Starmer's message seems to be "Time for a change but I can't promise anything", which doesn't feel like a great message. But better than Sunak who doesn't have any message at all.
The Sunak message is "Don't change anything, I can't promise anything"
I've not yet found any screamingly obvious bets at Bet365 but a couple of oddities at least...
Bristol Central is priced up as Green 1/2 odds on to win, with Labour at 6/4 against - Personally I'd have put those odds the other way around
Chichester is odd... it's priced as Labour favourites 4/6, Cons at 13/8 and LD at 6/1. I don't quite see how they get those prices. I would have Cons as narrow odds on favourites, with LD the most likely challenger. I'm aware that it's gone through some Boundary changes but swapping conservative voting rural south downs for conservative voting retirement outskirts of Bognor is a bit of a wash, and I wonder what I'm missing.
I think Brighton Pavilion is the same but possibly even better value. I'm on the 7/4 on Labour.
Keir Starmer twists the knife on Rishi Sunak’s rain-sodden election speech.
“The image of a man who says ‘I’m the only one with a plan’ standing in the rain without an umbrella is, to put it politely, pretty farcical.”
6 fucking weeks of this shit.
Dear God, this site is desperately crying out for an ignore function
I mean, it is a General Election, which is pretty rare. I’m very happy with lots of cut n’ pastes, quotes, even pertinent tweets if they are on topic to the election campaign.
It’s things like holiday snaps which are, right now, a distraction.
The best way to ignore "this shit" is surely do what lots of others will and book yourself a holiday abroad?
For myself, it’s my favourite time of politics.
This one feels like a cup final where your team are 5-0 up with 20 minutes to go. So not even much to worry about. Some bitterness from the losers of course but if they hadn't played such dirty football from the start you might have more sympathy
I see that PB was talking about infrastructure earlier.
Well the way to get more infrastructure built is to make sure that current infrastructure projects are completed on time and within budget.
I wonder does anyone have any data on how many infrastructure projects achieve this ?
And are there any patterns as to the cost effectiveness and speed in infrastructure building.
Now it seems that the bigger the infrastructure project the more overbudget and behind schedule it will be.
Especially anything which claims to be 'world leading' or 'biggest in Europe'.
If so it might suggest that this country would be better concentrating on small to medium sized infrastructure.
But that impression might be formed only because the bigger the infrastructure projects is the more media attention it gets.
I see the idiots complaining about infrastructure linking London to the SW have got another shot at moaning in court. I believe that one of the reasons we never do anything quickly is too much opportunity for involving the law in these kind of situations. Just get on with it.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
I think it’s the best way to answer that type of question. Acknowledge that you have made a choice/alteration but blame your opponents for putting you in the position that the choice was necessary. Good politics because most voters who don’t overthink politics will see it as an honest answer.
It’s still unlikely, but answers like that could easily lead me towards voting for him. Even though I’m instinctively more centre right, there just isn’t a decent option on my side of the political divide.
It comes down to a divide within Labour -
1) X is a good thing. We must do it. Even thinking of the cost is bad. 2) X is a good thing. We should do it, if we can afford it.
Historically, 1) is supported by a minority of the country. 2) wins elections.
Yes parties that prioritise the desirable over the affordable usually find the electorate have a limited desire to vote for them. This is something that could be profitably learned by the Labour left over spending commitments and the Tory right over tax reductions.
With due respect, I think Quincel is starting from the wrong place and talking about the wrong seat.
The area which Claire Wright represented on the County Council, as somebody has said, lies in the outgoing Tiverton and Honiton division. This is also being split, but the larger part moves into the new Honiton and Sidmouth seat, which the sitting Lib Dem MP has decided to contest.
The area that moves into the new Honiton & Sidmouth from the old East Devon constituency is relatively small. No idea why the current Tory MP for East Devon decided to abandon most of his existing seat and decide to take on the Lib Dem incumbent - but then, as has been observed, most current Tory MPs are mad.
And of course Claire Wright backed Lib Dem Richard Foord in the byelection, as did most of her supporters, presumably, since Richard Foord won the seat. Not quite sure why the usual suspects see these people going to Labour when they have to make a choice between Lib Dem and Lab later this year, when they have already gone Lib Dem.
I agree her ward is mostly in the new Honiton & Sidmouth, but isn't most of the old constituency she came close to winning in E&EE? I wouldn't have thought her ward is that important, though I'm sure she polled well there.
Many thanks for the comment though, and it's far from impossible I've gotten the wrong scenario here.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
My main worry is that this is essentially what the Tories have done over the last 14 years. They've prioritised NHS spending over everything else (bar the triple lock), and there still hasn't been enough money for the NHS, and everything else has fallen apart.
Solving the "not enough money" problem has to come before deciding how to spend the money you have.
I've not yet found any screamingly obvious bets at Bet365 but a couple of oddities at least...
Bristol Central is priced up as Green 1/2 odds on to win, with Labour at 6/4 against - Personally I'd have put those odds the other way around
Chichester is odd... it's priced as Labour favourites 4/6, Cons at 13/8 and LD at 6/1. I don't quite see how they get those prices. I would have Cons as narrow odds on favourites, with LD the most likely challenger. I'm aware that it's gone through some Boundary changes but swapping conservative voting rural south downs for conservative voting retirement outskirts of Bognor is a bit of a wash, and I wonder what I'm missing.
I think Brighton Pavilion is the same but possibly even better value. I'm on the 7/4 on Labour.
Good call. I'm in the adjacent constituency, safe Labour, and most of our resources (which are large, as you'd expect in Brighton) are being re-directed to Pavilion. The Labour candidate is well-known and popular. The Green candidate has just resigned from the London Assembly.....
Keir Starmer twists the knife on Rishi Sunak’s rain-sodden election speech.
“The image of a man who says ‘I’m the only one with a plan’ standing in the rain without an umbrella is, to put it politely, pretty farcical.”
6 fucking weeks of this shit.
Dear God, this site is desperately crying out for an ignore function
Ignore Starmer?
This is a political betting site. He is posting political news and comments. Is the issue that you dislike the news?
Shouldnt you be our campaigning ?
No. I have a job. Clients to keep happy.
This isn’t a dig, a genuine question, have you had to go through your old Pb posts and check you haven’t posted anything, especially after the lagershed, that could cause you difficulties if your opponent picks up on them?
I'm a parish council member (now also Chair of the Finance Cte, haven't been to a single meeting, LOL) and I just make sure that everything I post on FB/Insta is orders of magnitude more offensive than anything I post on here so the opposition don't have to come this far.
Anyway, RP can just go with the time tested 'Account Hacked' strategy if challenged.
I do actually hope the Labour manifesto contains some nice surprises. There is some low hanging fruit that wouldn’t require a tremendous spending commitment.
If his plan is really to keep the first parliament steady as she goes, it would not do him tremendous harm to ready himself for the big proposals in the second parliament. A few pledges to set up royal commissions on various topics would not change anything overnight, but would really give me the cheer that he is sympathetic to the need for real reform of public services, public policy, and national institutions.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
He was pretty poor on R4 this morning. I’ve never heard him sound so unsure. Really desperate not to commit to anything and was troubled by gentle probing by Mishal Husain over the NHs v Student fees question. Tried to swerve through the Palestine issue, how quickly VAT on school fees would happen and the Doctors appointments pledge etc etc.
I also have bias but I did think that maybe there is method in the Tories wanting weekly tv debates between Sunak and Starmer as he was evasive and Sunak (for his faults) was much more direct in his R4 interview yesterday by comparison.
It’s very easy for people to say he’s going to be good on his feet as he was a Barrister but how often was he really doing the Rumpole of the Bailey/Good Wife stuff as DPP and when he did how often was he just pointing out facts from a prepared list of facts rather than actually facing a grilling where he is being questioned instead? Not necessarily the same skills.
Fwiw imo PMQs has already shown Keir Starmer cannot think on his feet, as he does not change his questions according to the answers.
I do actually hope the Labour manifesto contains some nice surprises. There is some low hanging fruit that wouldn’t require a tremendous spending commitment.
If his plan is really to keep the first parliament steady as she goes, it would not do him tremendous harm to ready himself for the big proposals in the second parliament. A few pledges to set up royal commissions on various topics would not change anything overnight, but would really give me the cheer that he is sympathetic to the need for real reform of public services, public policy, and national institutions.
Planning is the big one for me. Just reform the planning system.
Sidmouth and Honiton is my constituency. Labour will not contest it and have a paper candidate. The focus of the local CLP is Exmouth and Exeter East, as well as the Plymouth seats. There have been regular coach trips to both every weekend for many months.
IN S&H Simon Jupp - who has very deep pockets - has been throwing money at the local papers for a long time, He has been far more visible than Richard Foord. However, I suspect he was counting on a bit more time before the GE to re-establish himself after having been away for a very long time.
My guess is that this is a LibDem gain.
I agree that it might be a LD gain but at 5/2 is it value? EC has it close at around Con 36%, LibDem 34%.
The other part of the old constituency, into the new Exmouth and Exeter East, may be Cons but Labour are clear 2nd there in terms of the voter demographics (EC is Con 39%, Lab 27%, LibDem 17%). Not sure what was meant by ‘usual suspects’ someone else posted because them’s the demographics. As per Electoral Calculus breakdowns, which also helpfully give ward-by-ward details.
Tuition fees could be abolished if the percentage of people going to university was brought back to where it used to be until the 1990s. But I'm guessing that isn't an option.
I've not yet found any screamingly obvious bets at Bet365 but a couple of oddities at least...
Bristol Central is priced up as Green 1/2 odds on to win, with Labour at 6/4 against - Personally I'd have put those odds the other way around
Chichester is odd... it's priced as Labour favourites 4/6, Cons at 13/8 and LD at 6/1. I don't quite see how they get those prices. I would have Cons as narrow odds on favourites, with LD the most likely challenger. I'm aware that it's gone through some Boundary changes but swapping conservative voting rural south downs for conservative voting retirement outskirts of Bognor is a bit of a wash, and I wonder what I'm missing.
I think Brighton Pavilion is the same but possibly even better value. I'm on the 7/4 on Labour.
Good call. I'm in the adjacent constituency, safe Labour, and most of our resources (which are large, as you'd expect in Brighton) are being re-directed to Pavilion. The Labour candidate is well-known and popular. The Green candidate has just resigned from the London Assembly.....
Yes, a rather mystifying own goal that one. I imagine the Greens have a fair few activists too given anyone closer to Brighton than Bristol should be driving down to help (unless they live near Waveney Valley and/or North Herefordshire). It's going to rival Islington North for most canvassed I suspect.
Keir Starmer twists the knife on Rishi Sunak’s rain-sodden election speech.
“The image of a man who says ‘I’m the only one with a plan’ standing in the rain without an umbrella is, to put it politely, pretty farcical.”
6 fucking weeks of this shit.
Dear God, this site is desperately crying out for an ignore function
It must be difficult for you as a “lifelong Labour voter” to see Labour doing so well in the polls. Don’t worry, there is plenty of time for things to change!!
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
My main worry is that this is essentially what the Tories have done over the last 14 years. They've prioritised NHS spending over everything else (bar the triple lock), and there still hasn't been enough money for the NHS, and everything else has fallen apart.
Solving the "not enough money" problem has to come before deciding how to spend the money you have.
The Tories problem was that they rushed through a bad set of reforms then got spooked into not making any more but simply hosing down the NHS with money. Demographics will make increased nHS spending a necessity but you have to grasp the nettle of changing the institution to make that money do as much as possible. Otherwise you are simply putting new wine into old wine skins with the inevitable consequences thereof.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
Tuition fees could be abolished if the percentage of people going to university was brought back to where it used to be until the 1990s. But I'm guessing that isn't an option.
Abolishing tuition fees without cutting student numbers would cost ballpark £8bn per year. That's a lot, but it's less than pausing the triple lock on pensions for a few years would save.
Politics is about priorities. I'm not saying we can't decide pensions are more important than tuition fees, but we could simply decide the opposite. It's not a matter of possibilities, but priorities.
Tuition fees could be abolished if the percentage of people going to university was brought back to where it used to be until the 1990s. But I'm guessing that isn't an option.
Not if Britain wants to be a competitive high-income economy.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
My main worry is that this is essentially what the Tories have done over the last 14 years. They've prioritised NHS spending over everything else (bar the triple lock), and there still hasn't been enough money for the NHS, and everything else has fallen apart.
Solving the "not enough money" problem has to come before deciding how to spend the money you have.
The Tories problem was that they rushed through a bad set of reforms then got spooked into not making any more but simply hosing down the NHS with money. Demographics will make increased nHS spending a necessity but you have to grasp the nettle of changing the institution to make that money do as much as possible. Otherwise you are simply putting new wine into old wine skins with the inevitable consequences thereof.
Hope it didn’t watch “The Roast of Tom Brady” on Netflix, full of brutal jokes which are mostly untrue in reality - although “You have seven rings, well eight after Giselle gave hers back” was a classic truth.
Obviously the expulsion of the leader at the last GE is Labour's first big test/drama of the campaign and it comes as the switched off are switching on. These are the sort of moments that can make a difference unexpectedly to those of us who are wonks for Westminster events and always in tune to developments. Corbyn has his fans, Labour needs them to not revolt. That said I don't think it will shift things but..... there's always but
Corbyn's fans will split. Most of them will be disappointed that he's decided to stand against Labour, the party that he's dedicated his life to. A minority will sympathise with him and remove their Labour vote with one for the Greens, Galloway's bunch or whoever. But that minority had probably already decided not to vote Labour anyway. See BJO for details.
I agree to a large extent but I think the unknown is how the more disengaged politically (but now interested as a vote approaches) react. He's the first former Party leader to be expelled since Ramsay Mac. Its not nothing but I accept that doesn't necessarily mean it shifts any dials
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
He was pretty poor on R4 this morning. I’ve never heard him sound so unsure. Really desperate not to commit to anything and was troubled by gentle probing by Mishal Husain over the NHs v Student fees question. Tried to swerve through the Palestine issue, how quickly VAT on school fees would happen and the Doctors appointments pledge etc etc.
I also have bias but I did think that maybe there is method in the Tories wanting weekly tv debates between Sunak and Starmer as he was evasive and Sunak (for his faults) was much more direct in his R4 interview yesterday by comparison.
It’s very easy for people to say he’s going to be good on his feet as he was a Barrister but how often was he really doing the Rumpole of the Bailey/Good Wife stuff as DPP and when he did how often was he just pointing out facts from a prepared list of facts rather than actually facing a grilling where he is being questioned instead? Not necessarily the same skills.
Fwiw imo PMQs has already shown Keir Starmer cannot think on his feet, as he does not change his questions according to the answers.
To be fair to him that’s everyone in PMQs, they have what they are determined to be clipped on the news and say it regardless.
Pretty astonishing detail — Sunak told Martyn Hett's mother on the anniversary of the Manchester bombing that legislation in his name would be presented to Parliament before summer recess, and then proceeded to call an election the same day. https://x.com/krxsctr/status/1793758485508960617
Swift correction to the spreads. You can't sell Lab at 408 now. It's 390. That's more like it imo.
Thanks to Q for another real shrewdie-piece.
Legendary modesty klaxon about the spreads.
Yep. And I myself did opine it looked a professional sell.
(i) Swingback, Reform withering, campaign impact, 'better the devil you know', economy looking better, Get Rwanda Done, lack of enthusiasm for SKS ... Labour win a solid majority, Cons of the order 200.
(ii) The country has absolutely had it with the Tories and hand them a punishment beating, the centre goes Labour, the right goes Reform ... massive Labour landslide, Cons more like 100.
All you have to do is decide which of these will happen - before it becomes obvious. Then you clean up. It's as easy as that.
I can see economic good news, I can see lack of enthusiasm for SKS - but I can't see anything but a massive, massive Labour win. The anti-Tory vote will turn out. The Tory vote will not. I think if it were close, perhaps the Tory vote might be more motivated. But it won't be, so what's the point? I can't see myself being motivated enough to go down to the polling station on July 4th. The Labour MP is going to win anyway; all it would be would be a notional expression of support for one party or the other, which will inevitably be taken as 'see, that guy thinks we're ok'. Which I don't want to give them.
Pretty astonishing detail — Sunak told Martyn Hett's mother on the anniversary of the Manchester bombing that legislation in his name would be presented to Parliament before summer recess, and then proceeded to call an election the same day. https://x.com/krxsctr/status/1793758485508960617
Tuition fees could be abolished if the percentage of people going to university was brought back to where it used to be until the 1990s. But I'm guessing that isn't an option.
Abolishing tuition fees without cutting student numbers would cost ballpark £8bn per year. That's a lot, but it's less than pausing the triple lock on pensions for a few years would save.
Politics is about priorities. I'm not saying we can't decide pensions are more important than tuition fees, but we could simply decide the opposite. It's not a matter of possibilities, but priorities.
University expansion strikes me as another 'too clever by 'alf' system built on debt finance.
A bit like the mortgage market pre 2008....
My gut feeling is that, like the mortgage market, the chance of a big event suddenly cutting demand by 20%+ isn't impossible.
Pretty astonishing detail — Sunak told Martyn Hett's mother on the anniversary of the Manchester bombing that legislation in his name would be presented to Parliament before summer recess, and then proceeded to call an election the same day. https://x.com/krxsctr/status/1793758485508960617
Summer recess is July 23. He merely has to say it will be introduced following the election. Labour, I'm sure, will match that commitment
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
I think it’s the best way to answer that type of question. Acknowledge that you have made a choice/alteration but blame your opponents for putting you in the position that the choice was necessary. Good politics because most voters who don’t overthink politics will see it as an honest answer.
It’s still unlikely, but answers like that could easily lead me towards voting for him. Even though I’m instinctively more centre right, there just isn’t a decent option on my side of the political divide.
It comes down to a divide within Labour -
1) X is a good thing. We must do it. Even thinking of the cost is bad. 2) X is a good thing. We should do it, if we can afford it.
Historically, 1) is supported by a minority of the country. 2) wins elections.
Yes parties that prioritise the desirable over the affordable usually find the electorate have a limited desire to vote for them. This is something that could be profitably learned by the Labour left over spending commitments and the Tory right over tax reductions.
That's just it - it's not a Labour thing specifically but the difference between ideologically driven activists (who are essential to the energy driving a political party) and the hard-headed pragmatists (who are essential to winning elections).
Ideally you want a bit of both in a leader, but I can't think of an election-winning PM who had both since Thatcher really. I think that's why she has cast such a long shadow over our politics.
I still think it's possible Starmer could be another PM like this, but accept there isn't much evidence of this yet.
Tuition fees could be abolished if the percentage of people going to university was brought back to where it used to be until the 1990s. But I'm guessing that isn't an option.
Not if Britain wants to be a competitive high-income economy.
So why are so many graduates complaining about being poor ?
Perhaps because going to university is a very good for some but the opposite for others.
And maybe concentrating such educational resources and cost on the 18-22 years reduces the resources available for further education and training at 25, 35, 45 or even 55 ?
Just think, all he had to do was apologise and keep his mouth shut. Couldn't even do that, really made any positive views I have of him look silly in hindsight, the man is clearly a moron.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
My main worry is that this is essentially what the Tories have done over the last 14 years. They've prioritised NHS spending over everything else (bar the triple lock), and there still hasn't been enough money for the NHS, and everything else has fallen apart.
Solving the "not enough money" problem has to come before deciding how to spend the money you have.
The Tories problem was that they rushed through a bad set of reforms then got spooked into not making any more but simply hosing down the NHS with money. Demographics will make increased nHS spending a necessity but you have to grasp the nettle of changing the institution to make that money do as much as possible. Otherwise you are simply putting new wine into old wine skins with the inevitable consequences thereof.
Looking at the NHS from the outside (but doing healthcare research and working with clinicians and managers) it seems obvious that there are a lot of NHS inefficiencies. But they're not the things that most people think they are, but rather the consequences of running at near capacity and with a lack of overall investment in processes.
Examples include people turning up at A&E because they cant get in at a GP or UTC (which leads to higher costs). A lack of joined up thinking between departments, leading to extra admissions (e.g. my mum has been in and out of hospital a number of times in the past few months; some avoidable with timely physio etc, which would have worked out much cheaper - also seen in other areas - and at present she is in hospital not because she really needs to be there but because there is a wait for treatment that she needs before discharge). Social care limitations, of course, with people in very expensive hospital care due to a lack of cheaper places to discharge to in the community.
It like the cash-strapped family that spends thousands over years keeping the old banger of an inefficient car (or boiler) running because they can't afford a new one, but spending more overall. Vimes's Boots Theory in action, but here it is within our grasp - or at least the grasp of a brave government - to fix it. But in the short term it will take more money and take time for the longer term savings/improvements to shake out.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
My main worry is that this is essentially what the Tories have done over the last 14 years. They've prioritised NHS spending over everything else (bar the triple lock), and there still hasn't been enough money for the NHS, and everything else has fallen apart.
Solving the "not enough money" problem has to come before deciding how to spend the money you have.
The Tories problem was that they rushed through a bad set of reforms then got spooked into not making any more but simply hosing down the NHS with money. Demographics will make increased nHS spending a necessity but you have to grasp the nettle of changing the institution to make that money do as much as possible. Otherwise you are simply putting new wine into old wine skins with the inevitable consequences thereof.
You're not so much ToryJim as SensibleJim
Why thank you, most kind. I was never a headbanger probably why I was essentially hounded out by those who are.
The great shame of electoral geography is that a number of decent Tories who could be useful in returning the party to sanity will be swept away whilst some of those who would have the party go even further into the madhouse have such a cushion they’ll still be there to wreak havoc and delay any plausible recovery.
Swift correction to the spreads. You can't sell Lab at 408 now. It's 390. That's more like it imo.
Thanks to Q for another real shrewdie-piece.
Legendary modesty klaxon about the spreads.
Yep. And I myself did opine it looked a professional sell.
(i) Swingback, Reform withering, campaign impact, 'better the devil you know', economy looking better, Get Rwanda Done, lack of enthusiasm for SKS ... Labour win a solid majority, Cons of the order 200.
(ii) The country has absolutely had it with the Tories and hand them a punishment beating, the centre goes Labour, the right goes Reform ... massive Labour landslide, Cons more like 100.
All you have to do is decide which of these will happen - before it becomes obvious. Then you clean up. It's as easy as that.
I can see economic good news, I can see lack of enthusiasm for SKS - but I can't see anything but a massive, massive Labour win. The anti-Tory vote will turn out. The Tory vote will not. I think if it were close, perhaps the Tory vote might be more motivated. But it won't be, so what's the point? I can't see myself being motivated enough to go down to the polling station on July 4th. The Labour MP is going to win anyway; all it would be would be a notional expression of support for one party or the other, which will inevitably be taken as 'see, that guy thinks we're ok'. Which I don't want to give them.
This is almost exactly my feeling.
Spoke to a Northern ex conservative association chairman last night. His impression was the election was lost in that useless announcement in the 'bloody rain'.
I think it was lost when they elected Rishi leader, personally...
I get the sense the CCHQ media team has had all the good people leave and what's left is the true believers. Feels a bit like the Labour media team in 2019 who just seemed to flail around.
Swift correction to the spreads. You can't sell Lab at 408 now. It's 390. That's more like it imo.
Thanks to Q for another real shrewdie-piece.
Legendary modesty klaxon about the spreads.
Yep. And I myself did opine it looked a professional sell.
(i) Swingback, Reform withering, campaign impact, 'better the devil you know', economy looking better, Get Rwanda Done, lack of enthusiasm for SKS ... Labour win a solid majority, Cons of the order 200.
(ii) The country has absolutely had it with the Tories and hand them a punishment beating, the centre goes Labour, the right goes Reform ... massive Labour landslide, Cons more like 100.
All you have to do is decide which of these will happen - before it becomes obvious. Then you clean up. It's as easy as that.
I can see economic good news, I can see lack of enthusiasm for SKS - but I can't see anything but a massive, massive Labour win. The anti-Tory vote will turn out. The Tory vote will not. I think if it were close, perhaps the Tory vote might be more motivated. But it won't be, so what's the point? I can't see myself being motivated enough to go down to the polling station on July 4th. The Labour MP is going to win anyway; all it would be would be a notional expression of support for one party or the other, which will inevitably be taken as 'see, that guy thinks we're ok'. Which I don't want to give them.
This is almost exactly my feeling.
Spoke to a Northern ex conservative association chairman last night. His impression was the election was lost in that useless announcement in the 'bloody rain'.
I think it was lost when they elected Rishi leader, personally...
It’s an unpopular view here, but IMHO the MPs themselves screwed it when they ousted Liz Truss against the wishes of the membership.
Obviously the expulsion of the leader at the last GE is Labour's first big test/drama of the campaign and it comes as the switched off are switching on. These are the sort of moments that can make a difference unexpectedly to those of us who are wonks for Westminster events and always in tune to developments. Corbyn has his fans, Labour needs them to not revolt. That said I don't think it will shift things but..... there's always but
Corbyn's fans will split. Most of them will be disappointed that he's decided to stand against Labour, the party that he's dedicated his life to. A minority will sympathise with him and remove their Labour vote with one for the Greens, Galloway's bunch or whoever. But that minority had probably already decided not to vote Labour anyway. See BJO for details.
I agree to a large extent but I think the unknown is how the more disengaged politically (but now interested as a vote approaches) react. He's the first former Party leader to be expelled since Ramsay Mac. Its not nothing but I accept that doesn't necessarily mean it shifts any dials
It’s probably a big net positive for Starmer. Corbyn was a major problem last time around, so to have him so visibly out of the Labour Party is a big tick for Starmer’s new Labour project with the rest of the country.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
Swift correction to the spreads. You can't sell Lab at 408 now. It's 390. That's more like it imo.
Thanks to Q for another real shrewdie-piece.
Legendary modesty klaxon about the spreads.
Yep. And I myself did opine it looked a professional sell.
(i) Swingback, Reform withering, campaign impact, 'better the devil you know', economy looking better, Get Rwanda Done, lack of enthusiasm for SKS ... Labour win a solid majority, Cons of the order 200.
(ii) The country has absolutely had it with the Tories and hand them a punishment beating, the centre goes Labour, the right goes Reform ... massive Labour landslide, Cons more like 100.
All you have to do is decide which of these will happen - before it becomes obvious. Then you clean up. It's as easy as that.
I can see economic good news, I can see lack of enthusiasm for SKS - but I can't see anything but a massive, massive Labour win. The anti-Tory vote will turn out. The Tory vote will not. I think if it were close, perhaps the Tory vote might be more motivated. But it won't be, so what's the point? I can't see myself being motivated enough to go down to the polling station on July 4th. The Labour MP is going to win anyway; all it would be would be a notional expression of support for one party or the other, which will inevitably be taken as 'see, that guy thinks we're ok'. Which I don't want to give them.
This is almost exactly my feeling.
Spoke to a Northern ex conservative association chairman last night. His impression was the election was lost in that useless announcement in the 'bloody rain'.
I think it was lost when they elected Rishi leader, personally...
It’s an unpopular view here, but IMHO the MPs themselves screwed it when they ousted Liz Truss against the wishes of the membership.
They screwed up by letting Liz Truss end up in the members’ vote
Just think, all he had to do was apologise and keep his mouth shut. Couldn't even do that, really made any positive views I have of him look silly in hindsight, the man is clearly a moron.
Suspect Starmer would have worked pretty hard not to accept him back into the fold in fairness. He's clearly wanted to use this as a marker of him changing Labour.
Swift correction to the spreads. You can't sell Lab at 408 now. It's 390. That's more like it imo.
Thanks to Q for another real shrewdie-piece.
Legendary modesty klaxon about the spreads.
Yep. And I myself did opine it looked a professional sell.
(i) Swingback, Reform withering, campaign impact, 'better the devil you know', economy looking better, Get Rwanda Done, lack of enthusiasm for SKS ... Labour win a solid majority, Cons of the order 200.
(ii) The country has absolutely had it with the Tories and hand them a punishment beating, the centre goes Labour, the right goes Reform ... massive Labour landslide, Cons more like 100.
All you have to do is decide which of these will happen - before it becomes obvious. Then you clean up. It's as easy as that.
I can see economic good news, I can see lack of enthusiasm for SKS - but I can't see anything but a massive, massive Labour win. The anti-Tory vote will turn out. The Tory vote will not. I think if it were close, perhaps the Tory vote might be more motivated. But it won't be, so what's the point? I can't see myself being motivated enough to go down to the polling station on July 4th. The Labour MP is going to win anyway; all it would be would be a notional expression of support for one party or the other, which will inevitably be taken as 'see, that guy thinks we're ok'. Which I don't want to give them.
This is almost exactly my feeling.
Spoke to a Northern ex conservative association chairman last night. His impression was the election was lost in that useless announcement in the 'bloody rain'.
I think it was lost when they elected Rishi leader, personally...
It was lost through the cake of Downing Street parties and jam layer of Truss losing control of the economy.
The financial and sexual sleaze has been the icing on the cake.
Sunak has been the plastic figure put on top of the icing.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
My main worry is that this is essentially what the Tories have done over the last 14 years. They've prioritised NHS spending over everything else (bar the triple lock), and there still hasn't been enough money for the NHS, and everything else has fallen apart.
Solving the "not enough money" problem has to come before deciding how to spend the money you have.
The Tories problem was that they rushed through a bad set of reforms then got spooked into not making any more but simply hosing down the NHS with money. Demographics will make increased nHS spending a necessity but you have to grasp the nettle of changing the institution to make that money do as much as possible. Otherwise you are simply putting new wine into old wine skins with the inevitable consequences thereof.
Looking at the NHS from the outside (but doing healthcare research and working with clinicians and managers) it seems obvious that there are a lot of NHS inefficiencies. But they're not the things that most people think they are, but rather the consequences of running at near capacity and with a lack of overall investment in processes.
Examples include people turning up at A&E because they cant get in at a GP or UTC (which leads to higher costs). A lack of joined up thinking between departments, leading to extra admissions (e.g. my mum has been in and out of hospital a number of times in the past few months; some avoidable with timely physio etc, which would have worked out much cheaper - also seen in other areas - and at present she is in hospital not because she really needs to be there but because there is a wait for treatment that she needs before discharge). Social care limitations, of course, with people in very expensive hospital care due to a lack of cheaper places to discharge to in the community.
It like the cash-strapped family that spends thousands over years keeping the old banger of an inefficient car (or boiler) running because they can't afford a new one, but spending more overall. Vimes's Boots Theory in action, but here it is within our grasp - or at least the grasp of a brave government - to fix it. But in the short term it will take more money and take time for the longer term savings/improvements to shake out.
To give a personal anecdote, I was involved in a sports injury a few years back and I had to go to A&E with a possible concussion and facial injuries.
It took me eight hours to be seen - but fair enough they obviously concluded it wasn't life threatening. But for whatever reason the A&E hospital I went to (in West London) didn't have the people/equipment to offer me treatment for my face. So I was sent the next day to a hospital in North London.
I got to the hospital, they had no record of me. I didn't exist, so I had to go into the A&E there and do the whole thing all over again. Then I was sent to a different department in the same hospital who also had no record of me. And so I had to do it all over again with them.
Beyond it making me very angry, how much money did this waste?
Just think, all he had to do was apologise and keep his mouth shut. Couldn't even do that, really made any positive views I have of him look silly in hindsight, the man is clearly a moron.
Starmer is just astonishingly lucky. We've already had brollygate, ipadgate, motorhomeupdategate, Walesareshitatfootballgate, and now a reason to kick Corbyn out.
Swift correction to the spreads. You can't sell Lab at 408 now. It's 390. That's more like it imo.
Thanks to Q for another real shrewdie-piece.
Legendary modesty klaxon about the spreads.
Yep. And I myself did opine it looked a professional sell.
(i) Swingback, Reform withering, campaign impact, 'better the devil you know', economy looking better, Get Rwanda Done, lack of enthusiasm for SKS ... Labour win a solid majority, Cons of the order 200.
(ii) The country has absolutely had it with the Tories and hand them a punishment beating, the centre goes Labour, the right goes Reform ... massive Labour landslide, Cons more like 100.
All you have to do is decide which of these will happen - before it becomes obvious. Then you clean up. It's as easy as that.
I can see economic good news, I can see lack of enthusiasm for SKS - but I can't see anything but a massive, massive Labour win. The anti-Tory vote will turn out. The Tory vote will not. I think if it were close, perhaps the Tory vote might be more motivated. But it won't be, so what's the point? I can't see myself being motivated enough to go down to the polling station on July 4th. The Labour MP is going to win anyway; all it would be would be a notional expression of support for one party or the other, which will inevitably be taken as 'see, that guy thinks we're ok'. Which I don't want to give them.
This is almost exactly my feeling.
Spoke to a Northern ex conservative association chairman last night. His impression was the election was lost in that useless announcement in the 'bloody rain'.
I think it was lost when they elected Rishi leader, personally...
It’s an unpopular view here, but IMHO the MPs themselves screwed it when they ousted Liz Truss against the wishes of the membership.
The Tories screwed themselves when they picked BoZo and allowed him to deselect anyone sensible enough not to support him
On the Greens, Bet365 have them at 4/9 to win Brighton Pavilion, so just fractionally shorter than they are in Bristol Central. Instinctively, I'd have thought they'd be a lot more likely to win Brighton Pavilion, albeit, not nearly as likely without Caroline Lucas as the candidate in Brighton.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
I think it’s the best way to answer that type of question. Acknowledge that you have made a choice/alteration but blame your opponents for putting you in the position that the choice was necessary. Good politics because most voters who don’t overthink politics will see it as an honest answer.
It’s still unlikely, but answers like that could easily lead me towards voting for him. Even though I’m instinctively more centre right, there just isn’t a decent option on my side of the political divide.
It comes down to a divide within Labour -
1) X is a good thing. We must do it. Even thinking of the cost is bad. 2) X is a good thing. We should do it, if we can afford it.
Historically, 1) is supported by a minority of the country. 2) wins elections.
Yes parties that prioritise the desirable over the affordable usually find the electorate have a limited desire to vote for them. This is something that could be profitably learned by the Labour left over spending commitments and the Tory right over tax reductions.
That's just it - it's not a Labour thing specifically but the difference between ideologically driven activists (who are essential to the energy driving a political party) and the hard-headed pragmatists (who are essential to winning elections).
Ideally you want a bit of both in a leader, but I can't think of an election-winning PM who had both since Thatcher really. I think that's why she has cast such a long shadow over our politics.
I still think it's possible Starmer could be another PM like this, but accept there isn't much evidence of this yet.
There wasn’t a lot of evidence in favour of Thatcher prior to her election. She majored more on conviction pre-1979 and let loose her inner pragmatism afterwards. Perhaps Starmer is majoring on pragmatism before unleashing his inner conviction. Time will tell.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
He was pretty poor on R4 this morning. I’ve never heard him sound so unsure. Really desperate not to commit to anything and was troubled by gentle probing by Mishal Husain over the NHs v Student fees question. Tried to swerve through the Palestine issue, how quickly VAT on school fees would happen and the Doctors appointments pledge etc etc.
I also have bias but I did think that maybe there is method in the Tories wanting weekly tv debates between Sunak and Starmer as he was evasive and Sunak (for his faults) was much more direct in his R4 interview yesterday by comparison.
It’s very easy for people to say he’s going to be good on his feet as he was a Barrister but how often was he really doing the Rumpole of the Bailey/Good Wife stuff as DPP and when he did how often was he just pointing out facts from a prepared list of facts rather than actually facing a grilling where he is being questioned instead? Not necessarily the same skills.
Fwiw imo PMQs has already shown Keir Starmer cannot think on his feet, as he does not change his questions according to the answers.
Starmer's not a 'PMQs' performer in the Blair or Cameron sense, but it's worth remembering he put Boris Johnson in the merde by using the barrister's trick of "asking questions where you know admitting the truth looks terrible for the defendant, watch them lie and wait for the evidence they have done so."
There's method to it. So I don't think he's a bad performer. Just one who plays to his strengths. He's had weeks with Sunak where it's worked really well, and ones where it hasn't.
Obviously the Tories want as many debates as possible as they're miles behind and need "gamechangers". There's always a chance even the most consummate debater slips up and makes a prat of themselves. Starmer isn't a natural political performer.
The problems for them are a) Sunak isn't a great debater himself - he failed to expose Liz Truss. Certainly no Blair, nor even David Cameron, as he has a chippy, petulant side that comes across when challenged. We've already seen several gaffes from him. Being snippy to a voter or saying something that looks ludicrously out of touch is probably worse than seeming bland and changeable.
b) The case for the prosecution is so strong Starmer has plenty of material for a prosecutorial style and arguing the mess is so bad that Labour has to primarily focus on clearing it up.
c) Starmer's reputation as being a bit wooden also comes with an ability to surprise on the upside. If he gets his prep spot on and outperforms low expectations then it really will be game over for the Tories - and it's not something they can control.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
I recall having this discussion at the the time and I was called insane, all for saying anyone surely has the right to appeal. Several people I spoke to wanted to give her the death penalty.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
Interesting.
There’s a long history of vilifying and scapegoating female convicts.
If what you report is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it’s as you say disturbing that she hasn’t been granted the right to appeal.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
My main worry is that this is essentially what the Tories have done over the last 14 years. They've prioritised NHS spending over everything else (bar the triple lock), and there still hasn't been enough money for the NHS, and everything else has fallen apart.
Solving the "not enough money" problem has to come before deciding how to spend the money you have.
The Tories problem was that they rushed through a bad set of reforms then got spooked into not making any more but simply hosing down the NHS with money. Demographics will make increased nHS spending a necessity but you have to grasp the nettle of changing the institution to make that money do as much as possible. Otherwise you are simply putting new wine into old wine skins with the inevitable consequences thereof.
Looking at the NHS from the outside (but doing healthcare research and working with clinicians and managers) it seems obvious that there are a lot of NHS inefficiencies. But they're not the things that most people think they are, but rather the consequences of running at near capacity and with a lack of overall investment in processes.
Examples include people turning up at A&E because they cant get in at a GP or UTC (which leads to higher costs). A lack of joined up thinking between departments, leading to extra admissions (e.g. my mum has been in and out of hospital a number of times in the past few months; some avoidable with timely physio etc, which would have worked out much cheaper - also seen in other areas - and at present she is in hospital not because she really needs to be there but because there is a wait for treatment that she needs before discharge). Social care limitations, of course, with people in very expensive hospital care due to a lack of cheaper places to discharge to in the community.
It like the cash-strapped family that spends thousands over years keeping the old banger of an inefficient car (or boiler) running because they can't afford a new one, but spending more overall. Vimes's Boots Theory in action, but here it is within our grasp - or at least the grasp of a brave government - to fix it. But in the short term it will take more money and take time for the longer term savings/improvements to shake out.
I think that is true of all public sector services, things have moved on and it’s the bits round the edges (that often didn’t exist 20 years ago) where the gaps are.
And it’s those gaps that are creating logjams elsewhere because as you say this can’t be done until xyz is in place and xyz is lacking / limited
Tuition fees could be abolished if the percentage of people going to university was brought back to where it used to be until the 1990s. But I'm guessing that isn't an option.
Abolishing tuition fees without cutting student numbers would cost ballpark £8bn per year. That's a lot, but it's less than pausing the triple lock on pensions for a few years would save.
Politics is about priorities. I'm not saying we can't decide pensions are more important than tuition fees, but we could simply decide the opposite. It's not a matter of possibilities, but priorities.
University expansion strikes me as another 'too clever by 'alf' system built on debt finance.
A bit like the mortgage market pre 2008....
My gut feeling is that, like the mortgage market, the chance of a big event suddenly cutting demand by 20%+ isn't impossible.
Politicians should have been honest about tuition fees and university expansion at the time. They should have said: either we can continue to have free tuition and the same number of university students, or we can increase the percentage of people going to university but we'll have to introduce tuition fees to pay for that expansion. They didn't say this until the last moment, when introducing fees was unavoidable, presumably because they thought it would be unpopular with voters.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
I recall having this discussion at the the time and I was called insane, all for saying anyone surely has the right to appeal. Several people I spoke to wanted to give her the death penalty.
I concur
This friend of mine is straight down the line honest and lucid. He written a very good book about his remarkable experiences and hair raising cases, he’s seen plenty of genuine nutters and has no problem with life meaning life etc. He’s seen real evil
But if he is perturbed by this conviction then so am I. He’s read all the documents (I haven’t)
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
He was pretty poor on R4 this morning. I’ve never heard him sound so unsure. Really desperate not to commit to anything and was troubled by gentle probing by Mishal Husain over the NHs v Student fees question. Tried to swerve through the Palestine issue, how quickly VAT on school fees would happen and the Doctors appointments pledge etc etc.
I also have bias but I did think that maybe there is method in the Tories wanting weekly tv debates between Sunak and Starmer as he was evasive and Sunak (for his faults) was much more direct in his R4 interview yesterday by comparison.
It’s very easy for people to say he’s going to be good on his feet as he was a Barrister but how often was he really doing the Rumpole of the Bailey/Good Wife stuff as DPP and when he did how often was he just pointing out facts from a prepared list of facts rather than actually facing a grilling where he is being questioned instead? Not necessarily the same skills.
Fwiw imo PMQs has already shown Keir Starmer cannot think on his feet, as he does not change his questions according to the answers.
Starmer's not a 'PMQs' performer in the Blair or Cameron sense, but it's worth remembering he put Boris Johnson in the merde by using the barrister's trick of "asking questions where you know admitting the truth looks terrible for the defendant, watch them lie and wait for the evidence they have done so."
There's method to it. So I don't think he's a bad performer. Just one who plays to his strengths. He's had weeks with Sunak where it's worked really well, and ones where it hasn't.
Obviously the Tories want as many debates as possible as they're miles behind and need "gamechangers". There's always a chance even the most consummate debater slips up and makes a prat of themselves. Starmer isn't a natural political performer.
The problems for them are a) Sunak isn't a great debater himself - he failed to expose Liz Truss. Certainly no Blair, nor even David Cameron, as he has a chippy, petulant side that comes across when challenged. We've already seen several gaffes from him. Being snippy to a voter or saying something that looks ludicrously out of touch is probably worse than seeming bland and changeable.
b) The case for the prosecution is so strong Starmer has plenty of material for a prosecutorial style and arguing the mess is so bad that Labour has to primarily focus on clearing it up.
c) Starmer's reputation as being a bit wooden also comes with an ability to surprise on the upside. If he gets his prep spot on and outperforms low expectations then it really will be game over for the Tories - and it's not something they can control.
Take this with as much salt as you like but I understand from friends of his that he comes across much better one on one. I am not sure this is the format of a debate but I think he can be charismatic, he just finds it difficult in the avenue a leader has to - which is a weakness.
Personally I think it's about 50/50 as to whether he outperforms on the upside and it kills Sunak for good or he flails around and Sunak looks good. But I don't think that's enough to overturn 14 years and Sunak being poor.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
I recall having this discussion at the the time and I was called insane, all for saying anyone surely has the right to appeal. Several people I spoke to wanted to give her the death penalty.
I concur
This friend of mine is straight down the line honest and lucid. He written a very good book about his remarkable experiences and hair raising cases, he’s seen plenty of genuine nutters and has no problem with life meaning life etc. He’s seen real evil
But if he is perturbed by this conviction then so am I. He’s read all the documents (I haven’t)
Are you also troubled by the fact that the New Yorker magazine article was blocked in the UK?
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
I think it’s the best way to answer that type of question. Acknowledge that you have made a choice/alteration but blame your opponents for putting you in the position that the choice was necessary. Good politics because most voters who don’t overthink politics will see it as an honest answer.
It’s still unlikely, but answers like that could easily lead me towards voting for him. Even though I’m instinctively more centre right, there just isn’t a decent option on my side of the political divide.
It comes down to a divide within Labour -
1) X is a good thing. We must do it. Even thinking of the cost is bad. 2) X is a good thing. We should do it, if we can afford it.
Historically, 1) is supported by a minority of the country. 2) wins elections.
Yes parties that prioritise the desirable over the affordable usually find the electorate have a limited desire to vote for them. This is something that could be profitably learned by the Labour left over spending commitments and the Tory right over tax reductions.
The other turn off, is parties pledging to spend "£500 million on X"
This is because you can spend nearly anything you like on something and achieve nothing.
On the Greens, Bet365 have them at 4/9 to win Brighton Pavilion, so just fractionally shorter than they are in Bristol Central. Instinctively, I'd have thought they'd be a lot more likely to win Brighton Pavilion, albeit, not nearly as likely without Caroline Lucas as the candidate in Brighton.
On the one hand, they already control Brighton Pavilion. On the other hand, they just swept the locals in Bristol Central but were outpolled comfortably by Labour in the last Brighton elections (in 2023) in the wards covering the seat.
Just think, all he had to do was apologise and keep his mouth shut. Couldn't even do that, really made any positive views I have of him look silly in hindsight, the man is clearly a moron.
Suspect Starmer would have worked pretty hard not to accept him back into the fold in fairness. He's clearly wanted to use this as a marker of him changing Labour.
It may cost him Islington North, in the wider country I don't expect this will do Labour any harm at all.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
I recall having this discussion at the the time and I was called insane, all for saying anyone surely has the right to appeal. Several people I spoke to wanted to give her the death penalty.
I concur
This friend of mine is straight down the line honest and lucid. He written a very good book about his remarkable experiences and hair raising cases, he’s seen plenty of genuine nutters and has no problem with life meaning life etc. He’s seen real evil
But if he is perturbed by this conviction then so am I. He’s read all the documents (I haven’t)
Why not read the documents and write a book. That's how your stalker started his career as a novelist, isn't it? Reading up on archeological sites or some such?
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
He was pretty poor on R4 this morning. I’ve never heard him sound so unsure. Really desperate not to commit to anything and was troubled by gentle probing by Mishal Husain over the NHs v Student fees question. Tried to swerve through the Palestine issue, how quickly VAT on school fees would happen and the Doctors appointments pledge etc etc.
I also have bias but I did think that maybe there is method in the Tories wanting weekly tv debates between Sunak and Starmer as he was evasive and Sunak (for his faults) was much more direct in his R4 interview yesterday by comparison.
It’s very easy for people to say he’s going to be good on his feet as he was a Barrister but how often was he really doing the Rumpole of the Bailey/Good Wife stuff as DPP and when he did how often was he just pointing out facts from a prepared list of facts rather than actually facing a grilling where he is being questioned instead? Not necessarily the same skills.
Fwiw imo PMQs has already shown Keir Starmer cannot think on his feet, as he does not change his questions according to the answers.
Starmer's not a 'PMQs' performer in the Blair or Cameron sense, but it's worth remembering he put Boris Johnson in the merde by using the barrister's trick of "asking questions where you know admitting the truth looks terrible for the defendant, watch them lie and wait for the evidence they have done so."
There's method to it. So I don't think he's a bad performer. Just one who plays to his strengths. He's had weeks with Sunak where it's worked really well, and ones where it hasn't.
Obviously the Tories want as many debates as possible as they're miles behind and need "gamechangers". There's always a chance even the most consummate debater slips up and makes a prat of themselves. Starmer isn't a natural political performer.
The problems for them are a) Sunak isn't a great debater himself - he failed to expose Liz Truss. Certainly no Blair, nor even David Cameron, as he has a chippy, petulant side that comes across when challenged. We've already seen several gaffes from him. Being snippy to a voter or saying something that looks ludicrously out of touch is probably worse than seeming bland and changeable.
b) The case for the prosecution is so strong Starmer has plenty of material for a prosecutorial style and arguing the mess is so bad that Labour has to primarily focus on clearing it up.
c) Starmer's reputation as being a bit wooden also comes with an ability to surprise on the upside. If he gets his prep spot on and outperforms low expectations then it really will be game over for the Tories - and it's not something they can control.
Take this with as much salt as you like but I understand from friends of his that he comes across much better one on one. I am not sure this is the format of a debate but I think he can be charismatic, he just finds it difficult in the avenue a leader has to - which is a weakness. .
I bet he is really funny and surprisingly down to earth.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
Interesting.
There’s a long history of vilifying and scapegoating female convicts.
If what you report is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it’s as you say disturbing that she hasn’t been granted the right to appeal.
Jeez. That’s twice in two days you and I …
There are numerous people in prison for murder where everyone knows they havent done it, Michael Stone for example.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
Interesting.
There’s a long history of vilifying and scapegoating female convicts.
If what you report is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it’s as you say disturbing that she hasn’t been granted the right to appeal.
Jeez. That’s twice in two days you and I …
lol. I know. It’s probably just election fever and we’ll go back to normal
But my friend was articulate about his doubts - and he is an expert and he has no reason to lie (this was his opinion as a bystander but a professional). And tbh I was quite resistant - I don’t want to think we’ve sent down an innocent woman for life
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
Interesting.
There’s a long history of vilifying and scapegoating female convicts.
If what you report is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it’s as you say disturbing that she hasn’t been granted the right to appeal.
Jeez. That’s twice in two days you and I …
There are numerous people in prison for murder where everyone knows they havent done it, Michael Stone for example.
Tuition fees could be abolished if the percentage of people going to university was brought back to where it used to be until the 1990s. But I'm guessing that isn't an option.
Not if Britain wants to be a competitive high-income economy.
So why are so many graduates complaining about being poor ?
Perhaps because going to university is a very good for some but the opposite for others.
And maybe concentrating such educational resources and cost on the 18-22 years reduces the resources available for further education and training at 25, 35, 45 or even 55 ?
The cost of living is too high.
Tertiary education in Britain is too focused on academic subjects, as opposed to a broader range of skills. I've mentioned before my Irish brother-in-law who completed a third-level course related to his trade as a welder, and now works for the local distillery, earning enough to have built his own home.
But these courses need to be at least as well funded as academic degree courses and to have parity of esteem. In Britain they tend to be seen as a second-class option, and aren't seen as going to proper university.
More than 60% of young Irish people have a third-level education. Britain needs to do the same, to a high standard, if it's going to compete.
Both Labour sources and some Tories are saying this is the most jaw-dropping moment of the week: the claim that Sunak misled a grieving mother about introducing legislation in her son’s name. ‘Psychotic’ says a Labour source. ‘Staggering’ says a Tory…
Catching up with the prior thread - I stand by my argument that a minimum wage and a Universal Basic Income are not necessarily contradictory, and thus the Green manifesto isn't (at least on that point) nonsense.
It's an interesting debate over whether you would want or need one under UBI though, and one I hope we revisit it when things aren't quite as hectic.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
I recall having this discussion at the the time and I was called insane, all for saying anyone surely has the right to appeal. Several people I spoke to wanted to give her the death penalty.
I concur
This friend of mine is straight down the line honest and lucid. He written a very good book about his remarkable experiences and hair raising cases, he’s seen plenty of genuine nutters and has no problem with life meaning life etc. He’s seen real evil
But if he is perturbed by this conviction then so am I. He’s read all the documents (I haven’t)
Are you also troubled by the fact that the New Yorker magazine article was blocked in the UK?
It is?!?! There’s so much news I missed that. Also I don’t like thinking about this case BECAUSE it troubles me that she might be innocent
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
My main worry is that this is essentially what the Tories have done over the last 14 years. They've prioritised NHS spending over everything else (bar the triple lock), and there still hasn't been enough money for the NHS, and everything else has fallen apart.
Solving the "not enough money" problem has to come before deciding how to spend the money you have.
The Tories problem was that they rushed through a bad set of reforms then got spooked into not making any more but simply hosing down the NHS with money. Demographics will make increased nHS spending a necessity but you have to grasp the nettle of changing the institution to make that money do as much as possible. Otherwise you are simply putting new wine into old wine skins with the inevitable consequences thereof.
Looking at the NHS from the outside (but doing healthcare research and working with clinicians and managers) it seems obvious that there are a lot of NHS inefficiencies. But they're not the things that most people think they are, but rather the consequences of running at near capacity and with a lack of overall investment in processes.
Examples include people turning up at A&E because they cant get in at a GP or UTC (which leads to higher costs). A lack of joined up thinking between departments, leading to extra admissions (e.g. my mum has been in and out of hospital a number of times in the past few months; some avoidable with timely physio etc, which would have worked out much cheaper - also seen in other areas - and at present she is in hospital not because she really needs to be there but because there is a wait for treatment that she needs before discharge). Social care limitations, of course, with people in very expensive hospital care due to a lack of cheaper places to discharge to in the community.
It like the cash-strapped family that spends thousands over years keeping the old banger of an inefficient car (or boiler) running because they can't afford a new one, but spending more overall. Vimes's Boots Theory in action, but here it is within our grasp - or at least the grasp of a brave government - to fix it. But in the short term it will take more money and take time for the longer term savings/improvements to shake out.
To give a personal anecdote, I was involved in a sports injury a few years back and I had to go to A&E with a possible concussion and facial injuries.
It took me eight hours to be seen - but fair enough they obviously concluded it wasn't life threatening. But for whatever reason the A&E hospital I went to (in West London) didn't have the people/equipment to offer me treatment for my face. So I was sent the next day to a hospital in North London.
I got to the hospital, they had no record of me. I didn't exist, so I had to go into the A&E there and do the whole thing all over again. Then I was sent to a different department in the same hospital who also had no record of me. And so I had to do it all over again with them.
Beyond it making me very angry, how much money did this waste?
I sometimes refer to the NHS as the National Healthcare Prevention Service.
This is because of the number of times I have encountered staff doing stuff to get round the system, so as to provide medical treatment to those idiots who hang around hospitals. The patients, I believe they are called.
My father needed an operation. They wanted to move him to another hospital, just down the road - slightly better facilities. But if they did that, he wouldn't get the operation for months. No non-planned ops there. Rules, you see.
So all the staff for the op went to the hospital he was at. I talked to the surgeon. He confirmed that the operating theatre he would have used at the other hospital was empty.
@christopherhope ** Exclusive ** Boris Johnson ally David Frost has been banned from standing as Tory candidate in the general election, I understand. Lord Frost was told yesterday that he cannot apply for any of the 93 vacant seats where the party is yet to nominate a candidate for the July 4 general election, according to his friends. Frost is a low tax Tory who was one of the architects of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Brexit deal. He was described as "the great Frost" by Johnson for his work on the deal.
Tuition fees could be abolished if the percentage of people going to university was brought back to where it used to be until the 1990s. But I'm guessing that isn't an option.
Not if Britain wants to be a competitive high-income economy.
I'm not sure I buy that. I'd struggle to believe ALL our degree courses feed into being a competitive high-income economy. I'd struggle to believe as many as 60% do - and even within those there is a large element of fluff.
We still have English Literature departments at most universities. I'm not against people studying English Literature, but I don't see how English Literature graduates are 'high skilled'.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
Interesting.
There’s a long history of vilifying and scapegoating female convicts.
If what you report is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it’s as you say disturbing that she hasn’t been granted the right to appeal.
Jeez. That’s twice in two days you and I …
lol. I know. It’s probably just election fever and we’ll go back to normal
But my friend was articulate about his doubts - and he is an expert and he has no reason to lie (this was his opinion as a bystander but a professional). And tbh I was quite resistant - I don’t want to think we’ve sent down an innocent woman for life
Their rate of successfully reviewed cases suggests that another £10-15m pa (and a slightly expanded remit) would probably save a great deal of money in the longer term by reducing the amount of compensation eventually paid out in cases like the PO.
Swift correction to the spreads. You can't sell Lab at 408 now. It's 390. That's more like it imo.
Thanks to Q for another real shrewdie-piece.
Legendary modesty klaxon about the spreads.
Yep. And I myself did opine it looked a professional sell.
(i) Swingback, Reform withering, campaign impact, 'better the devil you know', economy looking better, Get Rwanda Done, lack of enthusiasm for SKS ... Labour win a solid majority, Cons of the order 200.
(ii) The country has absolutely had it with the Tories and hand them a punishment beating, the centre goes Labour, the right goes Reform ... massive Labour landslide, Cons more like 100.
All you have to do is decide which of these will happen - before it becomes obvious. Then you clean up. It's as easy as that.
I can see economic good news, I can see lack of enthusiasm for SKS - but I can't see anything but a massive, massive Labour win. The anti-Tory vote will turn out. The Tory vote will not. I think if it were close, perhaps the Tory vote might be more motivated. But it won't be, so what's the point? I can't see myself being motivated enough to go down to the polling station on July 4th. The Labour MP is going to win anyway; all it would be would be a notional expression of support for one party or the other, which will inevitably be taken as 'see, that guy thinks we're ok'. Which I don't want to give them.
This is almost exactly my feeling.
Spoke to a Northern ex conservative association chairman last night. His impression was the election was lost in that useless announcement in the 'bloody rain'.
I think it was lost when they elected Rishi leader, personally...
It’s an unpopular view here, but IMHO the MPs themselves screwed it when they ousted Liz Truss against the wishes of the membership.
They screwed up by letting Liz Truss end up in the members’ vote
And then it comes back to Boris.
Of course Rishi and Liz were the shortlist- they were Chancellor and Foreign Secretary. Nobody else would have been credible alternatives to become PM.
We had two numpties because Boris put them there, and the second division candidates would have been even worse
It's not choosing the captain of the debating team- it's selecting someone to run the country.
Both Labour sources and some Tories are saying this is the most jaw-dropping moment of the week: the claim that Sunak misled a grieving mother about introducing legislation in her son’s name. ‘Psychotic’ says a Labour source. ‘Staggering’ says a Tory…
Tuition fees could be abolished if the percentage of people going to university was brought back to where it used to be until the 1990s. But I'm guessing that isn't an option.
Not if Britain wants to be a competitive high-income economy.
So why are so many graduates complaining about being poor ?
Perhaps because going to university is a very good for some but the opposite for others.
And maybe concentrating such educational resources and cost on the 18-22 years reduces the resources available for further education and training at 25, 35, 45 or even 55 ?
The cost of living is too high.
Tertiary education in Britain is too focused on academic subjects, as opposed to a broader range of skills. I've mentioned before my Irish brother-in-law who completed a third-level course related to his trade as a welder, and now works for the local distillery, earning enough to have built his own home.
But these courses need to be at least as well funded as academic degree courses and to have parity of esteem. In Britain they tend to be seen as a second-class option, and aren't seen as going to proper university.
More than 60% of young Irish people have a third-level education. Britain needs to do the same, to a high standard, if it's going to compete.
I agree.
But those aren't purely academic courses taken between 18 and 21.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
I recall having this discussion at the the time and I was called insane, all for saying anyone surely has the right to appeal. Several people I spoke to wanted to give her the death penalty.
I concur
This friend of mine is straight down the line honest and lucid. He written a very good book about his remarkable experiences and hair raising cases, he’s seen plenty of genuine nutters and has no problem with life meaning life etc. He’s seen real evil
But if he is perturbed by this conviction then so am I. He’s read all the documents (I haven’t)
Are you also troubled by the fact that the New Yorker magazine article was blocked in the UK?
It is?!?! There’s so much news I missed that. Also I don’t like thinking about this case BECAUSE it troubles me that she might be innocent
I hated the verdict in the first place and that was before the Post Office and contaminated blood became front and centre. If there were a few hundred of her she might get justice in twenty or thirty years time
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
Interesting.
There’s a long history of vilifying and scapegoating female convicts.
If what you report is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it’s as you say disturbing that she hasn’t been granted the right to appeal.
Jeez. That’s twice in two days you and I …
There are numerous people in prison for murder where everyone knows they havent done it, Michael Stone for example.
No evidence at all other than an alleged confession to a man now serving life for murder. Michael Stone has served 25 years in prison
What about Jeremy Bamber ? That seems an odd one too.
Must admit I've never seen this. His story makes very little sense. His sister is meant to have gone bezerk with the family rifle and started shooting them, but his father calls to tell him this midway through fighting her in the kitchen, after already being shot upstairs several times, on a rotary dial phone. Deeply impractical. It's also unclear at best whether it is even possible for Jeremy Bamber to have called the police right after this call given the White House Farm phone was left off the hook which means the line didn't disconnect.
Even more unlikely is his sister being the other half of that fight, which left the room pretty messed up with furniture knocked over and crockery smashed, and the family's father severely beaten, only for her to then commit suicide without a single scratch or broken nail. Was there really a violent and lengthy fight between a 6ft 4in man in good health and a much smaller woman, in close quarters, in which she inflicted numerous wounds on him but received no injuries at all on herself?
While there are lots of things which feel odd on both sides, fundamentally the logistics of Sheila committing the crime seem almost impossible. By contrast, Jeremy Bamber's body wasn't closely inspected for many weeks after the murders so he'd have had time to heal from fight injuries.
It's almost impossible for her to have done what she would have had to do. It's perfectly plausible he could have done it. And it's unthinkable a random person did it. Thus he is overwhelmingly likely to be guilty.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
Interesting.
There’s a long history of vilifying and scapegoating female convicts.
If what you report is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it’s as you say disturbing that she hasn’t been granted the right to appeal.
Jeez. That’s twice in two days you and I …
lol. I know. It’s probably just election fever and we’ll go back to normal
But my friend was articulate about his doubts - and he is an expert and he has no reason to lie (this was his opinion as a bystander but a professional). And tbh I was quite resistant - I don’t want to think we’ve sent down an innocent woman for life
But, hmm
What should really worry you if you think she isn't guilty is that the real killer is still out there. Letby and her legal team accepted that someone was killing babies.
@christopherhope ** Exclusive ** Boris Johnson ally David Frost has been banned from standing as Tory candidate in the general election, I understand. Lord Frost was told yesterday that he cannot apply for any of the 93 vacant seats where the party is yet to nominate a candidate for the July 4 general election, according to his friends. Frost is a low tax Tory who was one of the architects of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Brexit deal. He was described as "the great Frost" by Johnson for his work on the deal.
That probably just means he failed the pre-selection process to get approval if he even undertook it. No party is going to let someone waltz in off the street or out of the Civil Service into a Parliamentary candidacy no matter how many tub thumping articles in semi friendly newspapers one pens.
@christopherhope ** Exclusive ** Boris Johnson ally David Frost has been banned from standing as Tory candidate in the general election, I understand. Lord Frost was told yesterday that he cannot apply for any of the 93 vacant seats where the party is yet to nominate a candidate for the July 4 general election, according to his friends. Frost is a low tax Tory who was one of the architects of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Brexit deal. He was described as "the great Frost" by Johnson for his work on the deal.
I'm not sure banned is the right word here. I'd have used 'prevented'. Banning something seems like introducing a particular rule, which doesn't seem to be the case here, though I may be reading it wrong.
Both Labour sources and some Tories are saying this is the most jaw-dropping moment of the week: the claim that Sunak misled a grieving mother about introducing legislation in her son’s name. ‘Psychotic’ says a Labour source. ‘Staggering’ says a Tory…
Things Can Only Get Better is currently No.2 in the iTunes download chart
I know some of you loathe Steve Bray but he and God stole the show on Wednesday. You couldn’t have written a better Thick of It script if you had tried than the PM getting drowned out by the rain and Labour’s winning 1997 anthem.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
Interesting.
There’s a long history of vilifying and scapegoating female convicts.
If what you report is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it’s as you say disturbing that she hasn’t been granted the right to appeal.
Jeez. That’s twice in two days you and I …
There are numerous people in prison for murder where everyone knows they havent done it, Michael Stone for example.
No evidence at all other than an alleged confession to a man now serving life for murder. Michael Stone has served 25 years in prison
The BBC did a documentary a few years back on The Chillenden Murders and the case against him really is weak. There's even a bloody fingerprint on a victim's lunchbox, almost certainly from a victim or the killer, which doesn't match any victim or Michael Stone.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
Interesting.
There’s a long history of vilifying and scapegoating female convicts.
If what you report is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it’s as you say disturbing that she hasn’t been granted the right to appeal.
Jeez. That’s twice in two days you and I …
lol. I know. It’s probably just election fever and we’ll go back to normal
But my friend was articulate about his doubts - and he is an expert and he has no reason to lie (this was his opinion as a bystander but a professional). And tbh I was quite resistant - I don’t want to think we’ve sent down an innocent woman for life
But, hmm
What should really worry you if you think she isn't guilty is that the real killer is still out there. Letby and her legal team accepted that someone was killing babies.
To be honest, it worries me more that we may have ruined an innocent woman's life.
'The money is not available to abolish both tuition fees and cut NHS waiting lists, I've taken a political choice to prioritise the NHS'
Sir Keir Starmer is asked about a number of pledges that he has abandoned since running for the Labour leadership.
He's clearly been trained for this question, not a bad response I guess, saying the NHS is worth more over tuition fees. So not a bad dodging of the question, what does PB think as I am Labour supporting anyway?
He was pretty poor on R4 this morning. I’ve never heard him sound so unsure. Really desperate not to commit to anything and was troubled by gentle probing by Mishal Husain over the NHs v Student fees question. Tried to swerve through the Palestine issue, how quickly VAT on school fees would happen and the Doctors appointments pledge etc etc.
I also have bias but I did think that maybe there is method in the Tories wanting weekly tv debates between Sunak and Starmer as he was evasive and Sunak (for his faults) was much more direct in his R4 interview yesterday by comparison.
It’s very easy for people to say he’s going to be good on his feet as he was a Barrister but how often was he really doing the Rumpole of the Bailey/Good Wife stuff as DPP and when he did how often was he just pointing out facts from a prepared list of facts rather than actually facing a grilling where he is being questioned instead? Not necessarily the same skills.
Fwiw imo PMQs has already shown Keir Starmer cannot think on his feet, as he does not change his questions according to the answers.
Starmer's not a 'PMQs' performer in the Blair or Cameron sense, but it's worth remembering he put Boris Johnson in the merde by using the barrister's trick of "asking questions where you know admitting the truth looks terrible for the defendant, watch them lie and wait for the evidence they have done so."
There's method to it. So I don't think he's a bad performer. Just one who plays to his strengths. He's had weeks with Sunak where it's worked really well, and ones where it hasn't.
Obviously the Tories want as many debates as possible as they're miles behind and need "gamechangers". There's always a chance even the most consummate debater slips up and makes a prat of themselves. Starmer isn't a natural political performer.
The problems for them are a) Sunak isn't a great debater himself - he failed to expose Liz Truss. Certainly no Blair, nor even David Cameron, as he has a chippy, petulant side that comes across when challenged. We've already seen several gaffes from him. Being snippy to a voter or saying something that looks ludicrously out of touch is probably worse than seeming bland and changeable.
b) The case for the prosecution is so strong Starmer has plenty of material for a prosecutorial style and arguing the mess is so bad that Labour has to primarily focus on clearing it up.
c) Starmer's reputation as being a bit wooden also comes with an ability to surprise on the upside. If he gets his prep spot on and outperforms low expectations then it really will be game over for the Tories - and it's not something they can control.
Take this with as much salt as you like but I understand from friends of his that he comes across much better one on one. I am not sure this is the format of a debate but I think he can be charismatic, he just finds it difficult in the avenue a leader has to - which is a weakness.
Personally I think it's about 50/50 as to whether he outperforms on the upside and it kills Sunak for good or he flails around and Sunak looks good. But I don't think that's enough to overturn 14 years and Sunak being poor.
I believe you! He was in his element centrist dadding on Sunday Brunch or whatever it is and on the Football Cliches podcast. What he's not a natural at, having come late to it in life, is the political theatre stuff, which is more calculated and forced.
There's a good reason for that I think. Starmer had his big career in law and didn't decide to make the jump into politics until his late 50s, having had a public role that requires dour professionalism when doing media.
Compare that to many leading politicians, who have via Oxbridge debating societies and political associations, party or linked media/think tank jobs, then as MPs, effectively been in training at the 'debating' side of politics since their late teens or early 20s.
Even Sunak, with his business career, had a stint at CCHQ straight out of uni.
Third Day of the Vennels Inquisiton about to start.
Beer has finished. It's the turn of the SPM lawyers. They tend to be less forensic and more brutal. As long as she doesn't mind what people think of her, she should get through unscathed.
All the evidence suggests she doesn't give a shit what people think of her.
Btw, I learned recently that she is supported by a very expensive team of top lawyers. I wonder who is paying for this? My guess is that it is the Post Office, and that they are also providing legal advice for the other witnesses. If correct, that would certainly explain why so few have gone rogue, and told the truth about what was really going on.
Also perhaps explaining (as someone commented - you?) the other day, why Ms V was suspiciously able to quote chapter and verse from other witnesses' statements.
Nah, wasn't me, Carnyx.
Her memory is remarkably good on occasions, but like most of her former colleagues, she's suffers from selective amnesia on others.
Btw, I think she blatantly lied when she denied Crichton told her about the Clarke letter before the infamous Board Meeting. Crichton was a bit of a disaster, in her job and before the Inquiry, but I do not for one moment believe she invented a fictional meeting on such an important matter.
Comments
Many thanks for the comment though, and it's far from impossible I've gotten the wrong scenario here.
Solving the "not enough money" problem has to come before deciding how to spend the money you have.
Anyway, RP can just go with the time tested 'Account Hacked' strategy if challenged.
If his plan is really to keep the first parliament steady as she goes, it would not do him tremendous harm to ready himself for the big proposals in the second parliament. A few pledges to set up royal commissions on various topics would not change anything overnight, but would really give me the cheer that he is sympathetic to the need for real reform of public services, public policy, and national institutions.
The other part of the old constituency, into the new Exmouth and Exeter East, may be Cons but Labour are clear 2nd there in terms of the voter demographics (EC is Con 39%, Lab 27%, LibDem 17%). Not sure what was meant by ‘usual suspects’ someone else posted because them’s the demographics. As per Electoral Calculus breakdowns, which also helpfully give ward-by-ward details.
@Maverick: "...Just wanted to manage expectations..."
I see what you did there young man. Good article as per.
Vote SNP to send a message to Westminster?
Vote Labour to send a Government to Westminster.
They will hike fees on certain degrees/professions but they'll reduce them/eliminate them for doctors and nurses.
I recall UKIP once advocated this policy.
TRUSS
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
https://youtu.be/UDfAdHBtK_Q?t=470
Politics is about priorities. I'm not saying we can't decide pensions are more important than tuition fees, but we could simply decide the opposite. It's not a matter of possibilities, but priorities.
https://x.com/TomLarkinSky/status/1793938967160627261
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/24/obama-muslim-people-eat-rocks-claims-google-ai/
Hope it didn’t watch “The Roast of Tom Brady” on Netflix, full of brutal jokes which are mostly untrue in reality - although “You have seven rings, well eight after Giselle gave hers back” was a classic truth.
🚨 NEW: Home Office civil servants are already in Rwanda waiting for flights that now may never take off
Pretty astonishing detail — Sunak told Martyn Hett's mother on the anniversary of the Manchester bombing that legislation in his name would be presented to Parliament before summer recess, and then proceeded to call an election the same day.
https://x.com/krxsctr/status/1793758485508960617
A bit like the mortgage market pre 2008....
My gut feeling is that, like the mortgage market, the chance of a big event suddenly cutting demand by 20%+ isn't impossible.
Ideally you want a bit of both in a leader, but I can't think of an election-winning PM who had both since Thatcher really. I think that's why she has cast such a long shadow over our politics.
I still think it's possible Starmer could be another PM like this, but accept there isn't much evidence of this yet.
They can go on about this all they like. What is matters is what is in the manifesto not who said what and when.
SKS may have dropped a pledge or two. The Tories have failed to hit 4 out of 5 of Sunaks pledges and the one they hit was not down to them.
Perhaps because going to university is a very good for some but the opposite for others.
And maybe concentrating such educational resources and cost on the 18-22 years reduces the resources available for further education and training at 25, 35, 45 or even 55 ?
Just think, all he had to do was apologise and keep his mouth shut. Couldn't even do that, really made any positive views I have of him look silly in hindsight, the man is clearly a moron.
Examples include people turning up at A&E because they cant get in at a GP or UTC (which leads to higher costs). A lack of joined up thinking between departments, leading to extra admissions (e.g. my mum has been in and out of hospital a number of times in the past few months; some avoidable with timely physio etc, which would have worked out much cheaper - also seen in other areas - and at present she is in hospital not because she really needs to be there but because there is a wait for treatment that she needs before discharge). Social care limitations, of course, with people in very expensive hospital care due to a lack of cheaper places to discharge to in the community.
It like the cash-strapped family that spends thousands over years keeping the old banger of an inefficient car (or boiler) running because they can't afford a new one, but spending more overall. Vimes's Boots Theory in action, but here it is within our grasp - or at least the grasp of a brave government - to fix it. But in the short term it will take more money and take time for the longer term savings/improvements to shake out.
The great shame of electoral geography is that a number of decent Tories who could be useful in returning the party to sanity will be swept away whilst some of those who would have the party go even further into the madhouse have such a cushion they’ll still be there to wreak havoc and delay any plausible recovery.
Spoke to a Northern ex conservative association chairman last night. His impression was the election was lost in that useless announcement in the 'bloody rain'.
I think it was lost when they elected Rishi leader, personally...
https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1793917948169691461
I get the sense the CCHQ media team has had all the good people leave and what's left is the true believers. Feels a bit like the Labour media team in 2019 who just seemed to flail around.
Apart from the Loony Left, obvs.
A good friend of mine is a very senior forensic psychiatrist employed by the Home Office/cops from time to time. As a consultant. He’s known to be brilliant
He’s personally reviewed the Letby case and he’s fairly sure she is innocent - not convinced, but he certainly has reasonable doubt
I have no dog in this fight. I assumed the conviction was watertight. He told me this over lunch just before Xmas. Disturbing
The financial and sexual sleaze has been the icing on the cake.
Sunak has been the plastic figure put on top of the icing.
It took me eight hours to be seen - but fair enough they obviously concluded it wasn't life threatening. But for whatever reason the A&E hospital I went to (in West London) didn't have the people/equipment to offer me treatment for my face. So I was sent the next day to a hospital in North London.
I got to the hospital, they had no record of me. I didn't exist, so I had to go into the A&E there and do the whole thing all over again. Then I was sent to a different department in the same hospital who also had no record of me. And so I had to do it all over again with them.
Beyond it making me very angry, how much money did this waste?
Amazing.
There's method to it. So I don't think he's a bad performer. Just one who plays to his strengths. He's had weeks with Sunak where it's worked really well, and ones where it hasn't.
Obviously the Tories want as many debates as possible as they're miles behind and need "gamechangers". There's always a chance even the most consummate debater slips up and makes a prat of themselves. Starmer isn't a natural political performer.
The problems for them are a) Sunak isn't a great debater himself - he failed to expose Liz Truss. Certainly no Blair, nor even David Cameron, as he has a chippy, petulant side that comes across when challenged. We've already seen several gaffes from him. Being snippy to a voter or saying something that looks ludicrously out of touch is probably worse than seeming bland and changeable.
b) The case for the prosecution is so strong Starmer has plenty of material for a prosecutorial style and arguing the mess is so bad that Labour has to primarily focus on clearing it up.
c) Starmer's reputation as being a bit wooden also comes with an ability to surprise on the upside. If he gets his prep spot on and outperforms low expectations then it really will be game over for the Tories - and it's not something they can control.
There’s a long history of vilifying and scapegoating female convicts.
If what you report is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it’s as you say disturbing that she hasn’t been granted the right to appeal.
Jeez. That’s twice in two days you and I …
And it’s those gaps that are creating logjams elsewhere because as you say this can’t be done until xyz is in place and xyz is lacking / limited
This friend of mine is straight down the line honest and lucid. He written a very good book about his remarkable experiences and hair raising cases, he’s seen plenty of genuine nutters and has no problem with life meaning life etc. He’s seen real evil
But if he is perturbed by this conviction then so am I. He’s read all the documents (I haven’t)
Personally I think it's about 50/50 as to whether he outperforms on the upside and it kills Sunak for good or he flails around and Sunak looks good. But I don't think that's enough to overturn 14 years and Sunak being poor.
This is because you can spend nearly anything you like on something and achieve nothing.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/nov/22/russell-murders-is-michael-stone-in-prison-for-brutal-crime-he-didnt-commit
No evidence at all other than an alleged confession to a man now serving life for murder. Michael Stone has served 25 years in prison
But my friend was articulate about his doubts - and he is an expert and he has no reason to lie (this was his opinion as a bystander but a professional). And tbh I was quite resistant - I don’t want to think we’ve sent down an innocent woman for life
But, hmm
Tertiary education in Britain is too focused on academic subjects, as opposed to a broader range of skills. I've mentioned before my Irish brother-in-law who completed a third-level course related to his trade as a welder, and now works for the local distillery, earning enough to have built his own home.
But these courses need to be at least as well funded as academic degree courses and to have parity of esteem. In Britain they tend to be seen as a second-class option, and aren't seen as going to proper university.
More than 60% of young Irish people have a third-level education. Britain needs to do the same, to a high standard, if it's going to compete.
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1793944909893792085
What on Earth is Sunak doing, I thought he planned the election a month ago?
It's an interesting debate over whether you would want or need one under UBI though, and one I hope we revisit it when things aren't quite as hectic.
https://www.scienceontrial.com/post/shifting-the-data
This is because of the number of times I have encountered staff doing stuff to get round the system, so as to provide medical treatment to those idiots who hang around hospitals. The patients, I believe they are called.
My father needed an operation. They wanted to move him to another hospital, just down the road - slightly better facilities. But if they did that, he wouldn't get the operation for months. No non-planned ops there. Rules, you see.
So all the staff for the op went to the hospital he was at. I talked to the surgeon. He confirmed that the operating theatre he would have used at the other hospital was empty.
** Exclusive **
Boris Johnson ally David Frost has been banned from standing as Tory candidate in the general election, I understand.
Lord Frost was told yesterday that he cannot apply for any of the 93 vacant seats where the party is yet to nominate a candidate for the July 4 general election, according to his friends.
Frost is a low tax Tory who was one of the architects of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
He was described as "the great Frost" by Johnson for his work on the deal.
We still have English Literature departments at most universities. I'm not against people studying English Literature, but I don't see how English Literature graduates are 'high skilled'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Cases_Review_Commission#Impact_of_austerity
Their rate of successfully reviewed cases suggests that another £10-15m pa (and a slightly expanded remit) would probably save a great deal of money in the longer term by reducing the amount of compensation eventually paid out in cases like the PO.
Of course Rishi and Liz were the shortlist- they were Chancellor and Foreign Secretary. Nobody else would have been credible alternatives to become PM.
We had two numpties because Boris put them there, and the second division candidates would have been even worse
It's not choosing the captain of the debating team- it's selecting someone to run the country.
But those aren't purely academic courses taken between 18 and 21.
Even more unlikely is his sister being the other half of that fight, which left the room pretty messed up with furniture knocked over and crockery smashed, and the family's father severely beaten, only for her to then commit suicide without a single scratch or broken nail. Was there really a violent and lengthy fight between a 6ft 4in man in good health and a much smaller woman, in close quarters, in which she inflicted numerous wounds on him but received no injuries at all on herself?
While there are lots of things which feel odd on both sides, fundamentally the logistics of Sheila committing the crime seem almost impossible. By contrast, Jeremy Bamber's body wasn't closely inspected for many weeks after the murders so he'd have had time to heal from fight injuries.
It's almost impossible for her to have done what she would have had to do. It's perfectly plausible he could have done it. And it's unthinkable a random person did it. Thus he is overwhelmingly likely to be guilty.
I know some of you loathe Steve Bray but he and God stole the show on Wednesday. You couldn’t have written a better Thick of It script if you had tried than the PM getting drowned out by the rain and Labour’s winning 1997 anthem.
Pure comedy gold.
There's a good reason for that I think. Starmer had his big career in law and didn't decide to make the jump into politics until his late 50s, having had a public role that requires dour professionalism when doing media.
Compare that to many leading politicians, who have via Oxbridge debating societies and political associations, party or linked media/think tank jobs, then as MPs, effectively been in training at the 'debating' side of politics since their late teens or early 20s.
Even Sunak, with his business career, had a stint at CCHQ straight out of uni.
Her memory is remarkably good on occasions, but like most of her former colleagues, she's suffers from selective amnesia on others.
Btw, I think she blatantly lied when she denied Crichton told her about the Clarke letter before the infamous Board Meeting. Crichton was a bit of a disaster, in her job and before the Inquiry, but I do not for one moment believe she invented a fictional meeting on such an important matter.