The Tory Party’s long term problems – politicalbetting.com

Eabhal said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

If things go as currently anticipated it will be interesting to see how this affects the stability of all political parties going forward. The Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having someone clearly unsuited to the role in the position of leader. Up to now, even if this was not optimal, one would expect swing back and old time loyalties to reduce that cost to tolerable levels. In the more febrile present it appears that that is not the case.

I think this will make MPs, and not just Tory MPs, much more anxious about their leadership in future. If Starmer is not cutting the mustard in 2-3 years time there will be 200-300 Labour MPs worried about their future. The consequences of the complacency and arrogance of this episode will burn deep in their souls.

Technically I think the Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having three people unsuited to the role as leader, one after another.

The leaders dont help, but lack of policies is the bigger problem.

"Cutting quangos" isn't a policy; it's a slogan.
Like the earlier 'bonfire of the quangos', it's meaningless in financial or policy terms.

Eg, would you scrap the rest of HS2 ?
Cut your 4% from NHS England ?

Or a you just talking about a few million pounds from scrapping some of the obscure ones few would miss ?

Yes, you routinely come up with this drivel by chosing the most contoversial things to cut. Quangos are off balance sheet government. They employ something like 700,000 people and cost anywhere from £40 -80 billion depending on whose numbers you chose to believe. There are over 750 of them.

You say you couldnt find savings in that. You shouldnt be put in charge of a budget. Like any cost savings you start with a target, protect the essentials and eliminate nice to dos and not needed. Then you end up with a potential list.

Ive already said as an example I'd close the OBR we lived without it prior to Osborne. Merge its with the BoE or the Treasury for forecasts and take the headcount savings. Then look at the other 750. It may well be you find more savings than you wanted, so park a budget and put some money back where it’s needed. I'd go for infrastructure.

Quangos are not (usually) off balance sheet. And they usually have a statutory purpose. Taking the OBR as an example, before there was an OBR there was a forecasting team in HMT: pretty much exactly the same team operating from the same desks.

Of course but you can repeal laws. The treasury still does forecasts so now we're paying twice over for the same service and in the OBRs case they admit their forecasts are consistently out and not timely. Would you spend £5 million on that or spend it on something more useful ?

No, Treasury uses the OBR numbers.

On laws. Yes, you can start to deregulate but your getting into something far more complex than just “cutting quangos”:

As noted above, many regulators charge their industry for the service and much if the other stuff is political third rail stuff: good luck cutting the Coal Authority or Historic England for example. We don’t really need either, but they don’t cost much and those who love them really love them.

You seem to be saying nobody can take difficult decisions

No, I’m saying they take different ones, routinely. In the case of the public sector the decision has routinely been made to depress salaries to retain staff numbers. I’d increase salaries and reduce staff, and do that fairly evenly in most areas but in an accelerated manner where, for example, AI can help boost productivity.

In the Whitehall centre the standard staff turnover in post is about 20%, so you don’t even need redundancies if you reshape the teams. The problem with most recruitment freezes is that no one plans for it, and all the holes randomly appear where all your best people (usually the first to move on) happen to leave. What’s needed is proper org redesign (and no, I don’t mean you hire McKinsey, it can be done internally).

I agree with that but as in other costs cutting efforts sometimes you can just get rid of a whole department and integrate it elsewhere in the business. It's like the examples you cite who needs the coal authority ? The country will go on without it. A "difficult decision" but it needs to be made.

But I bet it’s three people in an office. Not worth the political argument. I don’t disagree with a lot of rationalisation though. What you have to bear in mind though it that there are only 450,000 civil servants. For the purposes of this discussion (FCA etc.) let’s call it half a million. Average wage is probably 40K, which gets us to 20Bn. Add on 50% for NI, rents, teasing etc and you get to 30Bn.

That will be a massive over-estimate, and even then a massive 20% reduction gets you 6Bn, which is well under 1% of annual government spend.

Just flicking through the Coal Authority's publications and frankly it looks like interesting and important work.

Disused colliery tip inspection is probably something we can all get behind, given prior disasters. Lots on metals pollution too.

Mine water heating... cool! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/project-explores-potential-demand-for-mine-water-heat

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

If things go as currently anticipated it will be interesting to see how this affects the stability of all political parties going forward. The Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having someone clearly unsuited to the role in the position of leader. Up to now, even if this was not optimal, one would expect swing back and old time loyalties to reduce that cost to tolerable levels. In the more febrile present it appears that that is not the case.

I think this will make MPs, and not just Tory MPs, much more anxious about their leadership in future. If Starmer is not cutting the mustard in 2-3 years time there will be 200-300 Labour MPs worried about their future. The consequences of the complacency and arrogance of this episode will burn deep in their souls.

Technically I think the Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having three people unsuited to the role as leader, one after another.

The leaders dont help, but lack of policies is the bigger problem.

"Cutting quangos" isn't a policy; it's a slogan.
Like the earlier 'bonfire of the quangos', it's meaningless in financial or policy terms.

Eg, would you scrap the rest of HS2 ?
Cut your 4% from NHS England ?

Or a you just talking about a few million pounds from scrapping some of the obscure ones few would miss ?

Yes, you routinely come up with this drivel by chosing the most contoversial things to cut. Quangos are off balance sheet government. They employ something like 700,000 people and cost anywhere from £40 -80 billion depending on whose numbers you chose to believe. There are over 750 of them.

You say you couldnt find savings in that. You shouldnt be put in charge of a budget. Like any cost savings you start with a target, protect the essentials and eliminate nice to dos and not needed. Then you end up with a potential list.

Ive already said as an example I'd close the OBR we lived without it prior to Osborne. Merge its with the BoE or the Treasury for forecasts and take the headcount savings. Then look at the other 750. It may well be you find more savings than you wanted, so park a budget and put some money back where it’s needed. I'd go for infrastructure.

Quangos are not (usually) off balance sheet. And they usually have a statutory purpose. Taking the OBR as an example, before there was an OBR there was a forecasting team in HMT: pretty much exactly the same team operating from the same desks.

Of course but you can repeal laws. The treasury still does forecasts so now we're paying twice over for the same service and in the OBRs case they admit their forecasts are consistently out and not timely. Would you spend £5 million on that or spend it on something more useful ?

No, Treasury uses the OBR numbers.

On laws. Yes, you can start to deregulate but your getting into something far more complex than just “cutting quangos”:

As noted above, many regulators charge their industry for the service and much if the other stuff is political third rail stuff: good luck cutting the Coal Authority or Historic England for example. We don’t really need either, but they don’t cost much and those who love them really love them.

You seem to be saying nobody can take difficult decisions

No, I’m saying they take different ones, routinely. In the case of the public sector the decision has routinely been made to depress salaries to retain staff numbers. I’d increase salaries and reduce staff, and do that fairly evenly in most areas but in an accelerated manner where, for example, AI can help boost productivity.

In the Whitehall centre the standard staff turnover in post is about 20%, so you don’t even need redundancies if you reshape the teams. The problem with most recruitment freezes is that no one plans for it, and all the holes randomly appear where all your best people (usually the first to move on) happen to leave. What’s needed is proper org redesign (and no, I don’t mean you hire McKinsey, it can be done internally).

I agree with that but as in other costs cutting efforts sometimes you can just get rid of a whole department and integrate it elsewhere in the business. It's like the examples you cite who needs the coal authority ? The country will go on without it. A "difficult decision" but it needs to be made.

But I bet it’s three people in an office. Not worth the political argument. I don’t disagree with a lot of rationalisation though. What you have to bear in mind though it that there are only 450,000 civil servants. For the purposes of this discussion (FCA etc.) let’s call it half a million. Average wage is probably 40K, which gets us to 20Bn. Add on 50% for NI, rents, teasing etc and you get to 30Bn.

That will be a massive over-estimate, and even then a massive 20% reduction gets you 6Bn, which is well under 1% of annual government spend.

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

numbertwelve said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its not very Orange Booky...

https://order-order.com/2024/06/10/all-the-bonkers-policies-in-the-libdem-manifesto/

Indeed, and it’s wishful thinking that the LDs are going to suddenly morph into a centre-right orange booker party. They are liberal ‘progressive’ left and they’re not going to change overnight. Are there even any orange bookers left?

Yes, in some respects the LD manifesto is left of Starmer Labour, including a massive rise in council tax for second homes and restoration of student grants. Davey clearly trying to attract left liberals disillusioned by a centrist, authoritarian Labour Party as Kennedy did to Blair New Labour.

Clearly only Reform are a real alternative to the Tories on the right

Reform need to stop banging on about migration everybody knows where they stand, they need to put some focus on cost of living if they want to pick up extra votes.

Reform have proposed raising the IHT threshold to £2 million, clearly their focus is on anti immigration white working class Leavers and upper middle class Thatcherite rich southern rightwing home owners and their heirs

Scott_xP said:

https://x.com/cjsnowdon/status/1800140822501016001

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

numbertwelve said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its not very Orange Booky...

https://order-order.com/2024/06/10/all-the-bonkers-policies-in-the-libdem-manifesto/

Indeed, and it’s wishful thinking that the LDs are going to suddenly morph into a centre-right orange booker party. They are liberal ‘progressive’ left and they’re not going to change overnight. Are there even any orange bookers left?

Yes, in some respects the LD manifesto is left of Starmer Labour, including a massive rise in council tax for second homes and restoration of student grants. Davey clearly trying to attract left liberals disillusioned by a centrist, authoritarian Labour Party as Kennedy did to Blair New Labour.

Clearly only Reform are a real alternative to the Tories on the right

Reform need to stop banging on about migration everybody knows where they stand, they need to put some focus on cost of living if they want to pick up extra votes.

Reform have proposed raising the IHT threshold to £2 million, clearly their focus is on anti immigration white working class Leavers and upper middle class Thatcherite rich southern rightwing home owners and their heirs

So who does that leave for the Conservatives ?

wooliedyed said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

wooliedyed said:

SandyRentool said:

wooliedyed said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ok, I know it's ultimately an exercise in politcal irrelevancy, but which of the rich smörgåsbord of talent on the Holyrood benches is next SCon leader? I'm going for Sandesh 'does my hair look good' Gulhane, with a lol saver on Annie Wells.

Murdo

on the Orient Express?

Could be!
I think it's him though, the SCons will split from the UK party per his plan and he's the obvious man to poke at Swinney whilst he's there. Possible he'll be an interim to achieve the split and then hand on after 2026

Too many times the bridesmaid? Murdo has a very much over masticated piece of chewing gum vibe.

Not a MSP. And the seat Mr Ross may or may not vacate is a list one, so the next person on the list will get it automatically (mind, I didn't check who that is).

He is an MSP if you're referring to Murdo?

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

HYUFD said:

numbertwelve said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its not very Orange Booky...

https://order-order.com/2024/06/10/all-the-bonkers-policies-in-the-libdem-manifesto/

Indeed, and it’s wishful thinking that the LDs are going to suddenly morph into a centre-right orange booker party. They are liberal ‘progressive’ left and they’re not going to change overnight. Are there even any orange bookers left?

Yes, in some respects the LD manifesto is left of Starmer Labour, including a massive rise in council tax for second homes and restoration of student grants. Davey clearly trying to attract left liberals disillusioned by a centrist, authoritarian Labour Party as Kennedy did to Blair New Labour.

Clearly only Reform are a real alternative to the Tories on the right

Reform need to stop banging on about migration everybody knows where they stand, they need to put some focus on cost of living if they want to pick up extra votes.

Reform have proposed raising the IHT threshold to £2 million, clearly their focus is on anti immigration white working class Leavers and upper middle class Thatcherite rich southern rightwing home owners and their heirs

So who does that leave for the Conservatives ?

Based on the Tory manifesto, 30-40 year olds working in the private sector looking for their first home and private sector workers and the self employed who want to scrap NI.

Plus Jews still suspicious of Labour and British Hindus proud of Rishi as the first British Asian PM

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its not very Orange Booky...

https://order-order.com/2024/06/10/all-the-bonkers-policies-in-the-libdem-manifesto/

• Reforming the taxation of international flights to focus on those who fly the most, while reducing costs for ordinary households who take one or two international return flights per year.
  
• Giving local authorities, including National Park Authorities, the powers to end Right to Buy in their areas
  
• Improving standards of animal health and welfare in agriculture, including a ban on caged hens.
  
• Giving local environmental groups a place on water companies’ boards.
  
• Creating a new Online Crime Agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online, such as personal fraud, revenge porn and threats and incitement to violence on social media.
  
• Tackle child poverty by removing the two-child limit and the benefit cap.
  
• Introducing a ‘Toddler Top-Up’: an enhanced rate of Child Benefit for one-year olds
  
• Immediately requiring all new homes and non-domestic buildings to be built to a zero-carbon standard, including being fitted with solar panels, and progressively increasing standards as technology improves
  
• Setting a 20% higher minimum wage for people on zero-hour contracts at times of normal demand to compensate them for the uncertainty of fluctuating hours of work
  
• Encourage employers to promote employee ownership by giving staff in listed companies with more than 250 employees a right to request shares, to be held in trust for the benefit of employees
  
• Taking initial unilateral steps to rebuild the relationship with the EU, starting by declaring a fundamental change in the UK’s approach and improving channels for foreign policy cooperation – seeking to join the Single Market
  
• Requiring that all Ministers’ instant-messaging conversations involving government business must be placed on the departmental record. Ensuring that a record of all lobbying of Ministers via instant messages, emails, letters and phone calls is published as part of quarterly transparency releases
  

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1800143930102779918

NEW:
@RestisPolitics
/ JLP poll, 7th-9th June

*Labour lead at 17 points*

Change on last week in brackets

LAB: 41% (-2)
CON: 24% (-2)
REF: 15% (+3)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 5% (+2)

https://x.com/Samfrspare/status/1800144343745069304

Sam Freedman
@Samfrspare
JLP show same movement to Reform as others. This is the first fully post D-Day poll and doesn't show too big a drop for the Tories (though is the methodology that helps them most and they're on 24%).

----------

The headline figures might look disappointing for Reform - but I think we are going to see crossover today/tomorrow from a polling company that has more favourable methodology to them / less favourable methodology to the Tories.

DYOR but I would lump on those trading bets right now if you can. Lib Dems over 40.5 seats still looks very good to me.

Roger said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

tlg86 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

A reminder that Chris Patten, as Tory Chairman, was MP in the Lib Dems' top target seat. He didn't do the chicken run - he set the right example in defeat, while masterminding Major's 1992 win.

From that to Dick Holden in 32 years.

Amusing that Patten's performance in Bath was worse than the Tories did nationally.

Patten is one of the architects of Brexit. Whenever it looked like the Tories might offer a referendum - on Maastricht etc - he was there to scupper the idea, thus stoking the fires of euroscepticism so much we actually voted to Leave completely, in the end. He is a fool. A clever, eloquent fool

Why do so many Brexit folk continue to blame pro-Europeans for their own folly? It's like they all know that the course the UK has taken since 2016 is a Suez style screw up, but those who opposed it are responsible.
Brexit has crippled the Tories, maybe even killed them, but it is the populists that have to own it.

The delusion of British exceptionalism

https://www.cer.eu/insights/british-and-their-exceptionalism

ToryJim said:

wooliedyed said:

Nigelb said:

Reform candidate said UK should have been neutral against Hitler

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmrwexv4ko
A Reform UK candidate claimed the country would be "far better" if it had "taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality" instead of fighting the Nazis in World War Two.
Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care".
In posts from 2022 on the Unherd magazine website, seen by the BBC, he said Winston Churchill was "abysmal" and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin...

And Reform have backed him. They realise quite quickly they can't afford to disown hundreds of candidates with highly iffy views

Well they’d have to start at the very top. Although Farage disowns himself all the time especially when what he said yesterday is inconsistent with what he wants to say today.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

tlg86 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

A reminder that Chris Patten, as Tory Chairman, was MP in the Lib Dems' top target seat. He didn't do the chicken run - he set the right example in defeat, while masterminding Major's 1992 win.

From that to Dick Holden in 32 years.

Amusing that Patten's performance in Bath was worse than the Tories did nationally.

Patten is one of the architects of Brexit. Whenever it looked like the Tories might offer a referendum - on Maastricht etc - he was there to scupper the idea, thus stoking the fires of euroscepticism so much we actually voted to Leave completely, in the end. He is a fool. A clever, eloquent fool

Why do so many Brexit folk continue to blame pro-Europeans for their own folly? It's like they all know that the course the UK has taken since 2016 is a Suez style screw up, but those who opposed it are responsible.
Brexit has crippled the Tories, maybe even killed them, but it is the populists that have to own it.

Blame belongs to those who lose, not those who win. Credit goes to those who win.

Hillary was to blame for losing to Trump, whom she should have beaten.

If Man Utd are defeated by Liverpool 7-0 then who shares the blame - the United Manager/Defence/Midfield etc or the Liverpool Manager/Midfield/Strikers etc?

If Liverpool win 7-0 they get the credit while the opposition gets the blame. Similarly with Brexit, blame lies solely on the Europhiles who held all the cards and lost, while credit goes to the Eurosceptics who won.

HYUFD said:

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1800143930102779918

NEW:
@RestisPolitics
/ JLP poll, 7th-9th June

*Labour lead at 17 points*

Change on last week in brackets

LAB: 41% (-2)
CON: 24% (-2)
REF: 15% (+3)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 5% (+2)

https://x.com/Samfrspare/status/1800144343745069304

Sam Freedman
@Samfrspare
JLP show same movement to Reform as others. This is the first fully post D-Day poll and doesn't show too big a drop for the Tories (though is the methodology that helps them most and they're on 24%).

----------

The headline figures might look disappointing for Reform - but I think we are going to see crossover today/tomorrow from a polling company that has more favourable methodology to them / less favourable methodology to the Tories.

DYOR but I would lump on those trading bets right now if you can. Lib Dems over 40.5 seats still looks very good to me.

Tories still 9% ahead of Reform then even after D Day gate and the Farage multi party debate on Friday in that new JLP poll mainly taken over the weekend. No change in the Labour lead either.

Signs of relief at CCHQ and in No 10 I suspect even if Reform are up at Tory expense, the Greens up almost as much at Labour expense

RandallFlagg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

tlg86 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

A reminder that Chris Patten, as Tory Chairman, was MP in the Lib Dems' top target seat. He didn't do the chicken run - he set the right example in defeat, while masterminding Major's 1992 win.

From that to Dick Holden in 32 years.

Amusing that Patten's performance in Bath was worse than the Tories did nationally.

Patten is one of the architects of Brexit. Whenever it looked like the Tories might offer a referendum - on Maastricht etc - he was there to scupper the idea, thus stoking the fires of euroscepticism so much we actually voted to Leave completely, in the end. He is a fool. A clever, eloquent fool

Why do so many Brexit folk continue to blame pro-Europeans for their own folly? It's like they all know that the course the UK has taken since 2016 is a Suez style screw up, but those who opposed it are responsible.
Brexit has crippled the Tories, maybe even killed them, but it is the populists that have to own it.

Blame belongs to those who lose, not those who win. Credit goes to those who win.

Hillary was to blame for losing to Trump, whom she should have beaten.

If Man Utd are defeated by Liverpool 7-0 then who shares the blame - the United Manager/Defence/Midfield etc or the Liverpool Manager/Midfield/Strikers etc?

If Liverpool win 7-0 they get the credit while the opposition gets the blame. Similarly with Brexit, blame lies solely on the Europhiles who held all the cards and lost, while credit goes to the Eurosceptics who won.

The difference is the eurosceptics won yet seem to be thoroughly unhappy.

viewcode said:

Eabhal said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

If things go as currently anticipated it will be interesting to see how this affects the stability of all political parties going forward. The Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having someone clearly unsuited to the role in the position of leader. Up to now, even if this was not optimal, one would expect swing back and old time loyalties to reduce that cost to tolerable levels. In the more febrile present it appears that that is not the case.

I think this will make MPs, and not just Tory MPs, much more anxious about their leadership in future. If Starmer is not cutting the mustard in 2-3 years time there will be 200-300 Labour MPs worried about their future. The consequences of the complacency and arrogance of this episode will burn deep in their souls.

Technically I think the Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having three people unsuited to the role as leader, one after another.

The leaders dont help, but lack of policies is the bigger problem.

"Cutting quangos" isn't a policy; it's a slogan.
Like the earlier 'bonfire of the quangos', it's meaningless in financial or policy terms.

Eg, would you scrap the rest of HS2 ?
Cut your 4% from NHS England ?

Or a you just talking about a few million pounds from scrapping some of the obscure ones few would miss ?

Yes, you routinely come up with this drivel by chosing the most contoversial things to cut. Quangos are off balance sheet government. They employ something like 700,000 people and cost anywhere from £40 -80 billion depending on whose numbers you chose to believe. There are over 750 of them.

You say you couldnt find savings in that. You shouldnt be put in charge of a budget. Like any cost savings you start with a target, protect the essentials and eliminate nice to dos and not needed. Then you end up with a potential list.

Ive already said as an example I'd close the OBR we lived without it prior to Osborne. Merge its with the BoE or the Treasury for forecasts and take the headcount savings. Then look at the other 750. It may well be you find more savings than you wanted, so park a budget and put some money back where it’s needed. I'd go for infrastructure.

Quangos are not (usually) off balance sheet. And they usually have a statutory purpose. Taking the OBR as an example, before there was an OBR there was a forecasting team in HMT: pretty much exactly the same team operating from the same desks.

Of course but you can repeal laws. The treasury still does forecasts so now we're paying twice over for the same service and in the OBRs case they admit their forecasts are consistently out and not timely. Would you spend £5 million on that or spend it on something more useful ?

No, Treasury uses the OBR numbers.

On laws. Yes, you can start to deregulate but your getting into something far more complex than just “cutting quangos”:

As noted above, many regulators charge their industry for the service and much if the other stuff is political third rail stuff: good luck cutting the Coal Authority or Historic England for example. We don’t really need either, but they don’t cost much and those who love them really love them.

You seem to be saying nobody can take difficult decisions

No, I’m saying they take different ones, routinely. In the case of the public sector the decision has routinely been made to depress salaries to retain staff numbers. I’d increase salaries and reduce staff, and do that fairly evenly in most areas but in an accelerated manner where, for example, AI can help boost productivity.

In the Whitehall centre the standard staff turnover in post is about 20%, so you don’t even need redundancies if you reshape the teams. The problem with most recruitment freezes is that no one plans for it, and all the holes randomly appear where all your best people (usually the first to move on) happen to leave. What’s needed is proper org redesign (and no, I don’t mean you hire McKinsey, it can be done internally).

I agree with that but as in other costs cutting efforts sometimes you can just get rid of a whole department and integrate it elsewhere in the business. It's like the examples you cite who needs the coal authority ? The country will go on without it. A "difficult decision" but it needs to be made.

But I bet it’s three people in an office. Not worth the political argument. I don’t disagree with a lot of rationalisation though. What you have to bear in mind though it that there are only 450,000 civil servants. For the purposes of this discussion (FCA etc.) let’s call it half a million. Average wage is probably 40K, which gets us to 20Bn. Add on 50% for NI, rents, teasing etc and you get to 30Bn.

That will be a massive over-estimate, and even then a massive 20% reduction gets you 6Bn, which is well under 1% of annual government spend.

Just flicking through the Coal Authority's publications and frankly it looks like interesting and important work.

Disused colliery tip inspection is probably something we can all get behind, given prior disasters. Lots on metals pollution too.

Mine water heating... cool! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/project-explores-potential-demand-for-mine-water-heat

Fair enough. Keep the quangos that would result in injury/death if removed. Remove the rest. But keep the ONS, obviously, on cold-dead-hand grounds...

Carnyx said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

If things go as currently anticipated it will be interesting to see how this affects the stability of all political parties going forward. The Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having someone clearly unsuited to the role in the position of leader. Up to now, even if this was not optimal, one would expect swing back and old time loyalties to reduce that cost to tolerable levels. In the more febrile present it appears that that is not the case.

I think this will make MPs, and not just Tory MPs, much more anxious about their leadership in future. If Starmer is not cutting the mustard in 2-3 years time there will be 200-300 Labour MPs worried about their future. The consequences of the complacency and arrogance of this episode will burn deep in their souls.

Technically I think the Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having three people unsuited to the role as leader, one after another.

The leaders dont help, but lack of policies is the bigger problem.

"Cutting quangos" isn't a policy; it's a slogan.
Like the earlier 'bonfire of the quangos', it's meaningless in financial or policy terms.

Eg, would you scrap the rest of HS2 ?
Cut your 4% from NHS England ?

Or a you just talking about a few million pounds from scrapping some of the obscure ones few would miss ?

Yes, you routinely come up with this drivel by chosing the most contoversial things to cut. Quangos are off balance sheet government. They employ something like 700,000 people and cost anywhere from £40 -80 billion depending on whose numbers you chose to believe. There are over 750 of them.

You say you couldnt find savings in that. You shouldnt be put in charge of a budget. Like any cost savings you start with a target, protect the essentials and eliminate nice to dos and not needed. Then you end up with a potential list.

Ive already said as an example I'd close the OBR we lived without it prior to Osborne. Merge its with the BoE or the Treasury for forecasts and take the headcount savings. Then look at the other 750. It may well be you find more savings than you wanted, so park a budget and put some money back where it’s needed. I'd go for infrastructure.

Quangos are not (usually) off balance sheet. And they usually have a statutory purpose. Taking the OBR as an example, before there was an OBR there was a forecasting team in HMT: pretty much exactly the same team operating from the same desks.

Of course but you can repeal laws. The treasury still does forecasts so now we're paying twice over for the same service and in the OBRs case they admit their forecasts are consistently out and not timely. Would you spend £5 million on that or spend it on something more useful ?

No, Treasury uses the OBR numbers.

On laws. Yes, you can start to deregulate but your getting into something far more complex than just “cutting quangos”:

As noted above, many regulators charge their industry for the service and much if the other stuff is political third rail stuff: good luck cutting the Coal Authority or Historic England for example. We don’t really need either, but they don’t cost much and those who love them really love them.

You seem to be saying nobody can take difficult decisions

No, I’m saying they take different ones, routinely. In the case of the public sector the decision has routinely been made to depress salaries to retain staff numbers. I’d increase salaries and reduce staff, and do that fairly evenly in most areas but in an accelerated manner where, for example, AI can help boost productivity.

In the Whitehall centre the standard staff turnover in post is about 20%, so you don’t even need redundancies if you reshape the teams. The problem with most recruitment freezes is that no one plans for it, and all the holes randomly appear where all your best people (usually the first to move on) happen to leave. What’s needed is proper org redesign (and no, I don’t mean you hire McKinsey, it can be done internally).

I agree with that but as in other costs cutting efforts sometimes you can just get rid of a whole department and integrate it elsewhere in the business. It's like the examples you cite who needs the coal authority ? The country will go on without it. A "difficult decision" but it needs to be made.

But I bet it’s three people in an office. Not worth the political argument. I don’t disagree with a lot of rationalisation though. What you have to bear in mind though it that there are only 450,000 civil servants. For the purposes of this discussion (FCA etc.) let’s call it half a million. Average wage is probably 40K, which gets us to 20Bn. Add on 50% for NI, rents, teasing etc and you get to 30Bn.

That will be a massive over-estimate, and even then a massive 20% reduction gets you 6Bn, which is well under 1% of annual government spend.

Alabrooke obviously thinks such agencues as the Coal Authority are useless. Well, if you live in a mining area you know how important it is to have accessible records of old coal mines, before you plan anything ... when I sold a house as an executor, last time, the Coal Authority was a statutory check for the surveyor's report on the house.

HYUFD said:

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1800143930102779918

NEW:
@RestisPolitics
/ JLP poll, 7th-9th June

*Labour lead at 17 points*

Change on last week in brackets

LAB: 41% (-2)
CON: 24% (-2)
REF: 15% (+3)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 5% (+2)

https://x.com/Samfrspare/status/1800144343745069304

Sam Freedman
@Samfrspare
JLP show same movement to Reform as others. This is the first fully post D-Day poll and doesn't show too big a drop for the Tories (though is the methodology that helps them most and they're on 24%).

----------

The headline figures might look disappointing for Reform - but I think we are going to see crossover today/tomorrow from a polling company that has more favourable methodology to them / less favourable methodology to the Tories.

DYOR but I would lump on those trading bets right now if you can. Lib Dems over 40.5 seats still looks very good to me.

Tories still 9% ahead of Reform then even after D Day gate and the Farage multi party debate on Friday in that new JLP poll mainly taken over the weekend. No change in the Labour lead either.

Signs of relief at CCHQ and in No 10 I suspect even if Reform are up at Tory expense, the Greens up almost as much at Labour expense

HYUFD said:

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1800143930102779918

NEW:
@RestisPolitics
/ JLP poll, 7th-9th June

*Labour lead at 17 points*

Change on last week in brackets

LAB: 41% (-2)
CON: 24% (-2)
REF: 15% (+3)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 5% (+2)

https://x.com/Samfrspare/status/1800144343745069304

Sam Freedman
@Samfrspare
JLP show same movement to Reform as others. This is the first fully post D-Day poll and doesn't show too big a drop for the Tories (though is the methodology that helps them most and they're on 24%).

----------

The headline figures might look disappointing for Reform - but I think we are going to see crossover today/tomorrow from a polling company that has more favourable methodology to them / less favourable methodology to the Tories.

DYOR but I would lump on those trading bets right now if you can. Lib Dems over 40.5 seats still looks very good to me.

Tories still 9% ahead of Reform then even after D Day gate and the Farage multi party debate on Friday in that new JLP poll mainly taken over the weekend. No change in the Labour lead either.

Signs of relief at CCHQ and in No 10 I suspect even if Reform are up at Tory expense, the Greens up almost as much at Labour expense

Malmesbury said:

If you want spending cuts, start with the following

1) anything you do every damn day *is* part of your Core Fucking Business
2) its cheaper to insource the things you do every day
3) it’s cheaper to hire permanent staff to do them
4) to save money, you have to spend money
5) improving productivity is an incremental process

https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/03/08/we-need-more-bureaucracy/

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1800143930102779918

NEW:
@RestisPolitics
/ JLP poll, 7th-9th June

*Labour lead at 17 points*

Change on last week in brackets

LAB: 41% (-2)
CON: 24% (-2)
REF: 15% (+3)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 5% (+2)

https://x.com/Samfrspare/status/1800144343745069304

Sam Freedman
@Samfrspare
JLP show same movement to Reform as others. This is the first fully post D-Day poll and doesn't show too big a drop for the Tories (though is the methodology that helps them most and they're on 24%).

----------

The headline figures might look disappointing for Reform - but I think we are going to see crossover today/tomorrow from a polling company that has more favourable methodology to them / less favourable methodology to the Tories.

DYOR but I would lump on those trading bets right now if you can. Lib Dems over 40.5 seats still looks very good to me.

Scott_xP said:

https://x.com/cjsnowdon/status/1800140822501016001

Scott_xP said:

https://x.com/cjsnowdon/status/1800140822501016001

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

If things go as currently anticipated it will be interesting to see how this affects the stability of all political parties going forward. The Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having someone clearly unsuited to the role in the position of leader. Up to now, even if this was not optimal, one would expect swing back and old time loyalties to reduce that cost to tolerable levels. In the more febrile present it appears that that is not the case.

I think this will make MPs, and not just Tory MPs, much more anxious about their leadership in future. If Starmer is not cutting the mustard in 2-3 years time there will be 200-300 Labour MPs worried about their future. The consequences of the complacency and arrogance of this episode will burn deep in their souls.

Technically I think the Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having three people unsuited to the role as leader, one after another.

The leaders dont help, but lack of policies is the bigger problem.

"Cutting quangos" isn't a policy; it's a slogan.
Like the earlier 'bonfire of the quangos', it's meaningless in financial or policy terms.

Eg, would you scrap the rest of HS2 ?
Cut your 4% from NHS England ?

Or a you just talking about a few million pounds from scrapping some of the obscure ones few would miss ?

Yes, you routinely come up with this drivel by chosing the most contoversial things to cut. Quangos are off balance sheet government. They employ something like 700,000 people and cost anywhere from £40 -80 billion depending on whose numbers you chose to believe. There are over 750 of them.

You say you couldnt find savings in that. You shouldnt be put in charge of a budget. Like any cost savings you start with a target, protect the essentials and eliminate nice to dos and not needed. Then you end up with a potential list.

Ive already said as an example I'd close the OBR we lived without it prior to Osborne. Merge its with the BoE or the Treasury for forecasts and take the headcount savings. Then look at the other 750. It may well be you find more savings than you wanted, so park a budget and put some money back where it’s needed. I'd go for infrastructure.

Quangos are not (usually) off balance sheet. And they usually have a statutory purpose. Taking the OBR as an example, before there was an OBR there was a forecasting team in HMT: pretty much exactly the same team operating from the same desks.

Of course but you can repeal laws. The treasury still does forecasts so now we're paying twice over for the same service and in the OBRs case they admit their forecasts are consistently out and not timely. Would you spend £5 million on that or spend it on something more useful ?

No, Treasury uses the OBR numbers.

On laws. Yes, you can start to deregulate but your getting into something far more complex than just “cutting quangos”:

As noted above, many regulators charge their industry for the service and much if the other stuff is political third rail stuff: good luck cutting the Coal Authority or Historic England for example. We don’t really need either, but they don’t cost much and those who love them really love them.

You seem to be saying nobody can take difficult decisions

No, I’m saying they take different ones, routinely. In the case of the public sector the decision has routinely been made to depress salaries to retain staff numbers. I’d increase salaries and reduce staff, and do that fairly evenly in most areas but in an accelerated manner where, for example, AI can help boost productivity.

In the Whitehall centre the standard staff turnover in post is about 20%, so you don’t even need redundancies if you reshape the teams. The problem with most recruitment freezes is that no one plans for it, and all the holes randomly appear where all your best people (usually the first to move on) happen to leave. What’s needed is proper org redesign (and no, I don’t mean you hire McKinsey, it can be done internally).

I agree with that but as in other costs cutting efforts sometimes you can just get rid of a whole department and integrate it elsewhere in the business. It's like the examples you cite who needs the coal authority ? The country will go on without it. A "difficult decision" but it needs to be made.

But I bet it’s three people in an office. Not worth the political argument. I don’t disagree with a lot of rationalisation though. What you have to bear in mind though it that there are only 450,000 civil servants. For the purposes of this discussion (FCA etc.) let’s call it half a million. Average wage is probably 40K, which gets us to 20Bn. Add on 50% for NI, rents, teasing etc and you get to 30Bn.

That will be a massive over-estimate, and even then a massive 20% reduction gets you 6Bn, which is well under 1% of annual government spend.

Alabrooke obviously thinks such agencues as the Coal Authority are useless. Well, if you live in a mining area you know how important it is to have accessible records of old coal mines, before you plan anything ... when I sold a house as an executor, last time, the Coal Authority was a statutory check for the surveyor's report on the house.

Actually I didnt suggest the coal authority I suggested the OBR. But since we're on it it a 50% reduction in the Scottish parliament costs looks good value too.

Andy_JS said:

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1800143930102779918

NEW:
@RestisPolitics
/ JLP poll, 7th-9th June

*Labour lead at 17 points*

Change on last week in brackets

LAB: 41% (-2)
CON: 24% (-2)
REF: 15% (+3)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 5% (+2)

https://x.com/Samfrspare/status/1800144343745069304

Sam Freedman
@Samfrspare
JLP show same movement to Reform as others. This is the first fully post D-Day poll and doesn't show too big a drop for the Tories (though is the methodology that helps them most and they're on 24%).

----------

The headline figures might look disappointing for Reform - but I think we are going to see crossover today/tomorrow from a polling company that has more favourable methodology to them / less favourable methodology to the Tories.

DYOR but I would lump on those trading bets right now if you can. Lib Dems over 40.5 seats still looks very good to me.

I've been going on about betting on Labour getting just below 40%, and since then a lot of the polls have made that seem a distinct possibility.

Ghedebrav said:

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

biggles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

If things go as currently anticipated it will be interesting to see how this affects the stability of all political parties going forward. The Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having someone clearly unsuited to the role in the position of leader. Up to now, even if this was not optimal, one would expect swing back and old time loyalties to reduce that cost to tolerable levels. In the more febrile present it appears that that is not the case.

I think this will make MPs, and not just Tory MPs, much more anxious about their leadership in future. If Starmer is not cutting the mustard in 2-3 years time there will be 200-300 Labour MPs worried about their future. The consequences of the complacency and arrogance of this episode will burn deep in their souls.

Technically I think the Tories are about to pay a terrible price for having three people unsuited to the role as leader, one after another.

The leaders dont help, but lack of policies is the bigger problem.

"Cutting quangos" isn't a policy; it's a slogan.
Like the earlier 'bonfire of the quangos', it's meaningless in financial or policy terms.

Eg, would you scrap the rest of HS2 ?
Cut your 4% from NHS England ?

Or a you just talking about a few million pounds from scrapping some of the obscure ones few would miss ?

Yes, you routinely come up with this drivel by chosing the most contoversial things to cut. Quangos are off balance sheet government. They employ something like 700,000 people and cost anywhere from £40 -80 billion depending on whose numbers you chose to believe. There are over 750 of them.

You say you couldnt find savings in that. You shouldnt be put in charge of a budget. Like any cost savings you start with a target, protect the essentials and eliminate nice to dos and not needed. Then you end up with a potential list.

Ive already said as an example I'd close the OBR we lived without it prior to Osborne. Merge its with the BoE or the Treasury for forecasts and take the headcount savings. Then look at the other 750. It may well be you find more savings than you wanted, so park a budget and put some money back where it’s needed. I'd go for infrastructure.

Quangos are not (usually) off balance sheet. And they usually have a statutory purpose. Taking the OBR as an example, before there was an OBR there was a forecasting team in HMT: pretty much exactly the same team operating from the same desks.

Of course but you can repeal laws. The treasury still does forecasts so now we're paying twice over for the same service and in the OBRs case they admit their forecasts are consistently out and not timely. Would you spend £5 million on that or spend it on something more useful ?

No, Treasury uses the OBR numbers.

On laws. Yes, you can start to deregulate but your getting into something far more complex than just “cutting quangos”:

As noted above, many regulators charge their industry for the service and much if the other stuff is political third rail stuff: good luck cutting the Coal Authority or Historic England for example. We don’t really need either, but they don’t cost much and those who love them really love them.

You seem to be saying nobody can take difficult decisions

No, I’m saying they take different ones, routinely. In the case of the public sector the decision has routinely been made to depress salaries to retain staff numbers. I’d increase salaries and reduce staff, and do that fairly evenly in most areas but in an accelerated manner where, for example, AI can help boost productivity.

In the Whitehall centre the standard staff turnover in post is about 20%, so you don’t even need redundancies if you reshape the teams. The problem with most recruitment freezes is that no one plans for it, and all the holes randomly appear where all your best people (usually the first to move on) happen to leave. What’s needed is proper org redesign (and no, I don’t mean you hire McKinsey, it can be done internally).

I agree with that but as in other costs cutting efforts sometimes you can just get rid of a whole department and integrate it elsewhere in the business. It's like the examples you cite who needs the coal authority ? The country will go on without it. A "difficult decision" but it needs to be made.

But I bet it’s three people in an office. Not worth the political argument. I don’t disagree with a lot of rationalisation though. What you have to bear in mind though it that there are only 450,000 civil servants. For the purposes of this discussion (FCA etc.) let’s call it half a million. Average wage is probably 40K, which gets us to 20Bn. Add on 50% for NI, rents, teasing etc and you get to 30Bn.

That will be a massive over-estimate, and even then a massive 20% reduction gets you 6Bn, which is well under 1% of annual government spend.

Alabrooke obviously thinks such agencues as the Coal Authority are useless. Well, if you live in a mining area you know how important it is to have accessible records of old coal mines, before you plan anything ... when I sold a house as an executor, last time, the Coal Authority was a statutory check for the surveyor's report on the house.

Actually I didnt suggest the coal authority I suggested the OBR. But since we're on it it a 50% reduction in the Scottish parliament costs looks good value too.

And what is the Monarchy if not an expensive quango?

Andy_JS said:

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1800143930102779918

NEW:
@RestisPolitics
/ JLP poll, 7th-9th June

*Labour lead at 17 points*

Change on last week in brackets

LAB: 41% (-2)
CON: 24% (-2)
REF: 15% (+3)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 5% (+2)

https://x.com/Samfrspare/status/1800144343745069304

Sam Freedman
@Samfrspare
JLP show same movement to Reform as others. This is the first fully post D-Day poll and doesn't show too big a drop for the Tories (though is the methodology that helps them most and they're on 24%).

----------

The headline figures might look disappointing for Reform - but I think we are going to see crossover today/tomorrow from a polling company that has more favourable methodology to them / less favourable methodology to the Tories.

DYOR but I would lump on those trading bets right now if you can. Lib Dems over 40.5 seats still looks very good to me.

I've been going on about betting on Labour getting just below 40%, and since then a lot of the polls have made that seem a distinct possibility.

Leon said:

wtf is the “cheesecake factory”??

Leon said:

wtf is the “cheesecake factory”??

FrancisUrquhart said:

Muesli said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its not very Orange Booky...

https://order-order.com/2024/06/10/all-the-bonkers-policies-in-the-libdem-manifesto/

I doubt the Liberal Democrats will be that bothered by a negative review from Guido. It'd be like Reform UK pinning their hopes on a glowing editorial by the Canary.

Obviously, but my point was the policies are much further to the left than the Lib Dems of 10 years ago, where they were making the pitch for combination of centre and centre left, with Orange Bookers being in charge.

HYUFD said:

Ghedebrav said:

HYUFD said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Anyone know if Esther Mcvey has a chance of losing in Tatton? I'm looking for constituency odds. That one's not dshowing up on Ladbrokes

Tatton is 130th safest seat so on the YouGov MRP it's on the edge

Election Maps UK has Labour winning Tatton with 37.8% to 30% for the Tories and 15.6% for Reform,.

So Reform will likely cost the Tories the seat
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

This will surely be a sub-50-seat scenario if Tatton goes. It is one of the most Conservative places I can imagine.

No, even without Tatton Election Maps UK has the Tories on 101 seats.

Tatton was lost by the Tories in 1997 to Martin Bell remember and voted Remain in 2016
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Muesli said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its not very Orange Booky...

https://order-order.com/2024/06/10/all-the-bonkers-policies-in-the-libdem-manifesto/

I doubt the Liberal Democrats will be that bothered by a negative review from Guido. It'd be like Reform UK pinning their hopes on a glowing editorial by the Canary.

Obviously, but my point was the policies are much further to the left than the Lib Dems of 10 years ago, where they were making the pitch for combination of centre and centre left, with Orange Bookers being in charge.

Sir Ed is an Orange Booker!

Leon said:

wtf is the “cheesecake factory”??

Andy_JS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

love him or hate him, Trump reading off the Cheesecake Factory menu at a rally is hilarious
https://x.com/0xgaut/status/1800075579078607268

It actually really smart from Trump, The Cheesecake Factory is incredibly popular restaurant chain. Its aspirational / special occasion place that middle classes in America love to go to eat. Europeans might look at it as rather tacky wannabe proper restaurant, but in US it is much loved.

Never heard of it.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

wtf is the “cheesecake factory”??

As a well travelled for flint knappers weekly, are you seriously saying you have never seen or been to a cheesecake factory in the US? You can't miss the gaudy buildings that are housed in. They are everywhere in the US.

Think Trump Tower....but you go to get a slightly better meal than most US chains and a huge piece of cheesecake. Thus, its the go to location for people for birthdays etc.

Andy_JS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

love him or hate him, Trump reading off the Cheesecake Factory menu at a rally is hilarious
https://x.com/0xgaut/status/1800075579078607268

It actually really smart from Trump, The Cheesecake Factory is incredibly popular restaurant chain. Its aspirational / special occasion place that middle classes in America love to go to eat. Europeans might look at it as rather tacky wannabe proper restaurant, but in US it is much loved.

Never heard of it.

DavidL said:

Andy_JS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

love him or hate him, Trump reading off the Cheesecake Factory menu at a rally is hilarious
https://x.com/0xgaut/status/1800075579078607268

It actually really smart from Trump, The Cheesecake Factory is incredibly popular restaurant chain. Its aspirational / special occasion place that middle classes in America love to go to eat. Europeans might look at it as rather tacky wannabe proper restaurant, but in US it is much loved.

Never heard of it.

Not just heard of it but been to it in Florida. Was pretty good, the deserts particularly.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

wtf is the “cheesecake factory”??

As a well travelled for flint knappers weekly, are you seriously saying you have never seen or been to a cheesecake factory in the US? You can't miss the gaudy buildings that are housed in. They are everywhere in the US.

Think Trump Tower....but you go to get a slightly better meal than most US chains and a huge piece of cheesecake. Thus, its the go to location for people for birthdays etc.

I have honestly missed it. And I travel in America a lot

I see they do a “factory turkey burger”

https://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/menu/glamburgers/factory-turkey-burger

These words must have different connotations in the USA. Honestly America is sometimes so foreign

Last time I was there I did note there was some new (to me) nationwide chain which actually did decent and not disgustingly large oversweet
sandwiches. A bit like an American Pret. I forget the name but it was ok!

I’m back in September and I will try and seek out…. The cheesecake factory

As somebody who is well travelled and versed in high quality food, I am not sure you will enjoy the experience !!!

twistedfirestopper3 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

wtf is the “cheesecake factory”??

As a well travelled for flint knappers weekly, are you seriously saying you have never seen or been to a cheesecake factory in the US? You can't miss the gaudy buildings that are housed in. They are everywhere in the US.

Think Trump Tower....but you go to get a slightly better meal than most US chains and a huge piece of cheesecake. Thus, its the go to location for people for birthdays etc.

I have honestly missed it. And I travel in America a lot

I see they do a “factory turkey burger”

https://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/menu/glamburgers/factory-turkey-burger

These words must have different connotations in the USA. Honestly America is sometimes so foreign

Last time I was there I did note there was some new (to me) nationwide chain which actually did decent and not disgustingly large oversweet
sandwiches. A bit like an American Pret. I forget the name but it was ok!

I’m back in September and I will try and seek out…. The cheesecake factory

As somebody who is well travelled and versed in high quality food, I am not sure you will enjoy the experience !!!

It's Industrially manufactured edible products masquerading as food. You've got to have a death wish if you put that shite in your mouth.

Farooq said:

Farooq said:

Ok, I've compiled 25 questions for the General Election Competition.
Thanks to everyone who's made suggestions. A reminder that I've dropped all non-numerical questions, so if someone wants to run something parallel asking questions like "in which seat will..." then be my guest.

Also, I've devised a fiendish scoring system to make sure all questions count equally. That is, on difficult questions like "how many seats will Labour win?" just as many points will be given out as easier questions like "how many seats will the DUP get?" Obviously it's easier to hit the exact right number with the DUP one than the Labour one, but my scoring system flattens that out.

In essence the most important thing is that you give better answers than other people. Being 1 off the Labour seats will probably earn you big points, but being 1 off with DUP seats might well get you nothing at all.

More details on the scoring will follow later, but for now... the questions!

General Election Competition

In how many seats will:
1. Reform beat Conservative (don't count draws)?
2. Labour finish 3rd or lower (don't count where they didn't stand)?
3. Conservatives lose their deposit?
4. Lib Dems lose their deposit?
5. Reform lose their deposit?
6. Labour lose their deposit?

How big:
7. Will the largest winning vote margin be?
8. Will the biggest notional majority defeated be (only count where the incumbent party stands)?

How small:
9. Will the smallest winning vote margin be (1st - 2nd)?
10. Will the smallest gap between 1st and 3rd be?
11. Will the lowest number of votes for any candidate?

How many:
12. Parties will be elected (whether or not they take their seats. All true independents are grouped as a single party)?
13. Seats will the Conservatives win?
14. Seats will Labour win?
15. Seats will Lib Dems win?
16. Seats will the SNP win?
17. Seats will Sinn Fein win?
18. Seats will DUP win?
19. Seats will Reform come second in?

What percentage vote:
20. Will Conservatives get across the UK?
21. Will Reform get across the UK?
22. Will SNP get in Scotland?
23. Will be lowest of any winning candidate?
24. Will be highest of any 2nd place candidate?
25. Will Speaker get?

Rules:
"Independent" means the candidate has no party affiliation or where the party is standing in a single seat.
Candidates nominated for a party who are suspended by their party after nominations close still count for the party.
"Green" treats the Green Parties in England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as a single party.
All entries must be made before midday on polling day, 4th July

Please tag @Farooq in your answers so I'm less likely to miss them.

GF2 said:

wooliedyed said:

Ghedebrav said:

HYUFD said:

Ghedebrav said:

HYUFD said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Anyone know if Esther Mcvey has a chance of losing in Tatton? I'm looking for constituency odds. That one's not dshowing up on Ladbrokes

Tatton is 130th safest seat so on the YouGov MRP it's on the edge

Election Maps UK has Labour winning Tatton with 37.8% to 30% for the Tories and 15.6% for Reform,.

So Reform will likely cost the Tories the seat
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

This will surely be a sub-50-seat scenario if Tatton goes. It is one of the most Conservative places I can imagine.

No, even without Tatton Election Maps UK has the Tories on 101 seats.

Tatton was lost by the Tories in 1997 to Martin Bell remember and voted Remain in 2016
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

The Martin Bell scenario was unique, and all the other parties stood aside for him. I agree that remain may have an attritional effect, but my question is perhaps better phrased as: if the Tories aren't winning Tatton, what are they actually for?

Yeah he benefitted from the 35% odd Lab/LD vote from 1992 not standing.
Hamilton just about performed in line with the decline in safe seats in 97, he'd have possibly lost in a normal fight to Labour in a hyper marginal finish (extra 4% swing on top of UNS)

Bet365 has odds up for (I think) all UK constituencies; Tatton has Labour at 4/7, Tories at 5/4. I do wonder whether their odds in general are overstating the likelihood of Tory catastrophe.

Mexicanpete said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mexicanpete said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

love him or hate him, Trump reading off the Cheesecake Factory menu at a rally is hilarious
https://x.com/0xgaut/status/1800075579078607268

It actually really smart from Trump, The Cheesecake Factory is incredibly popular restaurant chain. Its aspirational / special occasion place that middle classes in America love to go to eat. Europeans might look at it as rather tacky wannabe proper restaurant, but in US it is much loved.

I hated the Cheesecake Factory, so yeah Trump is probably catnip to Cheesecake Factory diners.

The only thing I know about the Cheesecake Factory is its where Penny (and for a while Bernadette) worked in the early seasons of The Big Bang Theory.

It's a similar fayre to the old shite you used to get at Frankie and Bennies, but with cheesecake themed deserts. It's a bit like Peter Kaye with garlic bread "garlic and bread? dirty b@5tards!" Cheese and cake? Dirty bas****!

Actually that's not true. Frankie and Bennies is loads of frozen / reheated / pre-prepared food. One of the USPs for Cheesecake Factory is every is made on site and to order. Its certainly not of the standard that mid-level restaurants in the UK could get away with, but the US it fits a niche between fast food / fast casual (that people every day) and the "real" restaurants that are either out of a lot of people price range or simply don't exist in many towns in the US.

I speak from experience. To my mind it was not "mom and pop" fayre, it was still very much from "the man".

Oh god, in terms of actual quality, it absolutely is, its fake "posh" food but it isn't frozen /
microwave blast cuisine. That is places like Olive Garden or Applebee's. Frankie and Bernie = Applebee's in the US.

But remember even in the UK these days we have a much higher quality when you start to spend £30 a dish.

I'm currently in Gozo. Dined at a Michelin starred place in the harbour area called T'mun last night, E25 for a main and it was sublime. Way ahead of anything you'd get for £25 in the UK or 50 bucks from a chain in the US.

BobSykes said:

HYUFD said:

Ghedebrav said:

HYUFD said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Anyone know if Esther Mcvey has a chance of losing in Tatton? I'm looking for constituency odds. That one's not dshowing up on Ladbrokes

Tatton is 130th safest seat so on the YouGov MRP it's on the edge

Election Maps UK has Labour winning Tatton with 37.8% to 30% for the Tories and 15.6% for Reform,.

So Reform will likely cost the Tories the seat
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

This will surely be a sub-50-seat scenario if Tatton goes. It is one of the most Conservative places I can imagine.

No, even without Tatton Election Maps UK has the Tories on 101 seats.

Tatton was lost by the Tories in 1997 to Martin Bell remember and voted Remain in 2016
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

Tatton, Altrincham and Sale W and Macclesfield are neighbouring seats anyone of sane mind would for years have considered safe Tory seats for all time but demographic change and the surge in very affluent remainerish Manchester based professionals taking firmly against the Tories in the past few years and notably post Partygate and the Truss disaster, in my view makes fertile ground for Labour, alongside the likes of Cheadle and Hazel Grove which are also in the same environs and will without a shadow of doubt go Lib Dem for same reasons.

As a Manchester professional and north Manchester resident i talk about the 'Chorltonifcation' of the Greater Manchester hinterland as a vast swathe from Ramsbottom in the north to Knutsford in the south comes to resemble hipsterish Chorlton cum Hardy in south Manchester. Its all becoming quite uniform now with hipster beards and artisan bakeries everywhere you turn... which isn't good for Tories even before the present catastrophes began to unfold.

BobSykes said:

HYUFD said:

Ghedebrav said:

HYUFD said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Anyone know if Esther Mcvey has a chance of losing in Tatton? I'm looking for constituency odds. That one's not dshowing up on Ladbrokes

Tatton is 130th safest seat so on the YouGov MRP it's on the edge

Election Maps UK has Labour winning Tatton with 37.8% to 30% for the Tories and 15.6% for Reform,.

So Reform will likely cost the Tories the seat
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

This will surely be a sub-50-seat scenario if Tatton goes. It is one of the most Conservative places I can imagine.

No, even without Tatton Election Maps UK has the Tories on 101 seats.

Tatton was lost by the Tories in 1997 to Martin Bell remember and voted Remain in 2016
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

Tatton, Altrincham and Sale W and Macclesfield are neighbouring seats anyone of sane mind would for years have considered safe Tory seats for all time but demographic change and the surge in very affluent remainerish Manchester based professionals taking firmly against the Tories in the past few years and notably post Partygate and the Truss disaster, in my view makes fertile ground for Labour, alongside the likes of Cheadle and Hazel Grove which are also in the same environs and will without a shadow of doubt go Lib Dem for same reasons.

As a Manchester professional and north Manchester resident i talk about the 'Chorltonifcation' of the Greater Manchester hinterland as a vast swathe from Ramsbottom in the north to Knutsford in the south comes to resemble hipsterish Chorlton cum Hardy in south Manchester. Its all becoming quite uniform now with hipster beards and artisan bakeries everywhere you turn... which isn't good for Tories even before the present catastrophes began to unfold.

Leon said:

Indeed I’ll develop that argument. One of the great problems with American food is not the cooking or the restaurants - the chains and the recipes - it’s the corruption of the basic ingredients. Fructose and hormones. Shit at the source

Leon said:

Indeed I’ll develop that argument. One of the great problems with American food is not the cooking or the restaurants - the chains and the recipes - it’s the corruption of the basic ingredients. Fructose and hormones. Shit at the source