmer, though, has to be at the level of pre-1997 Tony Blair. As ever, the Tories and Labour are judged to very different standards!!

Neither of them is that impressive. But they're both decent administrators. Given that, time for a change doesn't look or feel dangerous - especially after the last few years.

I disagree.

Both are hugely impressive.

You don't get to be PM or LotO without being a supremely capable operator.

But it is the necessary appeal to the lowest common denominator that, for more rarified minds, is so off-putting.

Starmer looks like a waxworks dummy and Rishi is like a presenter on CEEBBies but streets ahead of Starmer the empty suit

TOPPING said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

1

malcolmg said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Any grand national tips?

I fear the eco terrorists may win today.

I believe they might. As for horses much better to watch the race without a bet so you aren't willing horses to do badly.

If you want to satisfy your betting urge you can get 22s about Boris being Cons leader at the next election.

My horses for National

Corach Rambler
Delta Work
Gallard Du Mesnil

Good Luck to everyone having a Flutter

With respect malc, I hope people bet their house, life savings, kids inheritance and the shirts on their backs but lose the lot in some bizarre loophole caused by cancellation of the race due to animal rights protests. A niche aspiration, I grant you. If it has to be run, let's hope it's the jockeys who get hurt, and the horses have a bit of a shake, trot off and have a nibble on some grass.

How are you planning to dispose of the tens of thousands of racehorses once you've ended racing.

kinabalu said:

If the Tories insist on this sort of nonsense I think Labour should look at extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. This would be controversial but far more defensible since it would lead to more people voting not less.

RochdalePioneers said:

Ghedebrav said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

And it seems some Labour politicians haven't drunk the kool-aid either:

"This is backed up by — admittedly anecdotal — evidence from MPs, ministers and shadow ministers who have used the Easter recess to fan out across the country, campaigning before the elections next month. They say that from talking to people on the doorstep Labour’s current 18 point poll lead is an overestimation of the party’s true support and that much of that apparent endorsement is “soft”.

One shadow minister said: “The polls simply aren’t a reflection of what I’m seeing on the ground when I go out canvassing. There is simply no way that we are twenty points ahead — ten or twelve at the most.”

We are heading to a hung parliament.

Hung Parliament means Starmer as PM, albeit with an unstable government.

If the Tories lose 50 seats, they are out. Kinnock gained 42 in 1992, so Starmer only needs to do slightly better to be in Number 10.

Can the LibDems be relied upon not to get into bed with the Tories again?

If the Tories are down by 50 or more it seems unlikely there will be enough LDs to give them a working majority.

So even in the unlikely event that we can’t, the point would be moot.

It seems somewhat odd to rely on there being too few LD MPs to avoid another LD Tory deal.

Surely they have learned from the last time they opened Pandora’s box and sent us down this path.

Good morning

It does seem sereal that in the course of a few weeks we have moved from an extinction election for the conserovatives to even Sunak beating all odds and holding off labour

I would suggest it is labour's to lose, but my regret is the party failed to listen to Sunak's warning about Truss which proved prescient

Of course it would be a political disaster for labour supporters, but personally I would be content to see a Sunak led government post GE24

I don’t feel enthusiasm for any of them but a starmer led govt would probably not be too bad. He’d certainly hold back the more idiotic members of the labour PLP.

Can we say the same of Sunak post 2024 ?

If Sunak beats all odds and remains in office he will be in an unassailable position

Like Boris in 2019 or Major in 1992?

Honestly, how anyone intelligent of any political persuasion can look at this government and think, yep let’s have some more of that, just makes me sad.

The problem is Starmer who simply fails to impress, and if Sunak is able to put behind the end of the Johnson Truss period then good luck to him

Starmer and Sunak are equally uncharismatic.

Both have had some success in purging their respective parties of nerwellto dos. Starmer has been more ruthless, which can be placed as a tick in the credit column. Sunak on the other hand selected Braverman as Home Secretary and this placed her in pole position as his successor, which puts a big ❌ in the debit column.

I appreciate you don't like Sunak and you are on the Left but he definitely has more charisma than Starmer. He has a flourish of presentation - when not reading out a speech - and isn't boring to listen to.

Rishi's dishes didn't take off for nothing.

I have met Rishi. Had a 1on1 conversation with him. He is a charming and personable guy. But from what I have been told so is Starmer. As we now know so was Major. And yet all of them in public were wooden and grey and boring.

When not reading a speech Sunak is as you say. But he is PM. Which means speeches. And he reads them out in a comedic Jackanory voice. As he did Stop The Boats. Even if he was announcing a cure for cancer validated by the greatest medical minds his presentation would both send you to sleep and make you think its a lie.

I genuinely like Rishi. Was an early ramper of his on this forum. But please, don't try and make him out to be some kind of people person in a way Starmer is not. Please. Because its nonsense.

People who think Rishi is charismatic really do need to get out more. I’ve seen more charismatic lampposts.

He *is* quietly charismatic. As John Major was. Problem is that they don't project it. Sunak fixes a Brownesque unconvincing smile and robotically reads a speech which sounds like a lie just from the delivery.

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I will vote for whichever party will fix Vanilla

Apart from its search function Vanilla works brilliantly imo. Always knows where you are and fits the screen perfectly. I contribute to PB via vanilla forums as it is bizarre to have the latest post at the top rather than the bottom of the page.

kle4 said:

kinabalu said:

If the Tories insist on this sort of nonsense I think Labour should look at extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. This would be controversial but far more defensible since it would lead to more people voting not less.

I'm not a fan of 16-17 year olds voting but I regard it as a policy choice which is not that controversial.

I do think though that while we get different rights and restrictions at different ages, the general trend seems more to extend the period of childhood and adolescence, and so giving voting rights would seem counter to that.

Ghedebrav said:

kle4 said:

kinabalu said:

If the Tories insist on this sort of nonsense I think Labour should look at extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. This would be controversial but far more defensible since it would lead to more people voting not less.

I'm not a fan of 16-17 year olds voting but I regard it as a policy choice which is not that controversial.

I do think though that while we get different rights and restrictions at different ages, the general trend seems more to extend the period of childhood and adolescence, and so giving voting rights would seem counter to that.

Why aren’t you a fan? Genuine question. It’s something I’ve always been in favour of and I don’t really buy arguments that you need more life experience or whatever.

Maybe more controversially, I think prisoners ought to be able to vote too.

TOPPING said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

TOPPING said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

1

malcolmg said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Any grand national tips?

I fear the eco terrorists may win today.

I believe they might. As for horses much better to watch the race without a bet so you aren't willing horses to do badly.

If you want to satisfy your betting urge you can get 22s about Boris being Cons leader at the next election.

My horses for National

Corach Rambler
Delta Work
Gallard Du Mesnil

Good Luck to everyone having a Flutter

With respect malc, I hope people bet their house, life savings, kids inheritance and the shirts on their backs but lose the lot in some bizarre loophole caused by cancellation of the race due to animal rights protests. A niche aspiration, I grant you. If it has to be run, let's hope it's the jockeys who get hurt, and the horses have a bit of a shake, trot off and have a nibble on some grass.

How are you planning to dispose of the tens of thousands of racehorses once you've ended racing.

I dunno, some sort of tax on all gambling, maybe? Send them all to nice sanctuaries. Get all the wealthy owners to pay for their upkeep? The government like to fund scrappage schemes, maybe a bit of that? Maybe go really radical, and any horse that gets hurt at a race, the owner and jockey get dragged behind the vetinary screen and bolt gunned (I know it's lethal injection, but a bolt gun adds a bit of theatre) It's a tough one isn't it? No easy answers, and I know no one on here wants a horse to die, and that you are far more knowledgeable than most (including me) on horse racing, but the average punter probably never thinks about what happens behind that vet screen but they probably should.

Horses die in racing; dogs and cats and goldfish die as pets, and we as a society have to decide if that cost is worth having racing and animals as pets. And to eat. And produce milk. To date we have decided that it is.

If you stopped all those things then the animal population would decrease dramatically and perhaps, for example in your opinion, that is a good thing.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. JohnL, aye. If robes aren't worn for the coronation one might ask what the point of them is.

Mr. Jonathan, somehow, with consistent high double digit leads, Labour must win the next election? I think the spectre of 1992 might be a little overblown.

It is not just the point of the robes that is in doubt but the purpose of the coronation itself. It does not seem to have caught the public's imagination. Charles is already King and if the coronation is being reshaped to look like a sales convention full of middle-aged chaps in business suits, then why bother? The only media interest seems to be whether Prince Harry will turn up, nothing to do with the monarch.

Mexicanpete said:

...

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

It seems that for Sunak it is enough not to be Truss or Johnson. Starmer, though, has to be at the level of pre-1997 Tony Blair. As ever, the Tories and Labour are judged to very different standards!!

Neither of them is that impressive. But they're both decent administrators. Given that, time for a change doesn't look or feel dangerous - especially after the last few years.

I disagree.

Both are hugely impressive.

You don't get to be PM or LotO without being a supremely capable operator.

But it is the necessary appeal to the lowest common denominator that, for more rarified minds, is so off-putting.

Para 3. Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss are waving frantically at you from the back!

Stuartinromford said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Ghedebrav said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

And it seems some Labour politicians haven't drunk the kool-aid either:

"This is backed up by — admittedly anecdotal — evidence from MPs, ministers and shadow ministers who have used the Easter recess to fan out across the country, campaigning before the elections next month. They say that from talking to people on the doorstep Labour’s current 18 point poll lead is an overestimation of the party’s true support and that much of that apparent endorsement is “soft”.

One shadow minister said: “The polls simply aren’t a reflection of what I’m seeing on the ground when I go out canvassing. There is simply no way that we are twenty points ahead — ten or twelve at the most.”

We are heading to a hung parliament.

Hung Parliament means Starmer as PM, albeit with an unstable government.

If the Tories lose 50 seats, they are out. Kinnock gained 42 in 1992, so Starmer only needs to do slightly better to be in Number 10.

Can the LibDems be relied upon not to get into bed with the Tories again?

If the Tories are down by 50 or more it seems unlikely there will be enough LDs to give them a working majority.

So even in the unlikely event that we can’t, the point would be moot.

It seems somewhat odd to rely on there being too few LD MPs to avoid another LD Tory deal.

Surely they have learned from the last time they opened Pandora’s box and sent us down this path.

Good morning

It does seem sereal that in the course of a few weeks we have moved from an extinction election for the conserovatives to even Sunak beating all odds and holding off labour

I would suggest it is labour's to lose, but my regret is the party failed to listen to Sunak's warning about Truss which proved prescient

Of course it would be a political disaster for labour supporters, but personally I would be content to see a Sunak led government post GE24

I don’t feel enthusiasm for any of them but a starmer led govt would probably not be too bad. He’d certainly hold back the more idiotic members of the labour PLP.

Can we say the same of Sunak post 2024 ?

If Sunak beats all odds and remains in office he will be in an unassailable position

Like Boris in 2019 or Major in 1992?

Honestly, how anyone intelligent of any political persuasion can look at this government and think, yep let’s have some more of that, just makes me sad.

The problem is Starmer who simply fails to impress, and if Sunak is able to put behind the end of the Johnson Truss period then good luck to him

Starmer and Sunak are equally uncharismatic.

Both have had some success in purging their respective parties of nerwellto dos. Starmer has been more ruthless, which can be placed as a tick in the credit column. Sunak on the other hand selected Braverman as Home Secretary and this placed her in pole position as his successor, which puts a big ❌ in the debit column.

I appreciate you don't like Sunak and you are on the Left but he definitely has more charisma than Starmer. He has a flourish of presentation - when not reading out a speech - and isn't boring to listen to.

Rishi's dishes didn't take off for nothing.

I have met Rishi. Had a 1on1 conversation with him. He is a charming and personable guy. But from what I have been told so is Starmer. As we now know so was Major. And yet all of them in public were wooden and grey and boring.

When not reading a speech Sunak is as you say. But he is PM. Which means speeches. And he reads them out in a comedic Jackanory voice. As he did Stop The Boats. Even if he was announcing a cure for cancer validated by the greatest medical minds his presentation would both send you to sleep and make you think its a lie.

I genuinely like Rishi. Was an early ramper of his on this forum. But please, don't try and make him out to be some kind of people person in a way Starmer is not. Please. Because its nonsense.

People who think Rishi is charismatic really do need to get out more. I’ve seen more charismatic lampposts.

He *is* quietly charismatic. As John Major was. Problem is that they don't project it. Sunak fixes a Brownesque unconvincing smile and robotically reads a speech which sounds like a lie just from the delivery.

The Major of 1992 had a definite, albeit minor key, charisma. That's why the whole campaign was built around him.



It went to pot because events overwhelmed him, but that's another story.

Sunak has definite talents, but he doesn't have that charisma.

RochdalePioneers said:

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Ghedebrav said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

"“For a big rump of voters if there was an option for a change candidate they would take it,” Frayne said. “But that isn’t Labour at the moment.

“It is a very consistent message we hear that people don’t see Starmer as a viable change candidate. They don’t see him as a proper leader but as someone who moans from the sidelines.”

I think we will see this position evolve over time. Labour's 5 pledges open the door to some pretty substantial solutions. Which they may or may not be too frit to propose...

Maybe. The trouble is that Starmer has left it a bit bloody late to set out his vision for change.

There's only 18 months left. Blair had been doing it for years at this stage. But, Starmer has had to compress Kinnock's reforms to claw the party back from the crazies (c.1983 to 1992) and Smith/Blair's bit into just 3 years, whereas they had near 14.

This is a bit of a myth. Blair was very good at not saying very much in detail. Much better than Starmer is. There were no big Labour policies 18 months out from May 1997. There was a lot of stuff about what Labour wouldn’t do. The “Education, education, education” speech was in October 1996, for example.

Blair was saying "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" in 1993.

He laid foundations very early.

That’s not a policy - it’s a very good sound bite. But it is definitely true that Blair was much, much better at those than Starmer is (and Sunak is, of course).

“Tough on boats, tough on the causes of boats.”

But is that a Tory policy, or the SNP’s?

Yousless abolished the transport brief from his cabinet. Instantly all of the policy failures on ferries and road improvements went away and people can get on with the primary crisis facing Scotland, that S35 blockage of the Let Rapists Loose in Women's Prisons Bill

Still the head honcho's of the state owned ferry cartel are going on £1K a night cruise ( work) jolly. Hopefully they learn about what a ship is and fact it is supposed to be able to cross tracts of water.

Back in 2016 I took my Mini Cooper on a tour of the Western Isles. After a blissful trip from north to south I drove into Castlebay and headed for my digs for the night. A few cars parked in a line at the ferry terminal, but the boat goes the morning after.

Doesn't it? Chatting with someone in the shop, and no - the boat is broken. So pulling another one in which is now doing overnight sailing back to Oban. No email, no text update, the ticket office in Castlebay not open or with a notice in the window.

So I abandoned my digs, ended up on a late ferry (just drive on, the crew didn't care) to arrive into Oban at 4:30 am having had no sleep waiting for a petrol station to open.

Calmac have been a basket case for years. Just look at the age of their fleet. Hard for the government to blame anyone else when they have been in office since 2007.

TheScreamingEagles said:

WhisperingOracle said:

It's a difficult one on Sunak's charisma ; I think, on his day, he does have some. A smooth and sunny, friendly fluency.

Sunak is so charismatic that he lost to Liz Truss.

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Any grand national tips?

I fear the eco terrorists may win today.

I think the best tip is not to bet good money on a four and a half mile, 40-horse handicapped steeplechase!

Eabhal said:

RochdalePioneers said:

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Ghedebrav said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

"“For a big rump of voters if there was an option for a change candidate they would take it,” Frayne said. “But that isn’t Labour at the moment.

“It is a very consistent message we hear that people don’t see Starmer as a viable change candidate. They don’t see him as a proper leader but as someone who moans from the sidelines.”

I think we will see this position evolve over time. Labour's 5 pledges open the door to some pretty substantial solutions. Which they may or may not be too frit to propose...

Maybe. The trouble is that Starmer has left it a bit bloody late to set out his vision for change.

There's only 18 months left. Blair had been doing it for years at this stage. But, Starmer has had to compress Kinnock's reforms to claw the party back from the crazies (c.1983 to 1992) and Smith/Blair's bit into just 3 years, whereas they had near 14.

This is a bit of a myth. Blair was very good at not saying very much in detail. Much better than Starmer is. There were no big Labour policies 18 months out from May 1997. There was a lot of stuff about what Labour wouldn’t do. The “Education, education, education” speech was in October 1996, for example.

Blair was saying "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" in 1993.

He laid foundations very early.

That’s not a policy - it’s a very good sound bite. But it is definitely true that Blair was much, much better at those than Starmer is (and Sunak is, of course).

“Tough on boats, tough on the causes of boats.”

But is that a Tory policy, or the SNP’s?

Yousless abolished the transport brief from his cabinet. Instantly all of the policy failures on ferries and road improvements went away and people can get on with the primary crisis facing Scotland, that S35 blockage of the Let Rapists Loose in Women's Prisons Bill

Still the head honcho's of the state owned ferry cartel are going on £1K a night cruise ( work) jolly. Hopefully they learn about what a ship is and fact it is supposed to be able to cross tracts of water.

Back in 2016 I took my Mini Cooper on a tour of the Western Isles. After a blissful trip from north to south I drove into Castlebay and headed for my digs for the night. A few cars parked in a line at the ferry terminal, but the boat goes the morning after.

Doesn't it? Chatting with someone in the shop, and no - the boat is broken. So pulling another one in which is now doing overnight sailing back to Oban. No email, no text update, the ticket office in Castlebay not open or with a notice in the window.

So I abandoned my digs, ended up on a late ferry (just drive on, the crew didn't care) to arrive into Oban at 4:30 am having had no sleep waiting for a petrol station to open.

Calmac have been a basket case for years. Just look at the age of their fleet. Hard for the government to blame anyone else when they have been in office since 2007.

After 8 attempts,I have managed to book myself onto a ferry. It's 34 years old, so fingers crossed!

Dura_Ace said:

DavidL said:

On topic I have always held the view that this was a solution in search of a problem but if David Davis is opposed to it I may need to think again.

I was amazed to read recently that he's only in his 70s. We could easily have to put up with him for another 10+ years. He looks truly ancient in the same way that a Saxon church or an X-Type does.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

kle4 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. JohnL, aye. If robes aren't worn for the coronation one might ask what the point of them is.

Mr. Jonathan, somehow, with consistent high double digit leads, Labour must win the next election? I think the spectre of 1992 might be a little overblown.

It is not just the point of the robes that is in doubt but the purpose of the coronation itself. It does not seem to have caught the public's imagination. Charles is already King and if the coronation is being reshaped to look like a sales convention full of middle-aged chaps in business suits, then why bother? The only media interest seems to be whether Prince Harry will turn up, nothing to do with the monarch.

Well, there's something in that, but I do still think some are looking for reasons to be upset and gloomy about it. I confidently predict when the viewing figures are less than the Queen's funeral various people online will practically be creaming themselves in excitement.

Couldn't Chaz just rock up to a court or something, do a bit of swearing on various books of faith, a bit of non religious stuff and leave it at that? Save an absolute fortune and a win-win-win for monarchists, Republicans and the not-fussed-either-ways?

No_Offence_Alan said:

Dura_Ace said:

DavidL said:

On topic I have always held the view that this was a solution in search of a problem but if David Davis is opposed to it I may need to think again.

I was amazed to read recently that he's only in his 70s. We could easily have to put up with him for another 10+ years. He looks truly ancient in the same way that a Saxon church or an X-Type does.

I was on this site, as just plain "Alan" then, while the Tory leadership election was taking place in 2005.
Malcolm Rifkind was a potential candidate for the leadership (he eventually didn't formally stand) and I recall Davis supporters here would often refer to Rifkind as "over the hill".
Davis is just 3 years younger than Rifkind.
As they say in the USA "Do the math".

ydoethur said:

At one time, the government in England legally went into remission between the death of a sovereign and the coronation of his (usually) successor. There would be a council empowered to carry out the necessary day to day business of government. On those occasions the heir was significantly under age and would not be crowned for some time (e.g. 1422 or 1547) Protectors were empowered to act on behalf of the council, but not to the extent of being King in all but name. The whole thing was a process, starting with the Accession Council and finishing fairly soon after with the Coronation. It also gave a little time to gather all the key nobles and clerics so they would swear loyalty to the king and make it all nice, neat and official. This was doubly important because until The Act of Settlement there was no clearly defined mechanism for succeeding to the throne, which frequently caused a great deal of trouble. Both Henry VIII and Edward III willed the crown away, for example, although in Edward's case it was in a logical fashion following male line primogeniture.

I'm not quite sure when that ended, but since the seventeenth century at least the tradition has been the monarch takes charge at the moment of the death of the previous monarch, and acts as their own regent. I'm also not quite sure whether legally there now has to be a coronation for a King to be properly counted as king. That may have been ditched because of Edward V - given Henry VII's urgent need to underline Richard III's position as a usurper - but certainly nobody seemed to doubt Edward VIII was King even though he was never crowned.

Therefore, you do have to wonder a bit whether the televised Accession Council itself wasn't more than sufficient and the Coronation rather pointless.