What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Agreed. There shouldn't be a single point in time at which everything should be allowed. However, for me, votes at 16 should mean any 16 year old charged with a crime should be named. Those two things feel like they ought to go hand in hand.
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The only way that the Lib Dems will be under 25 seats is if the Tories end up with over 250. If there's a modest Tory recovery and they get to 200 seats that's 172 losses compared to 2019 notionals and if doesn't seem plausible that the Lib Dems will pick up less than 10% of the Tory lost seats.
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Agreed. There shouldn't be a single point in time at which everything should be allowed. However, for me, votes at 16 should mean any 16 year old charged with a crime should be named. Those two things feel like they ought to go hand in hand.
That's fair enough. With entitlement comes obligation.
She's waiting on the NEC decision if she can be readmitted I think
Thanks. I assume she'll probably stand whenever happens, the only question is whether it's as the official Lab candidate or an ind.
I just can't see Diane Abbott standing as an independent. I'm erring on the side of Starmer admitting her back to the party in return for a Trappist vow, to do otherwise would be a self-inflicted wound.
I think she'd be even more likely than JC to win as an indy
It's not out of the question that she'd win as an independent, but there is no way she'd be better placed in her seat than Corbyn in his. Corbyn is a more iconic figure both in terms of attracting campaigners to assist and as a motivator for Labour voters in a rock solid seat to move away from the red rose for once.
My feeling on it is Diane seems well liked in H and SN whereas JC is more marmite in Islington and council results suggest Hackney's good burghers are more than happy to desert Labour when the mood strikes
That is exactly why JC is more likely to win as an independent than DA. In a first past the post election it doesn't matter how intensely people hate a candidate as long as more people really like the candidate.
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Agreed. There shouldn't be a single point in time at which everything should be allowed. However, for me, votes at 16 should mean any 16 year old charged with a crime should be named. Those two things feel like they ought to go hand in hand.
England has also just raised the legal age of marriage from 16 to 18
She's waiting on the NEC decision if she can be readmitted I think
Thanks. I assume she'll probably stand whenever happens, the only question is whether it's as the official Lab candidate or an ind.
I just can't see Diane Abbott standing as an independent. I'm erring on the side of Starmer admitting her back to the party in return for a Trappist vow, to do otherwise would be a self-inflicted wound.
I think she'd be even more likely than JC to win as an indy
It's not out of the question that she'd win as an independent, but there is no way she'd be better placed in her seat than Corbyn in his. Corbyn is a more iconic figure both in terms of attracting campaigners to assist and as a motivator for Labour voters in a rock solid seat to move away from the red rose for once.
My feeling on it is Diane seems well liked in H and SN whereas JC is more marmite in Islington and council results suggest Hackney's good burghers are more than happy to desert Labour when the mood strikes
Being marmite is essentially good news for an independent, because a reasonably large number of people love you, even if some very much don't.
Remember, the default for Labour voters in very heavily Labour areas is to vote Labour. So you need to REALLY like the alternative to shift. The risk for Abbott is that quite a lot of Labour voters will go, "That's a bit of a shame about Diane as I quite liked her"... and then vote Labour.
Just seen this message from Richard Holden MP to Tory supporters.
"I can’t believe it. Over the last 24 hours, hundreds and hundreds of people dipped into their hard-earned cash and donated to our campaign. It’s an amazing show of support — and it got us off to a strong start. So I wanted to say thank you, personally, to everyone who’s doing their bit to stop Sir Keir Starmer, stop Angela Rayner and deliver a secure future for every family. This election will be much closer than people think, and it will be decided by the people who contribute, like you. So let’s never forget what we’re facing. Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, who just a few years ago were Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest cheerleaders, now think it’s their turn to run the country. But have you seen their record since 2019? Starmer and Rayner voted against more police funding. They voted against tougher sentences for the worst criminals. They voted against reforming our asylum system. And when Sir Keir Starmer wanted to get rid of Angela Rayner, he ended up giving in and promoting her! How will Starmer manage to stand up to Putin when he can’t even stand up to his own number two? In an uncertain world, you and your family deserve the security that comes from a clear plan and bold action. And it’s obvious that only the Conservatives will deliver it. Now let’s win this! Yours sincerely, Richard"
Not a single positive reason given to vote Tory, just an avalanche of negative invective against Labour. The Tories truly deserve the kicking they are about to get.
A clear plan. Like spending two years and half a billion pounds on a Rwanda plan then cancelling it weeks before you claim it is about to start. Or the endless yo-yo on universities and overseas students. Or taxing non-doms being disastrous or good. Or an energy subsidy being communist nonsense or the government helping out. And so on.
The Tory election mantra is all about them having a clear plan. But no-one thinks they do, because they don't, so it will fail to get any traction.
I could add HS2 (or indeed transport policy generally) to that list.
Yes, Network North, fix potholes in Peckham, took a particular genius.
She's waiting on the NEC decision if she can be readmitted I think
Thanks. I assume she'll probably stand whenever happens, the only question is whether it's as the official Lab candidate or an ind.
I just can't see Diane Abbott standing as an independent. I'm erring on the side of Starmer admitting her back to the party in return for a Trappist vow, to do otherwise would be a self-inflicted wound.
I think she'd be even more likely than JC to win as an indy
It's not out of the question that she'd win as an independent, but there is no way she'd be better placed in her seat than Corbyn in his. Corbyn is a more iconic figure both in terms of attracting campaigners to assist and as a motivator for Labour voters in a rock solid seat to move away from the red rose for once.
My feeling on it is Diane seems well liked in H and SN whereas JC is more marmite in Islington and council results suggest Hackney's good burghers are more than happy to desert Labour when the mood strikes
That is exactly why JC is more likely to win as an independent than DA. In a first past the post election it doesn't matter how intensely people hate a candidate as long as more people really like the candidate.
Yes, I think more people in Hackney like Diane than Islington like JC. I'd expect them both to win as Indies anyway, but DA more certain than JC
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Children We define a child as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and civil legislation in England and Wales. The fact that a child has reached 16 years of age, is living independently or is in further education, is a member of the armed forces, is in hospital or in custody in the secure estate, does not change their status or entitlements to services or protection.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
Your wishful thinking is touching.
I would be amazed if Davey were not fatally wounded by this. Bates v PO was the big thing on netflix before baby reindeer, and everyone is riveted by the inquiry. Davey is lucky that he is not due to give evidence till 18 July but that's not necessarily going to save him.
Was he even featured in Mr Bates vs The Post Office?
She's waiting on the NEC decision if she can be readmitted I think
Thanks. I assume she'll probably stand whenever happens, the only question is whether it's as the official Lab candidate or an ind.
I just can't see Diane Abbott standing as an independent. I'm erring on the side of Starmer admitting her back to the party in return for a Trappist vow, to do otherwise would be a self-inflicted wound.
I think she'd be even more likely than JC to win as an indy
It's not out of the question that she'd win as an independent, but there is no way she'd be better placed in her seat than Corbyn in his. Corbyn is a more iconic figure both in terms of attracting campaigners to assist and as a motivator for Labour voters in a rock solid seat to move away from the red rose for once.
My feeling on it is Diane seems well liked in H and SN whereas JC is more marmite in Islington and council results suggest Hackney's good burghers are more than happy to desert Labour when the mood strikes
Being marmite is essentially good news for an independent, because a reasonably large number of people love you, even if some very much don't.
Remember, the default for Labour voters in very heavily Labour areas is to vote Labour. So you need to REALLY like the alternative to shift. The risk for Abbott is that quite a lot of Labour voters will go, "That's a bit of a shame about Diane as I quite liked her"... and then vote Labour.
She's waiting on the NEC decision if she can be readmitted I think
Thanks. I assume she'll probably stand whenever happens, the only question is whether it's as the official Lab candidate or an ind.
I just can't see Diane Abbott standing as an independent. I'm erring on the side of Starmer admitting her back to the party in return for a Trappist vow, to do otherwise would be a self-inflicted wound.
I think she'd be even more likely than JC to win as an indy
It's not out of the question that she'd win as an independent, but there is no way she'd be better placed in her seat than Corbyn in his. Corbyn is a more iconic figure both in terms of attracting campaigners to assist and as a motivator for Labour voters in a rock solid seat to move away from the red rose for once.
My feeling on it is Diane seems well liked in H and SN whereas JC is more marmite in Islington and council results suggest Hackney's good burghers are more than happy to desert Labour when the mood strikes
That is exactly why JC is more likely to win as an independent than DA. In a first past the post election it doesn't matter how intensely people hate a candidate as long as more people really like the candidate.
Yes, I think more people in Hackney like Diane than Islington like JC. I'd expect them both to win as Indies anyway, but DA more certain than JC
I would like to put money on it but I'm not sure how to formulate it because I don't think Abbott will even stand as an independent.
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The party I worked for from the late 80s died in the fires of the Coalition. The party which emerged from the 2015 election had basically been reset to 1970. It was a 25 year struggle then to regain some degree of national presence though even at the height of the Alliance and LD tides small areas of high level and successful activity were surrounded by high levels of complete inactivity.
It's the same now - I would guess there would be 60-75 seats which the party will work to some level and in perhaps 30-40 to a very high level. In others, there will be no LD activity - there's elements of that in the other parties as well. How much Conservative activity will there be in East Ham? None I would guess. The "dry" areas for the other parties are fewer but they still exist - we don't really have a "national" political party - we have three semi-regional parties with the other split between urban and rural or just where the activists are.
Working seats you can't win is a waste of time, money and resources.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
Your wishful thinking is touching.
I would be amazed if Davey were not fatally wounded by this. Bates v PO was the big thing on netflix before baby reindeer, and everyone is riveted by the inquiry. Davey is lucky that he is not due to give evidence till 18 July but that's not necessarily going to save him.
Was he even featured in Mr Bates vs The Post Office?
Health warning: I've an atrocious record with by-election betting.
Nevertheless I think Corbyn is far too short here. He shouldn't even be odds on, I don't think. So I've laid small at an average price slightly under 1.5 and will add more if the odds drift to 1.3 region.
My reasoning is essentially the demographics of Islington (available at ONS website https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/censusareachanges/E09000019/ ) mean his personal vote isn't going to be anything like as large as politico types think. Basically it's just too transient for that. About a quarter don't identify as British in any sense and plenty more while identifying as British are naturalised (presumably relatively recently) and thus much less likely to have "grown up with" Corbyn and give a stuff about him personally as a local personality. There also isn't a significant enough Muslim population for him to use Gaza as an issue - about 12%.
And this election is all going to be about getting Labour in and the Tories out.
The obvious counter argument to my theory is that the transients will be voting less anyway. And as I said at beginning of this post while I'm a successful political better I am atrocious at by-elections. I feel good about this bet though.
There's also a "we liked having Corbyn as our MP, but he's had his time in the sun and it's time to move on" feeling amongst some longer-term residents.
Some of the talk about the CLP being entirely pro-Corbyn is a bit overblown. There've been some motions which have thanked him for his service, which have passed by huge margins - but they've been worded in a way to make them as acceptable to as many people as possible.
I think the seat is entirely winnable for Labour, but they'll need to put some effort in. If Corbyn leads a by-election style campaign with Labour being invisible, then he'll win by default.
I wouldn't want to bet on it until it becomes clear whether Labour are willing (or able) to put up a fight - but if they do, Corbyn is a lay at 1.5.
The candidate the NEC picked - a 1st term Islington councillor rather than the 2nd term sitting London Assembly member seems to suggest that they aren't that interested in holding it. If Islington North sucks in all the opposition activists to the left of Labour, SKS would be delighted.
It's certainly likely that Sem Moema (the AM) would have been more likely to build bridges with the Corbynite members of the CLP. But the guy they picked instead, Praful Nargund is great (at least, in theory) - if he fails to win here, I expect him to land in a safe seat elsewhere in London before too long.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
Your wishful thinking is touching.
I would be amazed if Davey were not fatally wounded by this. Bates v PO was the big thing on netflix before baby reindeer, and everyone is riveted by the inquiry. Davey is lucky that he is not due to give evidence till 18 July but that's not necessarily going to save him.
Was he even featured in Mr Bates vs The Post Office?
No idea, did not watch it. My point is about the issue in general. Let's wait till his first election interview and see what he is asked and what he says
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The only way that the Lib Dems will be under 25 seats is if the Tories end up with over 250. If there's a modest Tory recovery and they get to 200 seats that's 172 losses compared to 2019 notionals and if doesn't seem plausible that the Lib Dems will pick up less than 10% of the Tory lost seats.
Not convinced. This is a national election this time, not 650 separate by-elections (and the Lib Dems, simultaneously, don't have the resources to target dozens and dozens of seats with saturation ground campaigning, and will only get a small fraction of the attention that is lavished on Starmer.) In any Tory held seats where they are notionally second, but a very distant second, they're liable to be overtaken by Labour - and that applies to most of their targets.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
What reports are these? Are you canvassing?
Let's stop calling a spade a garden implement.
@MarqueeMark is a Conservative activist facing a Lib Dem challenge in his seat. - he's not going to be objective about this. It's probably on the script when he meets a dithering ex-Conservative so I wouldn't put too much significance into it - if it wasn't this it would be the old "you know when it comes to it they'll back Labour" schtick.
His purpose is to dissuade uncertain Conservatives from backing the LDs and bring them back into the fold.
Oh, the Tories weren't in charge of the PO then? Notd even a teensy weensy bittockie?
Inasmuch as the Conservatives led the Government from 2010-15 in coalition with the LDs, true. There have been Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers in charge of the Post Office during the long period of this scandal.
Yet for some reason the focus seems on Davey's tenure - can't imagine why.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
Your wishful thinking is touching.
I would be amazed if Davey were not fatally wounded by this. Bates v PO was the big thing on netflix before baby reindeer, and everyone is riveted by the inquiry. Davey is lucky that he is not due to give evidence till 18 July but that's not necessarily going to save him.
Context is everything. Ed Davey is barely a household name in his own kitchen so it is doubtful many hold him responsible for jailing SPMs. However, if Tory activists, while canvassing, say to waverers that the LibDem leader was directly involved, then and only then will the LibDems be hurt.
Anyone who thinks Ed Davey is already wounded can oppose the 1/66 LibDems in his own constituency, Kingston & Surbiton; Labour and Conservatives are both 20/1 with Bet365.
If he's barely a household name in his own kitchen, are the Lib Dems really going to be hurt that much by a canvasser saying, "y'know that bloke you barely know? Well here's some gossip about him..."
The most effective Tory tactic in most Lib Dem leaning seats is to play the split vote game by talking up Labour and pretending they didn't even know the Lib Dems were standing.
Agreed. There's no Ashdown or Kennedy, no Cleggmania and no recent history of GE glory. The LD problem will be getting noticed and not written off as cup (Bys and locals) specialists
Post-2015, the Lib Dems just don't get the "nearly on a par with the big two" treatment in the media - and understandably so. This election will be covered as, "Sunak did this, Starmer did that, and we're obliged to do a bit on miscellaneous others".
Davey is well aware of that, and will seek to be as noisy as possible in about 30 or 40 seats (in stark contrast to his predecessor who made herself a joke by pretending to be a candidate for PM).
The hope for them is that the SNP do poorly, and the Lib Dems return to clear third party status by virtue of MP contingent. But, for this one, they just need to fight a few dozen by-elections in the context of unhelpful media coverage which will give them little attention. That might just about work in a change election.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
What reports are these? Are you canvassing?
Let's stop calling a spade a garden implement.
@MarqueeMark is a Conservative activist facing a Lib Dem challenge in his seat. - he's not going to be objective about this. It's probably on the script when he meets a dithering ex-Conservative so I wouldn't put too much significance into it - if it wasn't this it would be the old "you know when it comes to it they'll back Labour" schtick.
His purpose is to dissuade uncertain Conservatives from backing the LDs and bring them back into the fold.
Oh, the Tories weren't in charge of the PO then? Notd even a teensy weensy bittockie?
Inasmuch as the Conservatives led the Government from 2010-15 in coalition with the LDs, true. There have been Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers in charge of the Post Office during the long period of this scandal.
Yet for some reason the focus seems on Davey's tenure - can't imagine why.
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The party I worked for from the late 80s died in the fires of the Coalition. The party which emerged from the 2015 election had basically been reset to 1970. It was a 25 year struggle then to regain some degree of national presence though even at the height of the Alliance and LD tides small areas of high level and successful activity were surrounded by high levels of complete inactivity.
It's the same now - I would guess there would be 60-75 seats which the party will work to some level and in perhaps 30-40 to a very high level. In others, there will be no LD activity - there's elements of that in the other parties as well. How much Conservative activity will there be in East Ham? None I would guess. The "dry" areas for the other parties are fewer but they still exist - we don't really have a "national" political party - we have three semi-regional parties with the other split between urban and rural or just where the activists are.
Working seats you can't win is a waste of time, money and resources.
sadly this is all true. In a constituency system you have to concentrate your fire.
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The party I worked for from the late 80s died in the fires of the Coalition. The party which emerged from the 2015 election had basically been reset to 1970. It was a 25 year struggle then to regain some degree of national presence though even at the height of the Alliance and LD tides small areas of high level and successful activity were surrounded by high levels of complete inactivity.
It's the same now - I would guess there would be 60-75 seats which the party will work to some level and in perhaps 30-40 to a very high level. In others, there will be no LD activity - there's elements of that in the other parties as well. How much Conservative activity will there be in East Ham? None I would guess. The "dry" areas for the other parties are fewer but they still exist - we don't really have a "national" political party - we have three semi-regional parties with the other split between urban and rural or just where the activists are.
Working seats you can't win is a waste of time, money and resources.
sadly this is all true. In a constituency system you have to concentrate your fire.
So far the Tories seem to be concentrating all their fire at their own feet.
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Things are not totally coherent, and because certain things are different that is not totally wrong, but I'm still confortable in saying there is a general position that being under 18 is broadly speaking not an adult, and as such we should by and large consistently treat it that way, and raise or lower limits for certain things based on that approach. Or actually treat 16 year olds as adults more generally.
I also dont fully buy the idea that if it is enlarging the franchise that automatically makes a change positive, since if that is the only criterion then you coudl go even lower.
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
I expect the LDs will do a bit better in terms of seats than their headline poll rating due to tactical voting.
However I still expect Labour to see the biggest swings, as was the case in 1997 even in seats the LDs were targeting and won from the Tories the Labour voteshare was often up too whereas in seats Labour was targeting and won from the Tories the LD voteshare was normally down
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
That explains the engagements, but he couldn't cancel a personal holiday? He has no actual job as far as I'm aware so the work he does is all voluntary, so how much of a holiday would he really need?
Of course, he has no obligation to help the party out, and probably incentive to do the bare minimum, but still.
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Agreed. There shouldn't be a single point in time at which everything should be allowed. However, for me, votes at 16 should mean any 16 year old charged with a crime should be named. Those two things feel like they ought to go hand in hand.
Why? They are massively different things. Voting is very diluted. Your vote is never going to make a difference: no MP has been elected with a majority of 1, AFAIR.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
What reports are these? Are you canvassing?
Let's stop calling a spade a garden implement.
@MarqueeMark is a Conservative activist facing a Lib Dem challenge in his seat. - he's not going to be objective about this. It's probably on the script when he meets a dithering ex-Conservative so I wouldn't put too much significance into it - if it wasn't this it would be the old "you know when it comes to it they'll back Labour" schtick.
His purpose is to dissuade uncertain Conservatives from backing the LDs and bring them back into the fold.
Oh, the Tories weren't in charge of the PO then? Notd even a teensy weensy bittockie?
Inasmuch as the Conservatives led the Government from 2010-15 in coalition with the LDs, true. There have been Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers in charge of the Post Office during the long period of this scandal.
Yet for some reason the focus seems on Davey's tenure - can't imagine why.
ask Markey Mark?
It wouldn't matter - in a seat where the Conservatives are facing a Liberal Democrat challenge, they have to use any weapon they can to stop voters supporting the LDs. If they didn't use Davey's time running the Post Office, they'd think of something else - attack lines aren't difficult to create.
This morning we had Boris Johnson claiming Starmer would lead the "most hard left Government since the 1970s". Somebody better tell @bigjohnowls Starmer's Labour party is "hard left".
Of course, Johnson's article was aimed squarely at the Daily Mail demographic who are constantly fed propaganda to leave them terrified of anything to do with modern life and society.
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Things are not totally coherent, and because certain things are different that is not totally wrong, but I'm still confortable in saying there is a general position that being under 18 is broadly speaking not an adult, and as such we should by and large consistently treat it that way, and raise or lower limits for certain things based on that approach. Or actually treat 16 year olds as adults more generally.
I also dont fully buy the idea that if it is enlarging the franchise that automatically makes a change positive, since if that is the only criterion then you coudl go even lower.
Theres also the point that a teenage girl of 15 yrs and 364 days cant legally consent to sex as she is too immature to know her own mind but the next day she is deemed capable of determining the future of the country.
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Things are not totally coherent, and because certain things are different that is not totally wrong, but I'm still confortable in saying there is a general position that being under 18 is broadly speaking not an adult, and as such we should by and large consistently treat it that way, and raise or lower limits for certain things based on that approach. Or actually treat 16 year olds as adults more generally.
I also dont fully buy the idea that if it is enlarging the franchise that automatically makes a change positive, since if that is the only criterion then you coudl go even lower.
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
That explains the engagements, but he couldn't cancel a personal holiday? He has no actual job as far as I'm aware so the work he does is all voluntary, so how much of a holiday would he really need?
Of course, he has no obligation to help the party out, and probably incentive to do the bare minimum, but still.
"He is also expected to commence a series of appearances on GB News soon, having signed up to the channel to boost its coverage of the UK and US elections."
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
That explains the engagements, but he couldn't cancel a personal holiday? He has no actual job as far as I'm aware so the work he does is all voluntary, so how much of a holiday would he really need?
Of course, he has no obligation to help the party out, and probably incentive to do the bare minimum, but still.
Keeping as far away from the train wreck as possible - may still harbour hopes of a comeback (expect more talk of this if the vastly more loathsome Trump wins in November.)
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The only way that the Lib Dems will be under 25 seats is if the Tories end up with over 250. If there's a modest Tory recovery and they get to 200 seats that's 172 losses compared to 2019 notionals and if doesn't seem plausible that the Lib Dems will pick up less than 10% of the Tory lost seats.
Not convinced. This is a national election this time, not 650 separate by-elections (and the Lib Dems, simultaneously, don't have the resources to target dozens and dozens of seats with saturation ground campaigning, and will only get a small fraction of the attention that is lavished on Starmer.) In any Tory held seats where they are notionally second, but a very distant second, they're liable to be overtaken by Labour - and that applies to most of their targets.
The Lib Dems won eleven seats last time. Say they want to pick up 20 or so more to take them to a shade over 30, all from the Tories. They can do that entirely with seats requiring a swing under 10% - they are almost all seats where they are in a very clear second place and the tactical story is pretty easy to tell (with a couple of unusual exceptions of in central London which seem a tough ask).
Even beyond that, there are quite a few that have a recent history of a Lib Dem MP and Lib Dem Council, where Labour have never really been a factor.
I think you're overestimating the level of likely confusion as to who is the challenger in most (although not all) of the Lib Dems' serious targets.
"In preparing propaganda material, particularly for distribution in America, I made full use of Balfour's declaration in favor of a Jewish National Home, which he had issued in November 1917.
There arose at once a fierce outcry from one section of Jewry, objecting to this conception of a National Home for the Jewish people.
Edward Montagu, Secretary of State for India, became the passionate exponent of this viewpoint in the Government. He regarded the Jews as a religious community and himself as a Jewish Englishman. To commit the Jews to the expression of a National Home was, he argued, to prejudice their civil rights in the country of their birth. How could he, Montagu asked, as Secretary of State for India, negotiate with the peoples of India on behalf of His Majesty's Government, if the world understood that His Majesty's Government regarded his [Montagu's] National Home as being in [then Turkish] territory?
Montagu was one of my personal friends, and I had respect for his judgement. He was settled in his political philosophy and tenacious in his advocacy of his faith."
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
What reports are these? Are you canvassing?
Let's stop calling a spade a garden implement.
@MarqueeMark is a Conservative activist facing a Lib Dem challenge in his seat. - he's not going to be objective about this. It's probably on the script when he meets a dithering ex-Conservative so I wouldn't put too much significance into it - if it wasn't this it would be the old "you know when it comes to it they'll back Labour" schtick.
His purpose is to dissuade uncertain Conservatives from backing the LDs and bring them back into the fold.
Oh, the Tories weren't in charge of the PO then? Notd even a teensy weensy bittockie?
Inasmuch as the Conservatives led the Government from 2010-15 in coalition with the LDs, true. There have been Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers in charge of the Post Office during the long period of this scandal.
Yet for some reason the focus seems on Davey's tenure - can't imagine why.
ask Markey Mark?
It wouldn't matter - in a seat where the Conservatives are facing a Liberal Democrat challenge, they have to use any weapon they can to stop voters supporting the LDs. If they didn't use Davey's time running the Post Office, they'd think of something else - attack lines aren't difficult to create.
This morning we had Boris Johnson claiming Starmer would lead the "most hard left Government since the 1970s". Somebody better tell @bigjohnowls Starmer's Labour party is "hard left".
Of course, Johnson's article was aimed squarely at the Daily Mail demographic who are constantly fed propaganda to leave them terrified of anything to do with modern life and society.
Though the curious thing was that the Mail gave more prominence to Reeves promising not to be hard left.
As for Boris, it will upset the fan club, but I suspect Rishi isn't too sorry to see Johnson out of the country.
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Agreed. There shouldn't be a single point in time at which everything should be allowed. However, for me, votes at 16 should mean any 16 year old charged with a crime should be named. Those two things feel like they ought to go hand in hand.
Why? They are massively different things. Voting is very diluted. Your vote is never going to make a difference: no MP has been elected with a majority of 1, AFAIR.
Exeter, 1910.
Also NE Fife in 2017 and Winchester in 1997 were majorities of two, so a single person who voted for the winning candidate would have made a difference had they switched (or at least they may, subject to the drawing of lots).
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Things are not totally coherent, and because certain things are different that is not totally wrong, but I'm still confortable in saying there is a general position that being under 18 is broadly speaking not an adult, and as such we should by and large consistently treat it that way, and raise or lower limits for certain things based on that approach. Or actually treat 16 year olds as adults more generally.
I also dont fully buy the idea that if it is enlarging the franchise that automatically makes a change positive, since if that is the only criterion then you coudl go even lower.
That's one reason why there is not a completely rigid line on these things, that's not how human beings and their mental and emotional development works, but in terms of society setting some general legal milestones for specific activities, such as smoking, driving, or drinking, we don't trust or allow children to do some of these things, and those sorts of restrictions can reasonable be grouped together as they are by nature a bit arbitrary, and indicative of where we set the line into adulthood. We cannot and should not resolve all inconsistencies, but we probably can resolve some of them. There's just disagreement about how and in what direction.
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
That explains the engagements, but he couldn't cancel a personal holiday? He has no actual job as far as I'm aware so the work he does is all voluntary, so how much of a holiday would he really need?
Of course, he has no obligation to help the party out, and probably incentive to do the bare minimum, but still.
He managed to fit in *two* holidays between announcing his resignation as PM and when he left.
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The only way that the Lib Dems will be under 25 seats is if the Tories end up with over 250. If there's a modest Tory recovery and they get to 200 seats that's 172 losses compared to 2019 notionals and if doesn't seem plausible that the Lib Dems will pick up less than 10% of the Tory lost seats.
Not convinced. This is a national election this time, not 650 separate by-elections (and the Lib Dems, simultaneously, don't have the resources to target dozens and dozens of seats with saturation ground campaigning, and will only get a small fraction of the attention that is lavished on Starmer.) In any Tory held seats where they are notionally second, but a very distant second, they're liable to be overtaken by Labour - and that applies to most of their targets.
The Lib Dems won eleven seats last time. Say they want to pick up 20 or so more to take them to a shade over 30, all from the Tories. They can do that entirely with seats requiring a swing under 10% - they are almost all seats where they are in a very clear second place and the tactical story is pretty easy to tell (with a couple of unusual exceptions of in central London which seem a tough ask).
Even beyond that, there are quite a few that have a recent history of a Lib Dem MP and Lib Dem Council, where Labour have never really been a factor.
I think you're overestimating the level of likely confusion as to who is the challenger in most (although not all) of the Lib Dems' serious targets.
Yeah, in the case of a total Tory train wreck you're probably right. I still can't shake off the suspicion that, as dire as the Conservative Government is, its actual support won't be as low as the current VI numbers suggest, and that colours my opinion of everything else.
The Conservative Party might well end up with a lower share of the national vote than it did in 1997, but I'll believe it (and that RefUK finish in double digits) when I see it and not before.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
What reports are these? Are you canvassing?
Let's stop calling a spade a garden implement.
@MarqueeMark is a Conservative activist facing a Lib Dem challenge in his seat. - he's not going to be objective about this. It's probably on the script when he meets a dithering ex-Conservative so I wouldn't put too much significance into it - if it wasn't this it would be the old "you know when it comes to it they'll back Labour" schtick.
His purpose is to dissuade uncertain Conservatives from backing the LDs and bring them back into the fold.
Oh, the Tories weren't in charge of the PO then? Notd even a teensy weensy bittockie?
Inasmuch as the Conservatives led the Government from 2010-15 in coalition with the LDs, true. There have been Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers in charge of the Post Office during the long period of this scandal.
Yet for some reason the focus seems on Davey's tenure - can't imagine why.
ask Markey Mark?
It wouldn't matter - in a seat where the Conservatives are facing a Liberal Democrat challenge, they have to use any weapon they can to stop voters supporting the LDs. If they didn't use Davey's time running the Post Office, they'd think of something else - attack lines aren't difficult to create.
This morning we had Boris Johnson claiming Starmer would lead the "most hard left Government since the 1970s". Somebody better tell @bigjohnowls Starmer's Labour party is "hard left".
Of course, Johnson's article was aimed squarely at the Daily Mail demographic who are constantly fed propaganda to leave them terrified of anything to do with modern life and society.
He didn't run it. He was responsible for it, he met Bates and pretty much ignored what he had to say. You may of course say that there were a load of Tory business secs who didn't even get as far as meeting Bates, but I can see how this will have traction against Davey. He has been very quiet and off air since the thing blew up.
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The only way that the Lib Dems will be under 25 seats is if the Tories end up with over 250. If there's a modest Tory recovery and they get to 200 seats that's 172 losses compared to 2019 notionals and if doesn't seem plausible that the Lib Dems will pick up less than 10% of the Tory lost seats.
Not convinced. This is a national election this time, not 650 separate by-elections (and the Lib Dems, simultaneously, don't have the resources to target dozens and dozens of seats with saturation ground campaigning, and will only get a small fraction of the attention that is lavished on Starmer.) In any Tory held seats where they are notionally second, but a very distant second, they're liable to be overtaken by Labour - and that applies to most of their targets.
The Lib Dems won eleven seats last time. Say they want to pick up 20 or so more to take them to a shade over 30, all from the Tories. They can do that entirely with seats requiring a swing under 10% - they are almost all seats where they are in a very clear second place and the tactical story is pretty easy to tell (with a couple of unusual exceptions of in central London which seem a tough ask).
Even beyond that, there are quite a few that have a recent history of a Lib Dem MP and Lib Dem Council, where Labour have never really been a factor.
I think you're overestimating the level of likely confusion as to who is the challenger in most (although not all) of the Lib Dems' serious targets.
Yeah, in the case of a total Tory train wreck you're probably right. I still can't shake off the suspicion that, as dire as the Conservative Government is, its actual support won't be as low as the current VI numbers suggest, and that colours my opinion of everything else.
The Conservative Party might well end up with a lower share of the national vote than it did in 1997, but I'll believe it (and that RefUK finish in double digits) when I see it and not before.
The Tories could end up with more seats than 1997 even on 29% of the vote, due to Labour needing a bigger swing to get over 400 seats, a lower LD vote and holding seats in Scotland
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
The Tories dodged a bullet there . Bozo is loathed a by a large section of the public .
And for those who still really like him (of whom there are still a reasonable number) his presence on the campaign trail would've been a reminder of what they could've won. So in both respects it's better for Sunak that he's abroad.
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Things are not totally coherent, and because certain things are different that is not totally wrong, but I'm still confortable in saying there is a general position that being under 18 is broadly speaking not an adult, and as such we should by and large consistently treat it that way, and raise or lower limits for certain things based on that approach. Or actually treat 16 year olds as adults more generally.
I also dont fully buy the idea that if it is enlarging the franchise that automatically makes a change positive, since if that is the only criterion then you coudl go even lower.
We define a child as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and civil legislation in England and Wales. The fact that a child has reached 16 years of age, is living independently or is in further education, is a member of the armed forces, is in hospital or in custody in the secure estate, does not change their status or entitlements to services or protection.
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
The Tories dodged a bullet there . Bozo is loathed a by a large section of the public .
And for those who still really like him (of whom there are still a reasonable number) his presence on the campaign trail would've been a reminder of what they could've won. So in both respects it's better for Sunak that he's abroad.
Look at what you could have won...Bully's star prize...a speed boat for the couple from Tamworth....no, a Boris the Bullshitter statue for your garden....
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
What we’re learning today. Those who think the Tories introducing voter ID to help them is evil beyond belief believe labour introducing votes for children to suit them is ace and vice versa.
Brill.
Age to start voting is always going to be arbitrary. My preference would be to unify more of the age restrictions, and give young people more autonomy. If you can join the army you should be allowed to buy a beer, drive and vote.
Yet the law considers you under 18 to be a child.
No - there are a series a steps with more and more autonomy granted as you get older.
For example you can have a bank account from 11, but need to be 13 to open it yourself etc
Things are not totally coherent, and because certain things are different that is not totally wrong, but I'm still confortable in saying there is a general position that being under 18 is broadly speaking not an adult, and as such we should by and large consistently treat it that way, and raise or lower limits for certain things based on that approach. Or actually treat 16 year olds as adults more generally.
I also dont fully buy the idea that if it is enlarging the franchise that automatically makes a change positive, since if that is the only criterion then you coudl go even lower.
We define a child as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and civil legislation in England and Wales. The fact that a child has reached 16 years of age, is living independently or is in further education, is a member of the armed forces, is in hospital or in custody in the secure estate, does not change their status or entitlements to services or protection.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 1 PART I For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
What reports are these? Are you canvassing?
Let's stop calling a spade a garden implement.
@MarqueeMark is a Conservative activist facing a Lib Dem challenge in his seat. - he's not going to be objective about this. It's probably on the script when he meets a dithering ex-Conservative so I wouldn't put too much significance into it - if it wasn't this it would be the old "you know when it comes to it they'll back Labour" schtick.
His purpose is to dissuade uncertain Conservatives from backing the LDs and bring them back into the fold.
Oh, the Tories weren't in charge of the PO then? Notd even a teensy weensy bittockie?
Inasmuch as the Conservatives led the Government from 2010-15 in coalition with the LDs, true. There have been Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers in charge of the Post Office during the long period of this scandal.
Yet for some reason the focus seems on Davey's tenure - can't imagine why.
ask Markey Mark?
It wouldn't matter - in a seat where the Conservatives are facing a Liberal Democrat challenge, they have to use any weapon they can to stop voters supporting the LDs. If they didn't use Davey's time running the Post Office, they'd think of something else - attack lines aren't difficult to create.
This morning we had Boris Johnson claiming Starmer would lead the "most hard left Government since the 1970s". Somebody better tell @bigjohnowls Starmer's Labour party is "hard left".
Of course, Johnson's article was aimed squarely at the Daily Mail demographic who are constantly fed propaganda to leave them terrified of anything to do with modern life and society.
He didn't run it. He was responsible for it, he met Bates and pretty much ignored what he had to say. You may of course say that there were a load of Tory business secs who didn't even get as far as meeting Bates, but I can see how this will have traction against Davey. He has been very quiet and off air since the thing blew up.
How many Tory business secretaries in the subsequent nine years? Meanwhile there is all the other garbage the Tories pulled, so if we need attack lines, I think the Kib Dems have plenty of ammo to fire back.
Votes for 16 and 17 year olds and also allow immigrants to vote after being here for some amount of time. Remove the rule to allow people abroad to vote, if they've left the country they lose their right.
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
You see something similar in the right's reaction to Gary Lineker. Try as they might to shut him down, they do not succeed, so they just attack him relentlessly instead.
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
You see something similar in the right's reaction to Gary Lineker. Try as they might to shut him down, they do not succeed, so they just attack him relentlessly instead.
Difference is Lineker just generally parrots the left liberal establishment line. He never says anything remotely interesting.
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
That explains the engagements, but he couldn't cancel a personal holiday? He has no actual job as far as I'm aware so the work he does is all voluntary, so how much of a holiday would he really need?
Of course, he has no obligation to help the party out, and probably incentive to do the bare minimum, but still.
Why exactly would he campaign to subject the country to five more years of the pathetic backstabber?
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
That explains the engagements, but he couldn't cancel a personal holiday? He has no actual job as far as I'm aware so the work he does is all voluntary, so how much of a holiday would he really need?
Of course, he has no obligation to help the party out, and probably incentive to do the bare minimum, but still.
Keeping as far away from the train wreck as possible - may still harbour hopes of a comeback (expect more talk of this if the vastly more loathsome Trump wins in November.)
This is the reason.
Sunak's campaign is going to be Presidential, with him featuring front and centre. Few others want to be associated, whether past or present cabinet members.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
What reports are these? Are you canvassing?
Let's stop calling a spade a garden implement.
@MarqueeMark is a Conservative activist facing a Lib Dem challenge in his seat. - he's not going to be objective about this. It's probably on the script when he meets a dithering ex-Conservative so I wouldn't put too much significance into it - if it wasn't this it would be the old "you know when it comes to it they'll back Labour" schtick.
His purpose is to dissuade uncertain Conservatives from backing the LDs and bring them back into the fold.
Oh, the Tories weren't in charge of the PO then? Notd even a teensy weensy bittockie?
Inasmuch as the Conservatives led the Government from 2010-15 in coalition with the LDs, true. There have been Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers in charge of the Post Office during the long period of this scandal.
Yet for some reason the focus seems on Davey's tenure - can't imagine why.
ask Markey Mark?
It wouldn't matter - in a seat where the Conservatives are facing a Liberal Democrat challenge, they have to use any weapon they can to stop voters supporting the LDs. If they didn't use Davey's time running the Post Office, they'd think of something else - attack lines aren't difficult to create.
This morning we had Boris Johnson claiming Starmer would lead the "most hard left Government since the 1970s". Somebody better tell @bigjohnowls Starmer's Labour party is "hard left".
Of course, Johnson's article was aimed squarely at the Daily Mail demographic who are constantly fed propaganda to leave them terrified of anything to do with modern life and society.
He didn't run it. He was responsible for it, he met Bates and pretty much ignored what he had to say. You may of course say that there were a load of Tory business secs who didn't even get as far as meeting Bates, but I can see how this will have traction against Davey. He has been very quiet and off air since the thing blew up.
How many Tory business secretaries in the subsequent nine years? Meanwhile there is all the other garbage the Tories pulled, so if we need attack lines, I think the Kib Dems have plenty of ammo to fire back.
I have no doubt they do. I have no personal interest in attacking the lib Dems and indeed will probably either vote for them or spoil my ballot. I am just predicting this will be an issue if fr example there's leadership debates with questions from the audience. Let's see what happens
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
I have recently done a 2 week ocean passage on a small boat first time since 2018. Then, radio silence unless you wanted to send a text over sat phone for 13 guineas a word. Now, wall to wall high speed internet via Starlink. I was so blown away I bought (in mid Pacific)Scottish Mortgage (only way to invest in SpaceX/Starlink). Looks a canny move so far
Fascinating. How exactly do you invest in "Scottish Mortgage" (I am fairly clueless on these things)
SpaceX is privately held. That means the shares are not listed on any exchange, and buying them is very difficult.
Some companies have bought into them and are *claiming* to offer investments tied to the value of the chunk of SpaceX they own.
To be frank, you’d need all the scepticism required for companies offering investments in gold, for such transactions.
SMIT is a perfectly respectable investment trust specialising in the tech sectors. SpaceX is its largest unlisted company investment, but it's not a particularly large % of their holdings.
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The only way that the Lib Dems will be under 25 seats is if the Tories end up with over 250. If there's a modest Tory recovery and they get to 200 seats that's 172 losses compared to 2019 notionals and if doesn't seem plausible that the Lib Dems will pick up less than 10% of the Tory lost seats.
Not convinced. This is a national election this time, not 650 separate by-elections (and the Lib Dems, simultaneously, don't have the resources to target dozens and dozens of seats with saturation ground campaigning, and will only get a small fraction of the attention that is lavished on Starmer.) In any Tory held seats where they are notionally second, but a very distant second, they're liable to be overtaken by Labour - and that applies to most of their targets.
The Lib Dems won eleven seats last time. Say they want to pick up 20 or so more to take them to a shade over 30, all from the Tories. They can do that entirely with seats requiring a swing under 10% - they are almost all seats where they are in a very clear second place and the tactical story is pretty easy to tell (with a couple of unusual exceptions of in central London which seem a tough ask).
Even beyond that, there are quite a few that have a recent history of a Lib Dem MP and Lib Dem Council, where Labour have never really been a factor.
I think you're overestimating the level of likely confusion as to who is the challenger in most (although not all) of the Lib Dems' serious targets.
Yeah, in the case of a total Tory train wreck you're probably right. I still can't shake off the suspicion that, as dire as the Conservative Government is, its actual support won't be as low as the current VI numbers suggest, and that colours my opinion of everything else.
The Conservative Party might well end up with a lower share of the national vote than it did in 1997, but I'll believe it (and that RefUK finish in double digits) when I see it and not before.
The Tories could end up with more seats than 1997 even on 29% of the vote, due to Labour needing a bigger swing to get over 400 seats, a lower LD vote and holding seats in Scotland
It is of course possible they could get more seats on about one and half percentage points lower vote share than 1997. The electoral system is a little unpredictable in how it translates votes into seats.
But it's really hard to be confident, in a change election, of how efficiently distributed votes will be - a lot of models just say they'll be similarly distributed to last time, but that's flawed. My impression from the local elections is that the anti-Tory is pretty efficiently distributed - that people work out how best to get the Tories out and do that. But those are lower turnout elections with potentially more astute voters in that respect.
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
That explains the engagements, but he couldn't cancel a personal holiday? He has no actual job as far as I'm aware so the work he does is all voluntary, so how much of a holiday would he really need?
Of course, he has no obligation to help the party out, and probably incentive to do the bare minimum, but still.
Why exactly would he campaign to subject the country to five more years of the pathetic backstabber?
For me it's not whether he wants that, I doubt he cares, but whether he is interested in playing a role in politics in the coming years and so whether he would feel the need to put in a demonstrable effort so he could say to the party that he did his best but Sunak was too big a drag.
If he's spending his time focused on his engagements and holidays then that argues to me that perhaps he is less inclined to reenter the front rank of politics again.
Early reports on the LibDems: their leader is toxic on the Post Office scandal...
What reports are these? Are you canvassing?
Let's stop calling a spade a garden implement.
@MarqueeMark is a Conservative activist facing a Lib Dem challenge in his seat. - he's not going to be objective about this. It's probably on the script when he meets a dithering ex-Conservative so I wouldn't put too much significance into it - if it wasn't this it would be the old "you know when it comes to it they'll back Labour" schtick.
His purpose is to dissuade uncertain Conservatives from backing the LDs and bring them back into the fold.
Oh, the Tories weren't in charge of the PO then? Notd even a teensy weensy bittockie?
Inasmuch as the Conservatives led the Government from 2010-15 in coalition with the LDs, true. There have been Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers in charge of the Post Office during the long period of this scandal.
Yet for some reason the focus seems on Davey's tenure - can't imagine why.
ask Markey Mark?
It wouldn't matter - in a seat where the Conservatives are facing a Liberal Democrat challenge, they have to use any weapon they can to stop voters supporting the LDs. If they didn't use Davey's time running the Post Office, they'd think of something else - attack lines aren't difficult to create.
This morning we had Boris Johnson claiming Starmer would lead the "most hard left Government since the 1970s". Somebody better tell @bigjohnowls Starmer's Labour party is "hard left".
Of course, Johnson's article was aimed squarely at the Daily Mail demographic who are constantly fed propaganda to leave them terrified of anything to do with modern life and society.
He didn't run it. He was responsible for it, he met Bates and pretty much ignored what he had to say. You may of course say that there were a load of Tory business secs who didn't even get as far as meeting Bates, but I can see how this will have traction against Davey. He has been very quiet and off air since the thing blew up.
That's right, Meg.
Davy has been kind of unlucky and kind of not. He did more than his predecessors but less than he should.
In the circumstances, keeping quiet about it for the moment is probably the best strategy. He will have his chance to put his side of things when he appears before the Inquiry. I suspect he will be able to say that he was lied to, and probably with some justification, but neither he nor anybody else will be able to dispute that a major contributory factor in this scandal was Government's failure to find out what was going on in the business it wholly owned, where all the money was going, and why.
It was unacceptable negligence, by a succession of governments.
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
You see something similar in the right's reaction to Gary Lineker. Try as they might to shut him down, they do not succeed, so they just attack him relentlessly instead.
Don't be silly, the right wing are all for freedom of speech, they never resort to cancel culture - well unless you make the Prime Minister look silly by playing some 1990s hit single.
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
You see something similar in the right's reaction to Gary Lineker. Try as they might to shut him down, they do not succeed, so they just attack him relentlessly instead.
Don't be silly, the right wing are all for freedom of speech, they never resort to cancel culture - well unless you make the Prime Minister look silly by playing some 1990s hit single.
It was amazing to see the free speech Twitter brigade call for that to be shut down, particularly the young Tory influencers who were appalled. Of course Rishi could have just used his £2.6m briefing room but for some reason did not.
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
You see something similar in the right's reaction to Gary Lineker. Try as they might to shut him down, they do not succeed, so they just attack him relentlessly instead.
Difference is Lineker just generally parrots the left liberal establishment line. He never says anything remotely interesting.
I don't find him or Elon Musk that interesting. But that's no reason to cancel them.
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
Musk's biggest problem is that he's a liar. He'll lie about business: e.g. an automated drive across the USA; or the Tesla robotaxis that should have been all over our cities years ago. He'll lie about the personal: the lie that he never takes holidays, or that his child died in his arms. He is a constant liar.
Musk's biggest advantage is that he has a crowd of followers who slurp up those lies and deny that fact they're lies, or excuse them, or screech "Musk time!". Often because they are trying to ramp investments in Tesla, crypto or just because it's trendy to excuse his lies, like they get some reflected glory.
Musk has achieved two amazing things: but they were very dependent on luck and timing. It very nearly ended badly, particularly back in 2008. He's also slurped up US government largesse - though tbf, a=many rich people manage that.
Boris Johnson will be abroad for most of election campaign
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
That explains the engagements, but he couldn't cancel a personal holiday? He has no actual job as far as I'm aware so the work he does is all voluntary, so how much of a holiday would he really need?
Of course, he has no obligation to help the party out, and probably incentive to do the bare minimum, but still.
Keeping as far away from the train wreck as possible - may still harbour hopes of a comeback (expect more talk of this if the vastly more loathsome Trump wins in November.)
This is the reason.
Sunak's campaign is going to be Presidential, with him featuring front and centre. Few others want to be associated, whether past or present cabinet members.
In looking at a successor I'm still holding out hope for a complete unknown, but if not I think it would have to be someone as divorced as possible from the current leadership whilst still being, in Tory terms, credible.
Which is why I think Badenoch will struggle, and Braverman would do better than Patel, as the former has been more vocal in internal opposition.
First Anecdata: I've seen my first election signs. Orange diamonds up in Winchester and Romsey, both target areas.
Caroline Nokes flyer in my folks house in Romsey was multicoloured, almost rainbow, with lots about her and no mention of the Conservative Party on the front.
Still no mention in overheard conversations or even by my folks.
I expect the LDs will do a bit better in terms of seats than their headline poll rating due to tactical voting.
However I still expect Labour to see the biggest swings, as was the case in 1997 even in seats the LDs were targeting and won from the Tories the Labour voteshare was often up too whereas in seats Labour was targeting and won from the Tories the LD voteshare was normally down
In 1997, the biggest swing was 18% - Crosby as I recall - while the national swing was nearer 10%. This morning's YouGov had Labour on 45% in England and the Conservatives on 23% - in December 2019, the numbers were 32% and 47% so a 15-point Conservative lead in England has become a 22% Labour lead which is an 17.5% swing.
Tactical voting could mean swings of 20-25% quite widely which is what you might expect in a by election.
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
You see something similar in the right's reaction to Gary Lineker. Try as they might to shut him down, they do not succeed, so they just attack him relentlessly instead.
The difference is Gary Lineker is a decent footballer in semi retirement as a commentator, and Elon Musk is an extraordinary genius who is literally reshaping the world
Should we listen to either? Maybe not. But if I had to choose one it would be Musk, obvs
First Anecdata: I've seen my first election signs. Orange diamonds up in Winchester and Romsey, both target areas.
Caroline Nokes flyer in my folks house in Romsey was multicoloured, almost rainbow, with lots about her and no mention of the Conservative Party on the front.
Still no mention in overheard conversations or even by my folks.
Nokes should have defected to the Lib Dems . She seems a better fit with him .
First Anecdata: I've seen my first election signs. Orange diamonds up in Winchester and Romsey, both target areas.
Caroline Nokes flyer in my folks house in Romsey was multicoloured, almost rainbow, with lots about her and no mention of the Conservative Party on the front.
Still no mention in overheard conversations or even by my folks.
Seen my first election signs in Melksham and Devizes, Orange Diamonds in a LD target.
Though it appears to be rebranding for the party, as it was not 'Winning Here' but 'Beat the Blues - Go for Gold'.
I'm not sure what the official shade for the party is but as your post suggests, I wouldn't call it gold.
First Anecdata: I've seen my first election signs. Orange diamonds up in Winchester and Romsey, both target areas.
Caroline Nokes flyer in my folks house in Romsey was multicoloured, almost rainbow, with lots about her and no mention of the Conservative Party on the front.
Still no mention in overheard conversations or even by my folks.
I feel like the Lib Dems are nailed on to gain Eastleigh and Winchester but I'm still on the fence about Romsey & Southampton North. The Lib Dems hold the Southampton wards of Bassett (Rishi's patch) and got a gain from Labour in Swaythling this year but I don't have a sense of how Romsey and the Test Valley are leaning. Any insight?
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
Musk's biggest problem is that he's a liar. He'll lie about business: e.g. an automated drive across the USA; or the Tesla robotaxis that should have been all over our cities years ago. He'll lie about the personal: the lie that he never takes holidays, or that his child died in his arms. He is a constant liar.
Musk's biggest advantage is that he has a crowd of followers who slurp up those lies and deny that fact they're lies, or excuse them, or screech "Musk time!". Often because they are trying to ramp investments in Tesla, crypto or just because it's trendy to excuse his lies, like they get some reflected glory.
Musk has achieved two amazing things: but they were very dependent on luck and timing. It very nearly ended badly, particularly back in 2008. He's also slurped up US government largesse - though tbf, a=many rich people manage that.
You are one of the craziest musk-o-phobes on PB. He absolutely triggers you and you are reduced to these absurd allegations “oh he just got lucky twice”
Libertarian convention devolves into fighting, obscenities on eve of Trump’s visit
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/24/libertarian-convention-fighting-obscenities-trump-visit-00160008 ..As delegates gathered at the Washington Hilton on the eve of his speech, the party’s decision to host the former president, which had split the organization, erupted Friday into open revolt. Fuming delegates at the convention said they plan to protest Trump’s speech, and one group sought unsuccessfully to remove the former president along with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., from the agenda — a move that resulted in thrown punches and obscenities between supporters and opponents of the move.
“I would like to propose that we go tell Donald Trump to go fuck himself!” Kaelan Dreyer, a Libertarian from New Mexico, yelled into a microphone, winning cheers from the crowd. After shouting vulgarities at the convention’s chair and fending off punches, he was led out of the convention hall...
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
You see something similar in the right's reaction to Gary Lineker. Try as they might to shut him down, they do not succeed, so they just attack him relentlessly instead.
The difference is Gary Lineker is a decent footballer in semi retirement as a commentator, and Elon Musk is an extraordinary genius who is literally reshaping the world
Should we listen to either? Maybe not. But if I had to choose one it would be Musk, obvs
Of course - he is very right wing so says things you like to hear.
Libertarian convention devolves into fighting, obscenities on eve of Trump’s visit
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/24/libertarian-convention-fighting-obscenities-trump-visit-00160008 ..As delegates gathered at the Washington Hilton on the eve of his speech, the party’s decision to host the former president, which had split the organization, erupted Friday into open revolt. Fuming delegates at the convention said they plan to protest Trump’s speech, and one group sought unsuccessfully to remove the former president along with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., from the agenda — a move that resulted in thrown punches and obscenities between supporters and opponents of the move.
“I would like to propose that we go tell Donald Trump to go fuck himself!” Kaelan Dreyer, a Libertarian from New Mexico, yelled into a microphone, winning cheers from the crowd. After shouting vulgarities at the convention’s chair and fending off punches, he was led out of the convention hall...
Well, I'm glad they are not totally in awe of the big man - most US Libertaraisn seem the types who would be fans of big government when directed by someone who will enforce what they like.
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
You see something similar in the right's reaction to Gary Lineker. Try as they might to shut him down, they do not succeed, so they just attack him relentlessly instead.
The difference is Gary Lineker is a decent footballer in semi retirement as a commentator, and Elon Musk is an extraordinary genius who is literally reshaping the world
Should we listen to either? Maybe not. But if I had to choose one it would be Musk, obvs
Of course - he is very right wing so says things you like to hear.
Your Overton window needs adjusting. He’s not “very right wing”. Please provide evidence
He’s right wing. But to a numbskull lefty that means he’s basically Hitler
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The only way that the Lib Dems will be under 25 seats is if the Tories end up with over 250. If there's a modest Tory recovery and they get to 200 seats that's 172 losses compared to 2019 notionals and if doesn't seem plausible that the Lib Dems will pick up less than 10% of the Tory lost seats.
Not convinced. This is a national election this time, not 650 separate by-elections (and the Lib Dems, simultaneously, don't have the resources to target dozens and dozens of seats with saturation ground campaigning, and will only get a small fraction of the attention that is lavished on Starmer.) In any Tory held seats where they are notionally second, but a very distant second, they're liable to be overtaken by Labour - and that applies to most of their targets.
The Lib Dems won eleven seats last time. Say they want to pick up 20 or so more to take them to a shade over 30, all from the Tories. They can do that entirely with seats requiring a swing under 10% - they are almost all seats where they are in a very clear second place and the tactical story is pretty easy to tell (with a couple of unusual exceptions of in central London which seem a tough ask).
Even beyond that, there are quite a few that have a recent history of a Lib Dem MP and Lib Dem Council, where Labour have never really been a factor.
I think you're overestimating the level of likely confusion as to who is the challenger in most (although not all) of the Lib Dems' serious targets.
Yeah, in the case of a total Tory train wreck you're probably right. I still can't shake off the suspicion that, as dire as the Conservative Government is, its actual support won't be as low as the current VI numbers suggest, and that colours my opinion of everything else.
The Conservative Party might well end up with a lower share of the national vote than it did in 1997, but I'll believe it (and that RefUK finish in double digits) when I see it and not before.
The Tories could end up with more seats than 1997 even on 29% of the vote, due to Labour needing a bigger swing to get over 400 seats, a lower LD vote and holding seats in Scotland
They have a good chance of polling north of 30% and avoiding a proper pasting if the notional RefUK vote turns out to be as soft as butter. RefUK are in double figures in most recent opinion polls, but they'll get little attention during the campaign, Farage can't be arsed and the bulk of those voters who are thinking about going for them won't seriously believe that they'll come close to winning a single seat. If they flop and end up getting something like the 2% that UKIP scored in 2017 then that leaves a lot of voters to be redistributed elsewhere, and the populist right, Boris Johnson sympathising, anti-migrant vote ain't going to Labour.
The main determinant of the relative fortunes of the two main parties in this election may well turn out to be which voter groups are most likely to go on strike. How much of that notional RefUK vote will sit on its hands rather than trudge to the polling stations to vote unenthusiastically for the Tories, and how many left-leaning younger voters won't turn out to support Labour's 2010 austerity tribute act due to a similar lack of enthusiasm?
I expect the LDs will do a bit better in terms of seats than their headline poll rating due to tactical voting.
However I still expect Labour to see the biggest swings, as was the case in 1997 even in seats the LDs were targeting and won from the Tories the Labour voteshare was often up too whereas in seats Labour was targeting and won from the Tories the LD voteshare was normally down
In 1997, the biggest swing was 18% - Crosby as I recall - while the national swing was nearer 10%. This morning's YouGov had Labour on 45% in England and the Conservatives on 23% - in December 2019, the numbers were 32% and 47% so a 15-point Conservative lead in England has become a 22% Labour lead which is an 17.5% swing.
Tactical voting could mean swings of 20-25% quite widely which is what you might expect in a by election.
Potentially yes but as I said I expect even including tactical voting the swing to be bigger to Labour than to the LDs in Tory marginal seats they are targeting
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
You see something similar in the right's reaction to Gary Lineker. Try as they might to shut him down, they do not succeed, so they just attack him relentlessly instead.
The difference is Gary Lineker is a decent footballer in semi retirement as a commentator, and Elon Musk is an extraordinary genius who is literally reshaping the world
Should we listen to either? Maybe not. But if I had to choose one it would be Musk, obvs
Of course - he is very right wing so says things you like to hear.
Reading between the lines, I fear Musky Baby wants to *really* repeal women's reproductive rights in the US. His views seem to be: The USA can hold one billion people. Kids don't cost anything. People should have more kids. But mass immigration bad! (*).
Like many on the US right, he wants women to just be baby-making machines.
(*) But not immigration for rich children of emerald miners, obvs.
"I think [Musk is] really great. No caveats on that."
*** I agree. He is touched with greatness. Lex Fridman has called him "the great maker of our time" and that rings true
He is one of the top ten engineers in history? He's right up there with Tesla, Brunel and Edison etc
This doesn't stop him being a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time; indeed the two might well be linked
Is the basic problem that he can't be cancelled? That is why I think he is hated; he is a threat to the cultural dominance of the left.
Interesting: and maybe
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
It isn't completely about 'power and wealth' though, both Musk and Rowling are making points with widespread popular support that cannot just be shut down through 'cancellation' anymore; and so are completely reshaping public discourse about various issues, which is massively annoying to some people.
I don't really like Musk because I feel like he thinks he's an expert on everything yet he appears to believe anything he reads online if it fits his preferred politics, plus he likes to act tough then whinge like a crybaby when he faces any kind of consequences (see his pathetic 'F*ck you' comments around Disney, pretending not to care what they did whilst obviously livid), but I think there is something in what you say in that most people or companies would change their tune or at least dial it back if facing the online backlash that he gets, and that probably does enrage people who find they cannot influence what he or his companies do.
You see something similar in the right's reaction to Gary Lineker. Try as they might to shut him down, they do not succeed, so they just attack him relentlessly instead.
Difference is Lineker just generally parrots the left liberal establishment line. He never says anything remotely interesting.
I don't find him or Elon Musk that interesting. But that's no reason to cancel them.
Again an absurd statement. Elon Musk is interesting. He just is. He can alter the Ukraine war because of starlink. He can change the world through TwitterX. He owns and runs one of the world’s biggest electric car companies
Claiming he’s “uninteresting” is absolute gonads and is also a puff of pure copium
Lib Dems target 90 Tory seats in tactical voting push
Sir Ed Davey launched his party’s general election campaign with a strategy to win over ‘Surrey shufflers’ in the Home Counties — focusing resources on dozens of blue wall seats
The Lib Dems haven't had a really good GE for nearly twenty years, and there's no particular reason to suppose that their fortunes will improve dramatically this time around. They're still roughly where they were in 2019 in the headline VI figures; if the Tories perform cataclysmically then a lot of the LD second places from that election are liable to be swamped in a Labour tide; and if there's a modest Tory recovery it'll put most of the Con-LD marginals beyond their reach. If the yellows finish with more than about 25 seats that can be counted as a strong performance under the circumstances.
The only way that the Lib Dems will be under 25 seats is if the Tories end up with over 250. If there's a modest Tory recovery and they get to 200 seats that's 172 losses compared to 2019 notionals and if doesn't seem plausible that the Lib Dems will pick up less than 10% of the Tory lost seats.
Not convinced. This is a national election this time, not 650 separate by-elections (and the Lib Dems, simultaneously, don't have the resources to target dozens and dozens of seats with saturation ground campaigning, and will only get a small fraction of the attention that is lavished on Starmer.) In any Tory held seats where they are notionally second, but a very distant second, they're liable to be overtaken by Labour - and that applies to most of their targets.
The Lib Dems won eleven seats last time. Say they want to pick up 20 or so more to take them to a shade over 30, all from the Tories. They can do that entirely with seats requiring a swing under 10% - they are almost all seats where they are in a very clear second place and the tactical story is pretty easy to tell (with a couple of unusual exceptions of in central London which seem a tough ask).
Even beyond that, there are quite a few that have a recent history of a Lib Dem MP and Lib Dem Council, where Labour have never really been a factor.
I think you're overestimating the level of likely confusion as to who is the challenger in most (although not all) of the Lib Dems' serious targets.
Yeah, in the case of a total Tory train wreck you're probably right. I still can't shake off the suspicion that, as dire as the Conservative Government is, its actual support won't be as low as the current VI numbers suggest, and that colours my opinion of everything else.
The Conservative Party might well end up with a lower share of the national vote than it did in 1997, but I'll believe it (and that RefUK finish in double digits) when I see it and not before.
The Tories could end up with more seats than 1997 even on 29% of the vote, due to Labour needing a bigger swing to get over 400 seats, a lower LD vote and holding seats in Scotland
It is of course possible they could get more seats on about one and half percentage points lower vote share than 1997. The electoral system is a little unpredictable in how it translates votes into seats.
But it's really hard to be confident, in a change election, of how efficiently distributed votes will be - a lot of models just say they'll be similarly distributed to last time, but that's flawed. My impression from the local elections is that the anti-Tory is pretty efficiently distributed - that people work out how best to get the Tories out and do that. But those are lower turnout elections with potentially more astute voters in that respect.
In the 1996 local elections though Labour led the Tories by 14%, whereas earlier this month Labour only led the Tories by 9%.
The LDs also got 26% NEV in 1996 but only 17% NEV this year
Comments
@rcs1000 compared him to JK Rowling on the last thread. She's another person who annoys lefties but cannot be cancelled due to power and wealth
Remember, the default for Labour voters in very heavily Labour areas is to vote Labour. So you need to REALLY like the alternative to shift. The risk for Abbott is that quite a lot of Labour voters will go, "That's a bit of a shame about Diane as I quite liked her"... and then vote Labour.
Children We define a child as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and civil legislation in England and Wales. The fact that a child has reached 16 years of age, is living independently or is in further education, is a member of the armed forces, is in hospital or in custody in the secure estate, does not change their status or entitlements to services or protection.
There's no-one playing him listed on https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27867155/fullcredits/
It's the same now - I would guess there would be 60-75 seats which the party will work to some level and in perhaps 30-40 to a very high level. In others, there will be no LD activity - there's elements of that in the other parties as well. How much Conservative activity will there be in East Ham? None I would guess. The "dry" areas for the other parties are fewer but they still exist - we don't really have a "national" political party - we have three semi-regional parties with the other split between urban and rural or just where the activists are.
Working seats you can't win is a waste of time, money and resources.
Yet for some reason the focus seems on Davey's tenure - can't imagine why.
Davey is well aware of that, and will seek to be as noisy as possible in about 30 or 40 seats (in stark contrast to his predecessor who made herself a joke by pretending to be a candidate for PM).
The hope for them is that the SNP do poorly, and the Lib Dems return to clear third party status by virtue of MP contingent. But, for this one, they just need to fight a few dozen by-elections in the context of unhelpful media coverage which will give them little attention. That might just about work in a change election.
I also dont fully buy the idea that if it is enlarging the franchise that automatically makes a change positive, since if that is the only criterion then you coudl go even lower.
The former prime minister has a series of pre-arranged trips over the coming weeks which he will not be cancelling.
These range from professional speaking engagements abroad to personal holidays, all of which were booked in before the election was called, according to those familiar with his schedule.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/25/boris-johnson-will-be-abroad-for-most-of-election-campaign/
All about him and his bank balance.
However I still expect Labour to see the biggest swings, as was the case in 1997 even in seats the LDs were targeting and won from the Tories the Labour voteshare was often up too whereas in seats Labour was targeting and won from the Tories the LD voteshare was normally down
Of course, he has no obligation to help the party out, and probably incentive to do the bare minimum, but still.
This morning we had Boris Johnson claiming Starmer would lead the "most hard left Government since the 1970s". Somebody better tell @bigjohnowls Starmer's Labour party is "hard left".
Of course, Johnson's article was aimed squarely at the Daily Mail demographic who are constantly fed propaganda to leave them terrified of anything to do with modern life and society.
Is worth looking at
Well that was money down the drain from GB News.
Even beyond that, there are quite a few that have a recent history of a Lib Dem MP and Lib Dem Council, where Labour have never really been a factor.
I think you're overestimating the level of likely confusion as to who is the challenger in most (although not all) of the Lib Dems' serious targets.
from "Men and Power 1917-18" by Lord Beaverbrook:
"In preparing propaganda material, particularly for distribution in America, I made full use of Balfour's declaration in favor of a Jewish National Home, which he had issued in November 1917.
There arose at once a fierce outcry from one section of Jewry, objecting to this conception of a National Home for the Jewish people.
Edward Montagu, Secretary of State for India, became the passionate exponent of this viewpoint in the Government. He regarded the Jews as a religious community and himself as a Jewish Englishman. To commit the Jews to the expression of a National Home was, he argued, to prejudice their civil rights in the country of their birth. How could he, Montagu asked, as Secretary of State for India, negotiate with the peoples of India on behalf of His Majesty's Government, if the world understood that His Majesty's Government regarded his [Montagu's] National Home as being in [then Turkish] territory?
Montagu was one of my personal friends, and I had respect for his judgement. He was settled in his political philosophy and tenacious in his advocacy of his faith."
SSI - Is THIS a description of an anti-Semite?
As for Boris, it will upset the fan club, but I suspect Rishi isn't too sorry to see Johnson out of the country.
Also NE Fife in 2017 and Winchester in 1997 were majorities of two, so a single person who voted for the winning candidate would have made a difference had they switched (or at least they may, subject to the drawing of lots).
The Conservative Party might well end up with a lower share of the national vote than it did in 1997, but I'll believe it (and that RefUK finish in double digits) when I see it and not before.
We define a child as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and civil legislation in England and Wales. The fact that a child has reached 16 years of age, is living independently or is in further education, is a member of the armed forces, is in hospital or in custody in the secure estate, does not change their status or entitlements to services or protection.
Article 1 PART I For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
I wonder how many postal voters have, like me, had their vote disallowed because of the signature being dissimilar to that originally submitted.
In short, never trust the Welsh, particularly their politicians, they are dangerous.
Sunak's campaign is going to be Presidential, with him featuring front and centre. Few others want to be associated, whether past or present cabinet members.
trust specialising in the tech sectors.
SpaceX is its largest unlisted company investment, but it's not a particularly large % of their holdings.
But it's really hard to be confident, in a change election, of how efficiently distributed votes will be - a lot of models just say they'll be similarly distributed to last time, but that's flawed. My impression from the local elections is that the anti-Tory is pretty efficiently distributed - that people work out how best to get the Tories out and do that. But those are lower turnout elections with potentially more astute voters in that respect.
If he's spending his time focused on his engagements and holidays then that argues to me that perhaps he is less inclined to reenter the front rank of politics again.
Davy has been kind of unlucky and kind of not. He did more than his predecessors but less than he should.
In the circumstances, keeping quiet about it for the moment is probably the best strategy. He will have his chance to put his side of things when he appears before the Inquiry. I suspect he will be able to say that he was lied to, and probably with some justification, but neither he nor anybody else will be able to dispute that a major contributory factor in this scandal was Government's failure to find out what was going on in the business it wholly owned, where all the money was going, and why.
It was unacceptable negligence, by a succession of governments.
I sold all of my Tesla stock I've held since 2014 as he is too much of a risk. I have no doubt he'll put Tesla into the ground.
Always knew there was something funny about him.
Musk's biggest advantage is that he has a crowd of followers who slurp up those lies and deny that fact they're lies, or excuse them, or screech "Musk time!". Often because they are trying to ramp investments in Tesla, crypto or just because it's trendy to excuse his lies, like they get some reflected glory.
Musk has achieved two amazing things: but they were very dependent on luck and timing. It very nearly ended badly, particularly back in 2008. He's also slurped up US government largesse - though tbf, a=many rich people manage that.
Which is why I think Badenoch will struggle, and Braverman would do better than Patel, as the former has been more vocal in internal opposition.
Caroline Nokes flyer in my folks house in Romsey was multicoloured, almost rainbow, with lots about her and no mention of the Conservative Party on the front.
Still no mention in overheard conversations or even by my folks.
Tactical voting could mean swings of 20-25% quite widely which is what you might expect in a by election.
Should we listen to either? Maybe not. But if I had to choose one it would be Musk, obvs
Though it appears to be rebranding for the party, as it was not 'Winning Here' but 'Beat the Blues - Go for Gold'.
I'm not sure what the official shade for the party is but as your post suggests, I wouldn't call it gold.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/24/libertarian-convention-fighting-obscenities-trump-visit-00160008
..As delegates gathered at the Washington Hilton on the eve of his speech, the party’s decision to host the former president, which had split the organization, erupted Friday into open revolt. Fuming delegates at the convention said they plan to protest Trump’s speech, and one group sought unsuccessfully to remove the former president along with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., from the agenda — a move that resulted in thrown punches and obscenities between supporters and opponents of the move.
“I would like to propose that we go tell Donald Trump to go fuck himself!” Kaelan Dreyer, a Libertarian from New Mexico, yelled into a microphone, winning cheers from the crowd. After shouting vulgarities at the convention’s chair and fending off punches, he was led out of the convention hall...
He’s right wing. But to a numbskull lefty that means he’s basically Hitler
The main determinant of the relative fortunes of the two main parties in this election may well turn out to be which voter groups are most likely to go on strike. How much of that notional RefUK vote will sit on its hands rather than trudge to the polling stations to vote unenthusiastically for the Tories, and how many left-leaning younger voters won't turn out to support Labour's 2010 austerity tribute act due to a similar lack of enthusiasm?
Like many on the US right, he wants women to just be baby-making machines.
(*) But not immigration for rich children of emerald miners, obvs.
It’s clear what the British people want - bold action and a clear plan.
That’s what we will deliver.
https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794361836361703455
Baffling choice of seat.
Claiming he’s “uninteresting” is absolute gonads and is also a puff of pure copium
Sir Ed Davey launched his party’s general election campaign with a strategy to win over ‘Surrey shufflers’ in the Home Counties — focusing resources on dozens of blue wall seats
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lib-dems-blue-wall-seats-tory-seats-ed-davey-jhgbxdhv2
It is fascinating. It is a pathology
Well, seats for his party.
The LDs also got 26% NEV in 1996 but only 17% NEV this year