That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
Who will Corbyn supporters and their ilk vote for? If they are a significant proportion of the Green vote, it may stick.
There is another difference: there will be Green candidates in many more constiuencies than Reform candidates (I assume).
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
Who will Corbyn supporters and their ilk vote for? If they are a significant proportion of the Green vote, it may stick.
There is another difference: there will be Green candidates in many more constiuencies than Reform candidates (I assume).
I'm not so sure.
It's not that difficult to stand lots of candidates- Natural Law managed 310 in 1992, and James Goldsmith 547 in 1997.
They will pretty much all be paper candidates, but unless they want to stand down, there's little intrinsic barrier to RefUK putting up a full slate. (After all, the Brexit party ended up choosing not to stand in Conservative 2017 seats.) The deposits would be pocket change for their leadership.
The storage canard again: every LNG cargo we have under contract, sailing towards us, is storage.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
Its remarkable how last year people were hysterically saying we had no storage, then we exported our surplus through the winter, now the same people are saying the same thing again.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
Who will Corbyn supporters and their ilk vote for? If they are a significant proportion of the Green vote, it may stick.
There is another difference: there will be Green candidates in many more constiuencies than Reform candidates (I assume).
I don’t think either of them is real current voting intention. I think this is an artefact, across multiple pollsters, of over sampling politically engaged people. So my expectation is that the “real” level is closer to 4-5% for both, which some pollsters show.
There will be Corbynites voting Green certainly, and there will be Faragistes and grumpy types who may flirt with the idea of Ref too. But not 7% each.
Still, the LLG vs RefCon shares are more stable than Con vs Lab. In this latest Opinium it’s 58:36. The higher ones recently have been 62-63 plays 33-36. Pretty consistent with the difference you expect from Opinium’s swingback methodology,
I don't agree. My Tesla insurance went up nearly 60% - which is a lot. Then again the zero road tax vs the £480 a year I paid for my previous two cars helps cover that.
Car insurance is shooting up for most drivers of most cars. It is worse for EVs - that is true. But the suggestion that it is *only* for EVs isn't true.
£480 - wow that was a lot. Got an email earlier this week saying my road tax is direct debit is coming out next week, £240 for the year.
My insurance is also due for renewal soon. Seems from shopping around that the insurance premium on EVs currently significantly exceeds that.
Its a shame, considering that road tax is going to be applied to EVs before long, hopefully the insurance premium on EVs comes down soon.
I don't agree. My Tesla insurance went up nearly 60% - which is a lot. Then again the zero road tax vs the £480 a year I paid for my previous two cars helps cover that.
Car insurance is shooting up for most drivers of most cars. It is worse for EVs - that is true. But the suggestion that it is *only* for EVs isn't true.
£480 - wow that was a lot. Got an email earlier this week saying my road tax is direct debit is coming out next week, £240 for the year.
My insurance is also due for renewal soon. Seems from shopping around that the insurance premium on EVs currently significantly exceeds that.
Its a shame, considering that road tax is going to be applied to EVs before long, hopefully the insurance premium on EVs comes down soon.
My dirty diesel (well, not really, it does pass the ULEZ test at least) has zero road tax. I wonder how long that's going to last?
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
Good idea. We should do whatever it takes to support Ukraine, no reason our troops shouldn't be operating in their land to help them with training or logistics or anything else.
The storage canard again: every LNG cargo we have under contract, sailing towards us, is storage.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
Its remarkable how last year people were hysterically saying we had no storage, then we exported our surplus through the winter, now the same people are saying the same thing again.
Our media never learns.
You didn't actually read the article, did you ?
...European governments expect the seaborne gas to keep coming. Currently, Spain, the UK and France have the highest number of terminals for processing imported LNG, collectively making up 60% of the continent’s capacity. But, according to S&P Global’s Atlas of Energy Transition, other European countries are planning to develop new capacity as they look for alternatives to Russian gas...
The point about the UK is that it hasn't the capacity to build up a reserve over the summer months, bought cheaply. So it is, to a somewhat greater extent, subject to any spikes in market prices over the winter.
...In late September, the gas transmission operator, National Gas, said it was “unlikely” that gas supplies would be at risk this winter unless “a very cold winter … should coincide with a major interruption to one of our gas supply sources”. But the risk of this happening should not be discounted, the operator said...
We'll probably get away with it, but the article seems a fairly balanced analysis to me.
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
Farm and other subsidies. Northern Ireland. Foreign aid. Green crap. Diversity BS. Non-palliative care for the over-90s.
It’s just possible that the actual proposals, half leaked/briefed to the Telegraph, and thought up by the actual experts, are complex, sensible, and well thought through.
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
What the fuck? Since when did the British Defence Sec urge British defence firms to relocate production overseas? What possible reason could there be for doing this? God he's a twat.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
The storage canard again: every LNG cargo we have under contract, sailing towards us, is storage.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
Erm. Kind of missing the point. If we had more storage we would have been storing through the summer so we wouldn't have to rely so much on LNG supplies from elsewhere.
It’s just possible that the actual proposals, half leaked/briefed to the Telegraph, and thought up by the actual experts, are complex, sensible, and well thought through.
No, it's not possible.
As has been shown on here repeatedly, the subjects about which you have something to add are motor cars, Eastern European geography, and tactical level military ops. On the strategic you’re as clueless as Lewis Page, and that’s going some.
Labour now polling no better under Starmer than Corbyn did in 2017 if Opinium is correct, the LDs on 10% also slightly down on 2019 as are the SNP on 3%.
However the Tories polling worse still than they did in 1997 with RefUK on 7% and the Greens on 7% the main beneficiaries
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
I think you have to be right. The Greens are seen by many as, at worse, harmless, and they can always get the NIMBY vote. I’d double their chances.
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
What the fuck? Since when did the British Defence Sec urge British defence firms to relocate production overseas? What possible reason could there be for doing this? God he's a twat.
Erm…. since always… If BAE is to compete internationally it need a global footprint. That’s why it owns so much capacity in the US, has an interest in other European countries, and joint ventures in countries it can’t directly operate in. See also Rolls, Babcock, etc.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
I think you have to be right. The Greens are seen by many as, at worse, harmless, and they can always get the NIMBY vote. I’d double their chances.
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
To train not for combat
The US troops Kennedy sent into VIetnam were only for 'training and advice'. The actual distinction is not as clear as you might like to believe.
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
What the fuck? Since when did the British Defence Sec urge British defence firms to relocate production overseas? What possible reason could there be for doing this? God he's a twat.
Since about 316 years ago.
British firms having presences abroad is absolutely in our interest.
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
To train not for combat
The US troops Kennedy sent into VIetnam were only for 'training and advice'. The actual distinction is not as clear as you might like to believe.
It is, because if we sent actual combat troops and fighter jets to Ukraine we would be effectively at war with a nuclear weapons armed Russia. That is a wholly different situation to the Vietnam war as Vietnam had no nuclear weapons
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
To train not for combat
The US troops Kennedy sent into VIetnam were only for 'training and advice'. The actual distinction is not as clear as you might like to believe.
It is, because if we sent actual combat troops and fighter jets to Ukraine we would be effectively at war with a nuclear weapons armed Russia. That is a wholly different situation to the Vietnam war as Vietnam had no nuclear weapons
Russia can always withdraw from Ukraine if it doesn't want a conflict, there's no reason for nuclear weapons to be involved.
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
To train not for combat
The US troops Kennedy sent into VIetnam were only for 'training and advice'. The actual distinction is not as clear as you might like to believe.
It is, because if we sent actual combat troops and fighter jets to Ukraine we would be effectively at war with a nuclear weapons armed Russia. That is a wholly different situation to the Vietnam war as Vietnam had no nuclear weapons
Russia can always withdraw from Ukraine if it doesn't want a conflict, there's no reason for nuclear weapons to be involved.
Japan would have probably said the same in WW2....
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
To train not for combat
The US troops Kennedy sent into VIetnam were only for 'training and advice'. The actual distinction is not as clear as you might like to believe.
It is, because if we sent actual combat troops and fighter jets to Ukraine we would be effectively at war with a nuclear weapons armed Russia. That is a wholly different situation to the Vietnam war as Vietnam had no nuclear weapons
Fun story - the Americans had given South Vietnam a TRIGA rector.
The funky bit about TRIGA is the core is weapons grade uranium. The even funkier but is that there is enough there for a bomb. The cherry on top is that building a bomb from enriched uranium is extremely easy.
So when North Vietnam went south, there was a comic moment or two until they retrieved the reactor core.
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
What the fuck? Since when did the British Defence Sec urge British defence firms to relocate production overseas? What possible reason could there be for doing this? God he's a twat.
Not relocating; setting up. ie new factories, as they do all the time, and as they've already been discussing.
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
To train not for combat
The US troops Kennedy sent into VIetnam were only for 'training and advice'. The actual distinction is not as clear as you might like to believe.
In this case, the distinction is much clearer. We have neither the intention or the capacity to intervene as the US did.
Vietnam, FWIW, was a much different situation than Ukraine. Intervention there started under Truman Eisenhower, who both massively subsidised the French effort to re-establish it as a colony after WWII. Eisenhower wanted to send troops in 1954, but Congress refused.
The Kennedy administration intervention, urged on him by the military and the hawks in the administration, was always intended to go beyond a pure training role. (Though it's quite likely that he'd have pulled out had he survived to win a second term.)
The stripping of Ukraine aid from the bill has nothing to do with the Senate, which was quite prepared to vote for it. And had indeed done so in a bill originating in the Senate, which the GOP majority House rejected.
It was entirely because of the GOP in the House of Representatives, where the fight over the 'debt limit' - a constitutionally dubious concept - originated.
The stripping of Ukraine aid from the bill has nothing to do with the Senate, which was quite prepared to vote for it. And had indeed done so in a bill originating in the Senate, which the GOP majority House rejected.
It was entirely because of the GOP in the House of Representatives, where the fight over the 'debt limit' - a constitutionally dubious concept - originated.
For the nut job wing of the Republicans, every dollar sent to Ukraine is a dollar that could be used for corporate welfare, and reducing the tax bills of the wealthiest 0.5% of the population.
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
How many of the 1.7 million are involved in planning?
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
How many of the 1.7 million are involved in planning?
Not in planning but none of the 11,000 civil servants employed by the DfE, Ofsted and Ofqual are involved in education.
The trouble with Opinium's methodology, if I understand correctly, is that it assumes those expressing support for the Tories are as likely to turn out as they have been in previous elections. Is that really likely to be true, when comparing the next election with Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" election?
The stripping of Ukraine aid from the bill has nothing to do with the Senate, which was quite prepared to vote for it. And had indeed done so in a bill originating in the Senate, which the GOP majority House rejected.
It was entirely because of the GOP in the House of Representatives, where the fight over the 'debt limit' - a constitutionally dubious concept - originated.
For the nut job wing of the Republicans, every dollar sent to Ukraine is a dollar that could be used for corporate welfare, and reducing the tax bills of the wealthiest 0.5% of the population.
I'm very negative about the future of the world this morning. Tiny wedge issues are being used to drive massive gaps into western liberalism, and the winners will be tyrants and dictators.
Even this country is not immune: we came near to a Corbyn government, and we know what position he would have taken on issues such as Ukraine. The "It's our fault!" approach to defeating fascism.
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
How many of the 1.7 million are involved in planning?
Not in planning but none of the 11,000 civil servants employed by the DfE, Ofsted and Ofqual are involved in education.
Not true.
They are educating us in what not to do in education.
Not on a single issue, or in one direction or twain, But conclusively, comprehensively, and several times and again, Were all our most holy illusions knocked higher than Gilderoy’s kite. We have had a jolly good lesson, and it serves us jolly well right!
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
How many of the 1.7 million are involved in planning?
Not in planning but none of the 11,000 civil servants employed by the DfE, Ofsted and Ofqual are involved in education.
Not true.
They are educating us in what not to do in education.
Not on a single issue, or in one direction or twain, But conclusively, comprehensively, and several times and again, Were all our most holy illusions knocked higher than Gilderoy’s kite. We have had a jolly good lesson, and it serves us jolly well right!
They can continue to do that in their own time for free as that numpty Sam Freedman does.
The stripping of Ukraine aid from the bill has nothing to do with the Senate, which was quite prepared to vote for it. And had indeed done so in a bill originating in the Senate, which the GOP majority House rejected.
It was entirely because of the GOP in the House of Representatives, where the fight over the 'debt limit' - a constitutionally dubious concept - originated.
For the nut job wing of the Republicans, every dollar sent to Ukraine is a dollar that could be used for corporate welfare, and reducing the tax bills of the wealthiest 0.5% of the population.
I'm very negative about the future of the world this morning. Tiny wedge issues are being used to drive massive gaps into western liberalism, and the winners will be tyrants and dictators.
Even this country is not immune: we came near to a Corbyn government, and we know what position he would have taken on issues such as Ukraine. The "It's our fault!" approach to defeating fascism.
Some absolute genius on here (not me!) said that Corbyn wouldn’t send troops to Latvia if Russia invaded because ‘the Russians could probably manage by themselves.’
Turns out the poster in question might have been wrong, but it was still a brilliant skewering.
The trouble with Opinium's methodology, if I understand correctly, is that it assumes those expressing support for the Tories are as likely to turn out as they have been in previous elections. Is that really likely to be true, when comparing the next election with Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" election?
Looking at the header it is a major discrepancy with the 20 point leads in Yougov and We Think. Presumably due to methodology, but possibly just random sampling error in one or all the polls.
Unless confirmed in other polling after conference season is over,, I wouldn't take it too seriously.
The trouble with Opinium's methodology, if I understand correctly, is that it assumes those expressing support for the Tories are as likely to turn out as they have been in previous elections. Is that really likely to be true, when comparing the next election with Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" election?
No of course it's not true. Unless Cones Hotline 2024 turns out to the winner which it's 1997 predecessor was not.
The stripping of Ukraine aid from the bill has nothing to do with the Senate, which was quite prepared to vote for it. And had indeed done so in a bill originating in the Senate, which the GOP majority House rejected.
It was entirely because of the GOP in the House of Representatives, where the fight over the 'debt limit' - a constitutionally dubious concept - originated.
It’s also symbolism. It allows the nutter quasi-fascist wing of the Republicans to vote against the bill (rather than having to vote for it as part of a combined bill).
Buts it’s going to sail through with Dem and sane Republican support
The stripping of Ukraine aid from the bill has nothing to do with the Senate, which was quite prepared to vote for it. And had indeed done so in a bill originating in the Senate, which the GOP majority House rejected.
It was entirely because of the GOP in the House of Representatives, where the fight over the 'debt limit' - a constitutionally dubious concept - originated.
For the nut job wing of the Republicans, every dollar sent to Ukraine is a dollar that could be used for corporate welfare, and reducing the tax bills of the wealthiest 0.5% of the population.
Amazingly the minister is claiming this cost is actually a saving - as the previous plan would have been £520m more. "You got lucky" said Tory Brexiteers.
What is the point? There is no transition away from the EEA to replace it with other imports from elsewhere. We will always be doing most trade in food with the closest market because of the nature of food.
So we remain attached and should remain aligned. These checks are exactly the kind of mentalist approach that the most mentalist of Brexiteers insisted would never ever be required. And yet here we are.
The stripping of Ukraine aid from the bill has nothing to do with the Senate, which was quite prepared to vote for it. And had indeed done so in a bill originating in the Senate, which the GOP majority House rejected.
It was entirely because of the GOP in the House of Representatives, where the fight over the 'debt limit' - a constitutionally dubious concept - originated.
For the nut job wing of the Republicans, every dollar sent to Ukraine is a dollar that could be used for corporate welfare, and reducing the tax bills of the wealthiest 0.5% of the population.
The trouble with Opinium's methodology, if I understand correctly, is that it assumes those expressing support for the Tories are as likely to turn out as they have been in previous elections. Is that really likely to be true, when comparing the next election with Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" election?
Looking at the header it is a major discrepancy with the 20 point leads in Yougov and We Think. Presumably due to methodology, but possibly just random sampling error in one or all the polls.
Unless confirmed in other polling after conference season is over,, I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Probably this particular result is affected by a combination of the two, but the Opinium lead has consistently been 5 points or so smaller than that shown by others, so the methodology must be making a difference.
The turnout assumption is presented as a kind of empirical solution to the hoary problem of former Tory undecideds, but as they start by excluding undecideds and then adjust turnouts for party supporters, it seems a pretty indirect solution, with no guarantee of accuracy in the future just because it would have given a reasonable result in the past. Surely better to try to tackle the problem directly, as Only Living Boy tried to do here a couple of weeks ago?
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
How many of the 1.7 million are involved in planning?
Not in planning but none of the 11,000 civil servants employed by the DfE, Ofsted and Ofqual are involved in education.
Not true.
They are educating us in what not to do in education.
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory. I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it. Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
How many of the 1.7 million are involved in planning? Not in planning but none of the 11,000 civil servants employed by the DfE, Ofsted and Ofqual are involved in education.
Not true.
They are educating us in what not to do in education.
Not on a single issue, or in one direction or twain, But conclusively, comprehensively, and several times and again, Were all our most holy illusions knocked higher than Gilderoy’s kite. We have had a jolly good lesson, and it serves us jolly well right! They can continue to do that in their own time for free as that numpty Sam Freedman does.
I was comparing the value of the education in question to that received from the Boer War.
Perhaps we could send the DfE to clear mines in Ukraine? They would definitely innovate, there.
The trouble with Opinium's methodology, if I understand correctly, is that it assumes those expressing support for the Tories are as likely to turn out as they have been in previous elections. Is that really likely to be true, when comparing the next election with Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" election?
Looking at the header it is a major discrepancy with the 20 point leads in Yougov and We Think. Presumably due to methodology, but possibly just random sampling error in one or all the polls.
Unless confirmed in other polling after conference season is over,, I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Probably this particular result is affected by a combination of the two, but the Opinium lead has consistently been 5 points or so smaller than that shown by others, so the methodology must be making a difference.
The turnout assumption is presented as a kind of empirical solution to the hoary problem of former Tory undecideds, but as they start by excluding undecideds and then adjust turnouts for party supporters, it seems a pretty indirect solution, with no guarantee of accuracy in the future just because it would have given a reasonable result in the past. Surely better to try to tackle the problem directly, as Only Living Boy tried to do here a couple of weeks ago?
Curiously, the Guardian is playing this poll as bad news for the Tories.
The storage canard again: every LNG cargo we have under contract, sailing towards us, is storage.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
Its remarkable how last year people were hysterically saying we had no storage, then we exported our surplus through the winter, now the same people are saying the same thing again.
Our media never learns.
At the moment we are producing 108.5% of our requirements and 55% of that is from wind. Between wind and nuclear our gas requirements are likely to be significantly less than last year given the huge offshore wind farms that have come online this year. I don't think we will have much to worry about.
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
I would imagine that the mushrooming of the state is due largely to the repatriation of state functions after Brexit, plus some kind of yes minister style administrative bloat. The classic, near comical example is the current government setting up a new department - the 'office of local government' (Oflog) within an existing department - the ministry of housing, communities and local government, with a remit to improve the performance of local government. This is administrative bloat in action. They are looking for a director at £149k per year, if anyone is interested in applying.
The storage canard again: every LNG cargo we have under contract, sailing towards us, is storage.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
Its remarkable how last year people were hysterically saying we had no storage, then we exported our surplus through the winter, now the same people are saying the same thing again.
Our media never learns.
At the moment we are producing 108.5% of our requirements and 55% of that is from wind. Between wind and nuclear our gas requirements are likely to be significantly less than last year given the huge offshore wind farms that have come online this year. I don't think we will have much to worry about.
Isn’t most of our gas demand for domestic heating, not electricity?
The storage canard again: every LNG cargo we have under contract, sailing towards us, is storage.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
Its remarkable how last year people were hysterically saying we had no storage, then we exported our surplus through the winter, now the same people are saying the same thing again.
Our media never learns.
At the moment we are producing 108.5% of our requirements and 55% of that is from wind. Between wind and nuclear our gas requirements are likely to be significantly less than last year given the huge offshore wind farms that have come online this year. I don't think we will have much to worry about.
Isn’t most of our gas demand for domestic heating, not electricity?
Perhaps Rishi Sunak's recent actions are designed to boost domestic production via vast quantities of hot air.
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
I would imagine that the mushrooming of the state is due largely to the repatriation of state functions after Brexit, plus some kind of yes minister style administrative bloat. The classic, near comical example is the current government setting up a new department - the 'office of local government' (Oflog) within an existing department - the ministry of housing, communities and local government, with a remit to improve the performance of local government. This is administrative bloat in action. They are looking for a director at £149k per year, if anyone is interested in applying.
Regarding Planning, there are hardly any civil servants involved in planning, the number is almost negligible. Maybe 100 or so?
Surely improving the performance of local government is what Rishi is already spending his time and energy on?
Although of course if they were serious, you don't need a new director to understand the problem. Each year, we cut their real terms funding and mandate they do more and more. Result - cutting corners, demotivation and ultimately failure.
The storage canard again: every LNG cargo we have under contract, sailing towards us, is storage.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
Its remarkable how last year people were hysterically saying we had no storage, then we exported our surplus through the winter, now the same people are saying the same thing again.
Our media never learns.
At the moment we are producing 108.5% of our requirements and 55% of that is from wind. Between wind and nuclear our gas requirements are likely to be significantly less than last year given the huge offshore wind farms that have come online this year. I don't think we will have much to worry about.
That's 'at the moment', and it is relatively high wind loading, though not unprecedented. On several occasion when I've looked recently, we've been producing far less than 100% of our own electricity (depending on the interconnectors), and with essentially no wind contribution.
The trouble with Opinium's methodology, if I understand correctly, is that it assumes those expressing support for the Tories are as likely to turn out as they have been in previous elections. Is that really likely to be true, when comparing the next election with Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" election?
Looking at the header it is a major discrepancy with the 20 point leads in Yougov and We Think. Presumably due to methodology, but possibly just random sampling error in one or all the polls.
Unless confirmed in other polling after conference season is over,, I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Probably this particular result is affected by a combination of the two, but the Opinium lead has consistently been 5 points or so smaller than that shown by others, so the methodology must be making a difference.
The turnout assumption is presented as a kind of empirical solution to the hoary problem of former Tory undecideds, but as they start by excluding undecideds and then adjust turnouts for party supporters, it seems a pretty indirect solution, with no guarantee of accuracy in the future just because it would have given a reasonable result in the past. Surely better to try to tackle the problem directly, as Only Living Boy tried to do here a couple of weeks ago?
Curiously, the Guardian is playing this poll as bad news for the Tories.
Based on the comparison with 2019, I suppose even the staunchest Tory optimists would admit it's bad. The only context in which it could be considered good is that recent Labour leads were larger.
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
Farm and other subsidies. Northern Ireland. Foreign aid. Green crap. Diversity BS. Non-palliative care for the over-90s.
A 91 year old gets an infection that is readily treatable with antibiotics that cost pennies. “No!” cries Fishing. “We should put them in a hospice.”
The storage canard again: every LNG cargo we have under contract, sailing towards us, is storage.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
Its remarkable how last year people were hysterically saying we had no storage, then we exported our surplus through the winter, now the same people are saying the same thing again.
Our media never learns.
At the moment we are producing 108.5% of our requirements and 55% of that is from wind. Between wind and nuclear our gas requirements are likely to be significantly less than last year given the huge offshore wind farms that have come online this year. I don't think we will have much to worry about.
Isn’t most of our gas demand for domestic heating, not electricity?
I'm not sure how the figures compare to be honest and a quick google is not really helping. I suspect that historically, when we were reliant on gas for something like 60%+ of our electricity, the figures may have been roughly equivalent but I agree that domestic usage will probably predominate now. We still have some domestic production of gas, of course.
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
Farm and other subsidies. Northern Ireland. Foreign aid. Green crap. Diversity BS. Non-palliative care for the over-90s.
A 91 year old gets an infection that is readily treatable with antibiotics that cost pennies. “No!” cries Fishing. “We should put them in a hospice.”
Another referral for Dr Shipman, Mr Fishing? You are spoiling us!
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
Farage, a clever prick, will only step up if he sees a gap in the market. The Cons haven’t left much space on the right for him so I daresay he’ll stick to his other grifts for now.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
I would imagine that the mushrooming of the state is due largely to the repatriation of state functions after Brexit, plus some kind of yes minister style administrative bloat. The classic, near comical example is the current government setting up a new department - the 'office of local government' (Oflog) within an existing department - the ministry of housing, communities and local government, with a remit to improve the performance of local government. This is administrative bloat in action. They are looking for a director at £149k per year, if anyone is interested in applying.
Regarding Planning, there are hardly any civil servants involved in planning, the number is almost negligible. Maybe 100 or so?
Surely improving the performance of local government is what Rishi is already spending his time and energy on?
Although of course if they were serious, you don't need a new director to understand the problem. Each year, we cut their real terms funding and mandate they do more and more. Result - cutting corners, demotivation and ultimately failure.
It’s the California problem: they can’t increase taxes and spending demands (principally the social care mandate) goes up at pace. So anything discretionary gets squeezed
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
I would imagine that the mushrooming of the state is due largely to the repatriation of state functions after Brexit, plus some kind of yes minister style administrative bloat. The classic, near comical example is the current government setting up a new department - the 'office of local government' (Oflog) within an existing department - the ministry of housing, communities and local government, with a remit to improve the performance of local government. This is administrative bloat in action. They are looking for a director at £149k per year, if anyone is interested in applying.
Regarding Planning, there are hardly any civil servants involved in planning, the number is almost negligible. Maybe 100 or so?
Surely improving the performance of local government is what Rishi is already spending his time and energy on?
Although of course if they were serious, you don't need a new director to understand the problem. Each year, we cut their real terms funding and mandate they do more and more. Result - cutting corners, demotivation and ultimately failure.
Nonsense. So many of our towns are visibly shabby with appalling non-services because they aren't Tory enough. Simply do as Woking council did and they would be quids in.
The storage canard again: every LNG cargo we have under contract, sailing towards us, is storage.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
Its remarkable how last year people were hysterically saying we had no storage, then we exported our surplus through the winter, now the same people are saying the same thing again.
Our media never learns.
At the moment we are producing 108.5% of our requirements and 55% of that is from wind. Between wind and nuclear our gas requirements are likely to be significantly less than last year given the huge offshore wind farms that have come online this year. I don't think we will have much to worry about.
That's 'at the moment', and it is relatively high wind loading, though not unprecedented. On several occasion when I've looked recently, we've been producing far less than 100% of our own electricity (depending on the interconnectors), and with essentially no wind contribution.
Yes but we are heading into winter when it tends to be a bit blowy. Off shore wind will continue to increase its proportion of contribution.
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
Farm and other subsidies. Northern Ireland. Foreign aid. Green crap. Diversity BS. Non-palliative care for the over-90s.
A 91 year old gets an infection that is readily treatable with antibiotics that cost pennies. “No!” cries Fishing. “We should put them in a hospice.”
Another referral for Dr Shipman, Mr Fishing? You are spoiling us!
The storage canard again: every LNG cargo we have under contract, sailing towards us, is storage.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
Its remarkable how last year people were hysterically saying we had no storage, then we exported our surplus through the winter, now the same people are saying the same thing again.
Our media never learns.
At the moment we are producing 108.5% of our requirements and 55% of that is from wind. Between wind and nuclear our gas requirements are likely to be significantly less than last year given the huge offshore wind farms that have come online this year. I don't think we will have much to worry about.
That's 'at the moment', and it is relatively high wind loading, though not unprecedented. On several occasion when I've looked recently, we've been producing far less than 100% of our own electricity (depending on the interconnectors), and with essentially no wind contribution.
Yes but we are heading into winter when it tends to be a bit blowy. Off shore wind will continue to increase its proportion of contribution.
What you have to worry about is it being minus fifteen with a huge high pressure system sitting over us - and wind making zero contribution because not a single blade is turning.
The tides will still be delivering to our door twice a day though...
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
I would imagine that the mushrooming of the state is due largely to the repatriation of state functions after Brexit, plus some kind of yes minister style administrative bloat. The classic, near comical example is the current government setting up a new department - the 'office of local government' (Oflog) within an existing department - the ministry of housing, communities and local government, with a remit to improve the performance of local government. This is administrative bloat in action. They are looking for a director at £149k per year, if anyone is interested in applying.
Regarding Planning, there are hardly any civil servants involved in planning, the number is almost negligible. Maybe 100 or so?
Surely improving the performance of local government is what Rishi is already spending his time and energy on?
Although of course if they were serious, you don't need a new director to understand the problem. Each year, we cut their real terms funding and mandate they do more and more. Result - cutting corners, demotivation and ultimately failure.
Nonsense. So many of our towns are visibly shabby with appalling non-services because they aren't Tory enough. Simply do as Woking council did and they would be quids in.
Up to now, bankrupt councils have been ones that have done something visibly idiotic. As the next budget cycle begins, fundamentally sound councils are also sending out red alerts. Some of this will be shroud waving to justify really unpleasant cuts, but not all if it.
And in the same way that central government can't balance its books by cutting red tape/foreign aid/woke, councils can't do it off councillor allowances, either.
But it's OK, because Rishi is going to give 55 towns some of the "cutting HS2" dividend;
Russia is already at war with the West. The programme of subversion and propaganda, bribery, blackmail and murder against the UK alone marks Putinist Russia as an aggressor state. Yes, it is a hybrid war rather than a full scale military attack but threats to our communications cables, oil platforms and the rest are simply one step away from acts of war. The aggression in Ukraine will not cease if the West betrays its commitments to Kyiv. In fact Russia has made it clear that the defeat of Ukraine would be merely the first step in the subjugation of the whole of Europe.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
I think that you are correct that Russia is at war with the west, but this has been the case for at least 20 years, this war is just a stage in that process and not some kind of existential endgame. Inevitably some pragmatism has to come in to play about how resources are best deployed.
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.
That 7% Reform vote won't be anything like that come election day.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
Nor will the Greens get 7%. At a guess id say Ref will be 3% with most of those remaining votes going to abstention or Tory, and Green will be 3% with the gap split between abstention, Lib Dem and Lab.
It would be an interesting match bet, Green vs Reform % at the next GE. I agree with @carnforth , the Corbynites might well go Green, and they’re probably better organised & more professional than Reform.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
Farage, a clever prick, will only step up if he sees a gap in the market. The Cons haven’t left much space on the right for him so I daresay he’ll stick to his other grifts for now.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
It's even worse if you primarily think of Reform as an agreeable club in Pall Mall. Farage wouldn't get past the doorman.
Comments
The important thing is that "10 points behind + swingback to come = game on" doesn't work. To a decent approximation, the swingback is already there.
Mostly not going to Keir "second referendum" Starmer.
There is another difference: there will be Green candidates in many more constiuencies than Reform candidates (I assume).
Watching Match of the Day, looks like another very bad day for VAR.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66973987
How will Europe weather a second winter without gas from Russia?
EU states have worked hard to secure supplies and storage – while the UK seems just to be hoping it stays mild
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/30/how-will-europe-weather-a-second-winter-without-gas-from-russia
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
Pembrokeshire Council urgently trying to work out what to do with St Davids.
Like last winter, we will have surplus to pipe to the continent.
It's not that difficult to stand lots of candidates- Natural Law managed 310 in 1992, and James Goldsmith 547 in 1997.
They will pretty much all be paper candidates, but unless they want to stand down, there's little intrinsic barrier to RefUK putting up a full slate. (After all, the Brexit party ended up choosing not to stand in Conservative 2017 seats.) The deposits would be pocket change for their leadership.
Our media never learns.
There will be Corbynites voting Green certainly, and there will be Faragistes and grumpy types who may flirt with the idea of Ref too. But not 7% each.
Still, the LLG vs RefCon shares are more stable than Con vs Lab. In this latest Opinium it’s 58:36. The higher ones recently have been 62-63 plays 33-36. Pretty consistent with the difference you expect from Opinium’s swingback methodology,
My insurance is also due for renewal soon. Seems from shopping around that the insurance premium on EVs currently significantly exceeds that.
Its a shame, considering that road tax is going to be applied to EVs before long, hopefully the insurance premium on EVs comes down soon.
So an extremely bad day.
"British troops will be deployed in Ukraine for the first time under plans being discussed with military chiefs, the new Defence Secretary has disclosed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Grant Shapps said that he had held talks with Army leaders about shifting an official British-led training programme “into Ukraine” rather than relying on UK and other Nato members’ bases. He also called on more British defence firms to set up factories in Ukraine. "
SKS Party on less than Corbyn 2017
SKS Tory Fans please Explain
Smer-S&D: 26%
Hlas-S&D: 18% (-1)
PS-RE: 10% (+1)
OĽaNO+-EPP|ECR: 9% (+1)
KDH-EPP: 7%
SNS→ECR: 6%
Aliancia-EPP: 6% (-2)
Republika-NI: 5% (-1)
SaS-ECR: 4% (+1)
SR-ID: 3%
...
+/- vs. 3% counted
#Slovakia #Voľby2023
➤ europeelects.eu/slovakia
https://x.com/europeelects/status/1708241761158430769?s=46
But caveat that it’s early and those are largely rural votes. The exit polls had Progressives (PS-RE above) winning narrowly.
...European governments expect the seaborne gas to keep coming. Currently, Spain, the UK and France have the highest number of terminals for processing imported LNG, collectively making up 60% of the continent’s capacity. But, according to S&P Global’s Atlas of Energy Transition, other European countries are planning to develop new capacity as they look for alternatives to Russian gas...
The point about the UK is that it hasn't the capacity to build up a reserve over the summer months, bought cheaply.
So it is, to a somewhat greater extent, subject to any spikes in market prices over the winter.
...In late September, the gas transmission operator, National Gas, said it was “unlikely” that gas supplies would be at risk this winter unless “a very cold winter … should coincide with a major interruption to one of our gas supply sources”. But the risk of this happening should not be discounted, the operator said...
We'll probably get away with it, but the article seems a fairly balanced analysis to me.
Bad news - Its only been achieved by conceding to Republican demands of stripping Ukraine of any new aid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66973976
For shame.
I’d have Greens favourite, 1/2 vs 6/4 maybe? I wonder if any bookie will offer it
If Farage became Reform leader that would change things I guess
However the Tories polling worse still than they did in 1997 with RefUK on 7% and the Greens on 7% the main beneficiaries
British firms having presences abroad is absolutely in our interest.
"He is known for working with Republicans on issues such as abortion, immigration, energy policy, and gun control."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Manchin
The funky bit about TRIGA is the core is weapons grade uranium. The even funkier but is that there is enough there for a bomb. The cherry on top is that building a bomb from enriched uranium is extremely easy.
So when North Vietnam went south, there was a comic moment or two until they retrieved the reactor core.
https://nitter.net/Exploding_Heads/status/1707308968421335450#m
https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media/F7GZJx3WgAAfWdW.png
ie new factories, as they do all the time, and as they've already been discussing.
Russia will not stop unless it is stopped. The West must face down the Moscow tyranny, and it is utterly wishful thinking that anything short of the Military defeat of Moscow will save us.
Russian subversion of the US and other Western democracies is very well advanced. We may only have a few months to save ourselves. To lose would see the end of the freedom we have taken for granted. It really is that simple.
Vietnam, FWIW, was a much different situation than Ukraine.
Intervention there started under Truman Eisenhower, who both massively subsidised the French effort to re-establish it as a colony after WWII. Eisenhower wanted to send troops in 1954, but Congress refused.
The Kennedy administration intervention, urged on him by the military and the hawks in the administration, was always intended to go beyond a pure training role.
(Though it's quite likely that he'd have pulled out had he survived to win a second term.)
It was entirely because of the GOP in the House of Representatives, where the fight over the 'debt limit' - a constitutionally dubious concept - originated.
Even this country is not immune: we came near to a Corbyn government, and we know what position he would have taken on issues such as Ukraine. The "It's our fault!" approach to defeating fascism.
They are educating us in what not to do in education.
Not on a single issue, or in one direction or twain,
But conclusively, comprehensively, and several times and again,
Were all our most holy illusions knocked higher than Gilderoy’s kite.
We have had a jolly good lesson, and it serves us jolly well right!
Turns out the poster in question might have been wrong, but it was still a brilliant skewering.
Unless confirmed in other polling after conference season is over,, I wouldn't take it too seriously.
The BBC has finally written a report with some actual, useful information on the energy price cap:
Specifically, the price of gas is 6.89p per kilowatt hour (kWh), and electricity is 27.35p per kWh.
Buts it’s going to sail through with Dem and sane Republican support
New Brexit border checks to cost business £320mn a year - https://on.ft.com/3Q1FTC0 via @FT
Amazingly the minister is claiming this cost is actually a saving - as the previous plan would have been £520m more. "You got lucky" said Tory Brexiteers.
What is the point? There is no transition away from the EEA to replace it with other imports from elsewhere. We will always be doing most trade in food with the closest market because of the nature of food.
So we remain attached and should remain aligned. These checks are exactly the kind of mentalist approach that the most mentalist of Brexiteers insisted would never ever be required. And yet here we are.
The turnout assumption is presented as a kind of empirical solution to the hoary problem of former Tory undecideds, but as they start by excluding undecideds and then adjust turnouts for party supporters, it seems a pretty indirect solution, with no guarantee of accuracy in the future just because it would have given a reasonable result in the past. Surely better to try to tackle the problem directly, as Only Living Boy tried to do here a couple of weeks ago?
They are educating us in what not to do in education.
ydoethur said: Malmesbury said: ydoethur said: Eabhal said: BartholomewRoberts said: MattW said: Benpointer said: Casino_Royale said: biggles said: Casino_Royale said: TimS said:The Opinium results since the start of the year are:
45:29
44:28
44:27
44:29
44:29
44:29
41:30
42:28
44:26
43:29
43:28
41:28
44:26
43:28
42:25
40:26
41:26
42:28
41:26
39:29
So it’s Labour’s lowest score of the year, but not hugely out of the ordinary for the Tories.
There’s a trend over the year for Labour to lose a bit of VI - about 2% I’d say on average. Whereas Tory has oscillated around a fairly stable level.
The marginal gainers have been the Lib Dems. Started the year averaging 8-9, now generally 10-11. They’ve gone:
9,9,7,9,8,8,9,10,10,11,9,11,8,9,11,10,11,9,11, 12
Tories going nowhere but that's enough for Labour to be worried if I were Starmer.
Another year of that and he could be into NOM territory.
I find the Reform numbers fascinating. Do that many people even know who they are? But then I was amazed in the local elections in Derby in 2022 when I visited, to see them everywhere and doing well. At first I assumed it was an unfortunately named “Reform Derby” set of indies. But no. Maybe they are doing a LibDem, very local strategy. If so, where could they get a seat?
I think if the Tories were doing Tory things, i.e. cutting tax now rather than having raised it to record highs, then they'd be up at around 34-35%.
They've lost a slice of their base because they're not playing to it.
Do you mean lower taxes by borrowing more or lower taxes by cutting public services?
If the latter, which services would you like to see cut?
Hmmm.
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Service Support Staff or Care Staff to be slashed?
I'd say they need to recognise we need a period of higher taxation to help deal with national debt, and fund all those Conservative Govt promises.
1,726,000 people employed across civil service, public administration and other seems like quite a lot.
For anyone who's serious about cutting the size of the state though, I think you need to be prepared to say what does the state currently does that it should not.
I can give a few examples. Number one being planning.
How many of the 1.7 million are involved in planning? Not in planning but none of the 11,000 civil servants employed by the DfE, Ofsted and Ofqual are involved in education.
Not true.
They are educating us in what not to do in education.
Not on a single issue, or in one direction or twain,
But conclusively, comprehensively, and several times and again,
Were all our most holy illusions knocked higher than Gilderoy’s kite.
We have had a jolly good lesson, and it serves us jolly well right!
They can continue to do that in their own time for free as that numpty Sam Freedman does.
I was comparing the value of the education in question to that received from the Boer War.
Perhaps we could send the DfE to clear mines in Ukraine? They would definitely innovate, there.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/01/poll-spells-trouble-for-rishi-sunak-as-voters-who-lent-votes-look-to-take-them-back
https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/oflog-chief-to-earn-up-to-149000-14-07-2023/
Regarding Planning, there are hardly any civil servants involved in planning, the number is almost negligible. Maybe 100 or so?
Although of course if they were serious, you don't need a new director to understand the problem. Each year, we cut their real terms funding and mandate they do more and more. Result - cutting corners, demotivation and ultimately failure.
Plus Lozzo is pretty poisonous at the mo and Nige has generally been careful to not step over the line into full-bore nutjob.
I still get Reform and Reclaim mixed up fwiw. There’s no strong brand there.
The tides will still be delivering to our door twice a day though...
But so far, AI and picture generation is beyond me.
And in the same way that central government can't balance its books by cutting red tape/foreign aid/woke, councils can't do it off councillor allowances, either.
But it's OK, because Rishi is going to give 55 towns some of the "cutting HS2" dividend;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66973899
What's that thing about how Britain has never invested properly and we needed Brexit to somehow fix that?
There are also reasons to be optimistic. The reputation of Russia has been destroyed in the west. The war hasn't gone to plan. It has been hard work for them, the war is not that popular in Russia. They have lost vast amounts of troops. Their visions of imperial expansion have been revealed as fantasies. The Wagner group has imploded. NATO has expanded. The Russian economy - based on oil and gas- is going to get more and more obsolete as alternatives evolve and the war has accelerated this.