What matters is how the candidates get labelled. An alliance could paint any rival as a wet centrist even if they are not - remember Sunak being a Remainer supposedly?
If Biden stays in, variations in this will be every GOP campaign ad.
The same was tried, in more half-hearted fashion, with GW Bush, whose speech had declined markedly since his Texas days. He completed two terms in the White House.
There is no comparison between the situation with GWB (58 at the start of his second term) and Biden.
The anti-GWB thing was that he was stupid and inarticulate, not mentally in a decline.
Given the test of time, and the shit show of Trump and Biden, he ain't looking so stupid and inarticulate now...
More that Trump has lowered the bar for bad presidents.
Since leaving office GWB has improved his image. The extremely gracious handover to Obama started that - the families became friends as a result of it.
All previous candidates are looking a lot better. They said McCain was far too old and out of it. I watched those debates versus Obama, in comparison to Biden freezing and then them bickering over their golf handicaps, the McCain vs Obama debates look stellar conversations between two heavyweights.
Look how McCain defended Obama from a racist voter.
The Tories need to go on a HUNT for a new leader that will be listened to and vaguely coherent. This temptation to a bit of self indulgence just shows that they have not learned the lessons of a comprehensive defeat. The voters they lost to Labour and the Lib Dems cost far more seats than the votes lost to Reform.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs.
I appreciate this is you hypothesising @HYUFD and you may well be right, although I can't see tacking to the centre and also doing a deal with Reform can work. They seem mutually exclusive.
If the Tories move to the right, which I fully expect them to do (although as with both Labour [to the left] and Conservatives [to the right] they normally correct themselves in time), they will solidify the LD base all over the South and South West and fill in most of the remaining blue with yellow in these areas.
I never understand why both the right of the Tories and the left of Labour always think they lost because they weren't left wing or right wing enough. It is weird (again I know that isn't necessarily your view @hyufd)
The Tories lost mainly because they were incompetent, of course. The problem is that competency is hard to demonstrate in opposition when it is still the same faces in charge.
Tacking to the centre doesn’t automatically win them LD seats back. Fishing in the same pool of centrist voters at this stage as Labour and the LDs is, in my mind, as risky if not more so than tacking to the right. They might be better off strategically shoring up their right flank in this Parliament. There is no easy fix.
I like that post, but I would say tacking to the centre might stop them losing all those blue seats still up for grabs around the yellow clusters in the South and South West.
I particularly liked your first para and the logic of your argument in the 2nd para, although I don't agree with the 2nd para, although I do agree with the 1st sentence in it.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs.
I appreciate this is you hypothesising @HYUFD and you may well be right, although I can't see tacking to the centre and also doing a deal with Reform can work. They seem mutually exclusive.
If the Tories move to the right, which I fully expect them to do (although as with both Labour [to the left] and Conservatives [to the right] they normally correct themselves in time), they will solidify the LD base all over the South and South West and fill in most of the remaining blue with yellow in these areas.
I never understand why both the right of the Tories and the left of Labour always think they lost because they weren't left wing or right wing enough. It is weird (again I know that isn't necessarily your view @hyufd)
The Tories lost mainly because they were incompetent, of course. The problem is that competency is hard to demonstrate in opposition when it is still the same faces in charge.
Tacking to the centre doesn’t automatically win them LD seats back. Fishing in the same pool of centrist voters at this stage as Labour and the LDs is, in my mind, as risky if not more so than tacking to the right. They might be better off strategically shoring up their right flank in this Parliament. There is no easy fix.
I agree that perceived competence is crucial to winning an election: the clown shoes theory.
Competency in opposition is demonstrated by how the party is managed. And that's usually about how you are seen to shut down your extremes, and then develop some kind of coherent policy platform.
If the government itself is broadly competent part 2 - the policy - becomes more important. If not, it is less critical.
That's a really interesting, reasoned piece - engaging with the Judge's sentencing remarks rather than trying to dismiss them.
I have usually assessed Sonia Sodha as being slightly loopy in the Georges Monbiot sense - that is highlighting generally good causes but twisting the means of achieving them through self-importance / lack of respect for others.
In recent years I've seen her being more sensible on some R4 programmes; I'll read her more often.
It comes down to the idea that “the right to protest” means “the right to disrupt society anyway I feel like”.
If we aren't going to imprison the eco-fascists, I think the minimum punishment should be to made to act as the tackle bags for Premiership rugby clubs....
Airlines have been advised that they do not need to pay compensation to passengers whose flights were cancelled after a global IT outage grounded more than 80,000 passengers on Friday and Saturday.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the watchdog for passenger rights, wrote to airlines on Friday saying that disruption directly caused by the global IT issue is likely to be viewed as “extraordinary circumstances” for which the industry should not be financially liable. “As a result, passengers are unlikely to be entitled to fixed-sum compensation,” the letter stated....
...The CAA’s guidance does not affect passengers’ entitlement to reimbursement of expenses such as hotel and food costs, as well as a refund of the cost of the ticket, but it will enable airlines to deny passengers the compensation of between £211 and £506 they would be entitled under standard EU regulations.
The CAA’s designation of the IT outage places the incident on a par with acts of terrorism, sabotage, dangerous weather conditions and the impact of sick or unruly passengers — all of which are also deemed to be beyond an airline’s control.
Airlines have been advised that they do not need to pay compensation to passengers whose flights were cancelled after a global IT outage grounded more than 80,000 passengers on Friday and Saturday.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the watchdog for passenger rights, wrote to airlines on Friday saying that disruption directly caused by the global IT issue is likely to be viewed as “extraordinary circumstances” for which the industry should not be financially liable. “As a result, passengers are unlikely to be entitled to fixed-sum compensation,” the letter stated.
If Biden stays in, variations in this will be every GOP campaign ad.
The same was tried, in more half-hearted fashion, with GW Bush, whose speech had declined markedly since his Texas days. He completed two terms in the White House.
Of course. But what that video shows fairly starkly is an accelerated, some will think precipitous decline in the last twelve months.
As you know, I've been one of the strongest advocates on PB for his administration's record. But I think he'll very, very probably lose if he stays in. Harris has a chance.
The Tories need to go on a HUNT for a new leader that will be listened to and vaguely coherent. This temptation to a bit of self indulgence just shows that they have not learned the lessons of a comprehensive defeat. The voters they lost to Labour and the Lib Dems cost far more seats than the votes lost to Reform.
Wrong, the Tories lost more of their 2019 voters to Reform than to Labour and the LDs combined.
In most 2019 Tory seats Labour won for instance the Tory and Reform vote was bigger than the Labour vote.
The Tories need to reunite the right first and then target centrist Labour and LD voters if the Starmer government becomes unpopular
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs.
I appreciate this is you hypothesising @HYUFD and you may well be right, although I can't see tacking to the centre and also doing a deal with Reform can work. They seem mutually exclusive.
If the Tories move to the right, which I fully expect them to do (although as with both Labour [to the left] and Conservatives [to the right] they normally correct themselves in time), they will solidify the LD base all over the South and South West and fill in most of the remaining blue with yellow in these areas.
I never understand why both the right of the Tories and the left of Labour always think they lost because they weren't left wing or right wing enough. It is weird (again I know that isn't necessarily your view @hyufd)
The Tories lost mainly because they were incompetent, of course. The problem is that competency is hard to demonstrate in opposition when it is still the same faces in charge.
Tacking to the centre doesn’t automatically win them LD seats back. Fishing in the same pool of centrist voters at this stage as Labour and the LDs is, in my mind, as risky if not more so than tacking to the right. They might be better off strategically shoring up their right flank in this Parliament. There is no easy fix.
I like that post, but I would say tacking to the centre might stop them losing all those blue seats still up for grabs around the yellow clusters in the South and South West.
I particularly liked your first para and the logic of your argument in the 2nd para, although I don't agree with the 2nd para, although I do agree with the 1st sentence in it.
If the LDs didn't gain a Tory seat on July 4th I doubt they ever will
If Biden stays in, variations in this will be every GOP campaign ad.
The same was tried, in more half-hearted fashion, with GW Bush, whose speech had declined markedly since his Texas days. He completed two terms in the White House.
Indeed, if Biden is George W Bush, Harris is Kerry
@bbcnews deliberately held back truth about dog attack story - whitewashing a family of terrorists and then butchering an IDF statement to make sure YOU never got to hear about it.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs.
I appreciate this is you hypothesising @HYUFD and you may well be right, although I can't see tacking to the centre and also doing a deal with Reform can work. They seem mutually exclusive.
If the Tories move to the right, which I fully expect them to do (although as with both Labour [to the left] and Conservatives [to the right] they normally correct themselves in time), they will solidify the LD base all over the South and South West and fill in most of the remaining blue with yellow in these areas.
I never understand why both the right of the Tories and the left of Labour always think they lost because they weren't left wing or right wing enough. It is weird (again I know that isn't necessarily your view @hyufd)
Remember in 2017 Corbyn got a hung parliament, 40% of the vote and was just an extra 30 seat gains from the Tories from becoming PM.
In 1975 Thatcher was seen as an unelectable rightwinger, by 1979 she was PM.
History suggests the more centrist party normally wins in the UK but it is not always the case
300-3 for England. The only worry at the moment is that there is so little in this pitch for the bowlers that taking another 10 wickets is going to take a lot of time so how much is enough? I think they will want the lead to be near 400 or even more but they do have to give themselves enough time.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
It is an iron fact that the Illegal Crime Syndicate with no right to Even Exist that is the EU is at the root of all evils:
"According to WSJ: Microsoft says the European Commission made it illegal for them to block the level of access that made the Crowdstrike outage possible."
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
As Keir Starmer looks on to another 5 years
Starmer has had an excellent start and it seems, as he looks over the wreckage of the conservative party, he intends taking the best bits ( and there are some) and adopting them going forward thereby delivering a devastating coup d'etat on any thoughts the conservatives may have of winning again in 2029
Conservatives underestimating Starmer do so at their peril and moving to the right might be their only remaining space, but as in the left, is the road to the political wilderness
If in doubt - witness Jeremy Corbyn
Corbyn got 7% more in 2017 than Starmer did in 2024, Corbyn was only 1% behind what Starmer got in 2024 in 2019 even. Corbyn also held his seat against a Starmer approved candidate.
Corbyn was electorally only bad as Boris beat him convincingly, he actually otherwise was a good campaigner
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
Good morning
And so ends the conservative party
What utter rubbish. 38% of voters voted for the Tories and Reform on July 4th, more than the 33% who voted for Labour
Time for my regular reminder that the right have never won a majority of the post-war vote:
In 2015 the DUP got 0.6% and the UUP 0.4%. So the combined right of centre Tory, UKIP, DUP and UUP UK voteshare was 50.4% and a majority. Plus the 8% who voted LD were voting for an Orange Book, free market, Cleggite Liberal party too
BP is forecasting that total oil demand peaks next year, and then declines.
Peak! Oil!
Ha!
For those who don’t remember, Peak Oil was a scare thing about the world being about to run out of oil, next week.
No, that was only Scottish North Sea Oil, around 2014. That was not a scare tactic at all. Oh, no. Certainly not!
Scottish..sorry..UK oil is like Brigadoon, it only becomes a burdensome shrinking resource when there's a referendum in sight. Presumably in a similar way the possibility of Scotland having the cheapest energy in Europe will soon be portrayed as being actively bad for Scots.
'They'd only use the money saved on deep fried confectionary and Buckfast!'
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
Your plan has numerous problems including:
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
The problem with both of those is the risk of losses to the left.
Basically, fighting a war on two fronts at once is always horrid, and if I were the Conservative Party, I wouldn't start from here.
300-3 for England. The only worry at the moment is that there is so little in this pitch for the bowlers that taking another 10 wickets is going to take a lot of time so how much is enough? I think they will want the lead to be near 400 or even more but they do have to give themselves enough time.
Ideally we should declare by tea to give us 4 sessions. Maybe 30 mins before tea. If we are still batting then we will be 350+ ahead.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
Your plan has numerous problems including:
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Reform MPs can be relied on more than Labour MPs they would replace to vote with the Tories though
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
As Keir Starmer looks on to another 5 years
Starmer has had an excellent start and it seems, as he looks over the wreckage of the conservative party, he intends taking the best bits ( and there are some) and adopting them going forward thereby delivering a devastating coup d'etat on any thoughts the conservatives may have of winning again in 2029
Conservatives underestimating Starmer do so at their peril and moving to the right might be their only remaining space, but as in the left, is the road to the political wilderness
If in doubt - witness Jeremy Corbyn
Corbyn got 7% more in 2017 than Starmer did in 2024, Corbyn was only 1% behind what Starmer got in 2024 in 2019 even. Corbyn also held his seat against a Starmer approved candidate.
Corbyn was electorally only bad as Boris beat him convincingly, he actually otherwise was a good campaigner
That indicates he's a very bad campaigner (as leader). The point of campaigning is to win seats not to rack up votes for their own sake. Do you think Reform had more of a successful campaign in 2024 than the Liberal Democrats?
The Tories hold just five seats with majorities of over 10,000. The LibDems hold 25 seats and Labour hold 115 seats with 10,000+ majorities.
The Tories are in a desperate position. How can they make it worse?
Easy. By electing Braverman or Jenrick as leader.
A quick modelling exercise on the recent results shows that if the Tories elect Braverman or Jenrick as leader and lose 10% of their support to Lab and LDs then they lose an extra 30 seats or so. But if they gain back 10% of RUF support they gain back 20 seats. It's a bit of a wash.
But I don't think the future of the Tory party depends on arithmetic. It depends much more on behaviour. Poor behaviour is what has caused their recent defeat. If it continues, they won't recover. The entitled antics of Victoria Atkins yesterday is not a good omen.
The LIbDems, on the other hand, I think will provide a model of how to oppose with constructive suggestions and mutually respectful behaviour. I think (and hope) that Labour will respond in kind. But if the Tories act like spoiled brats, encouraged by Farage heckling from the back, then there is no hope for them.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
The problem with both of those is the risk of losses to the left.
Basically, fighting a war on two fronts at once is always horrid, and if I were the Conservative Party, I wouldn't start from here.
Is right/left even a useful debate for a serious political party ? It's been argued frequently here that it's an obsolete and highly imperfect analysis of our politics.
the lack of talent in the Con leadership is very alarming. Jenrick is perhaps of PPS standard. Even the best of those mentioned is Cabinet Minister level. There is no-one close to leadership - let alone PM - material. These are people tainted with past failure and only the time and wisdom needed to move on to a fresh cohort can get the Cons back into any sort of competitive shape.
But what if Lab collapse into total failure? Those votes won't necessarily coalesce around the Cons. That automatic assumption is long gone. Forces to the right and the centre will look much more attractive to anyone with a memory span of more than the average goldfish.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
Your plan has numerous problems including:
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Reform MPs can be relied on more than Labour MPs they would replace to vote with the Tories though
Can they ???
What will be the political views of any future potential Reform MP ?
Immigration frothing and some level of social conservatism seem likely but apart from that what ?
You only have to look at the mish-mash fantasies of the reform manifesto and the differences between that and what Reform voters actually want to see that they are utterly unreliable for any form of actual governance.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
The problem with both of those is the risk of losses to the left.
Basically, fighting a war on two fronts at once is always horrid, and if I were the Conservative Party, I wouldn't start from here.
Is right/left even a useful debate for a serious political party ? It's been argued frequently here that it's an obsolete and highly imperfect analysis of our politics.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
Your plan has numerous problems including:
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Reform MPs can be relied on more than Labour MPs they would replace to vote with the Tories though
Can they ???
What will be the political views of any future potential Reform MP ?
Immigration frothing and some level of social conservatism seem likely but apart from that what ?
You only have to look at the mish-mash fantasies of the reform manifesto and the differences between that and what Reform voters actually want to see that they are utterly unreliable for any form of actual governance.
The political views of any Reform MP will certainly be closer to the ERG and right of the Tories and most Tory members than a Labour MPs
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Pick some winners, eh?
I’ve got this awesome scheme to grow peanuts in Africa to make bio-fuel…
The Tories hold just five seats with majorities of over 10,000. The LibDems hold 25 seats and Labour hold 115 seats with 10,000+ majorities.
The Tories are in a desperate position. How can they make it worse?
Easy. By electing Braverman or Jenrick as leader.
A quick modelling exercise on the recent results shows that if the Tories elect Braverman or Jenrick as leader and lose 10% of their support to Lab and LDs then they lose an extra 30 seats or so. But if they gain back 10% of RUF support they gain back 20 seats. It's a bit of a wash.
But I don't think the future of the Tory party depends on arithmetic. It depends much more on behaviour. Poor behaviour is what has caused their recent defeat. If it continues, they won't recover. The entitled antics of Victoria Atkins yesterday is not a good omen.
The LIbDems, on the other hand, I think will provide a model of how to oppose with constructive suggestions and mutually respectful behaviour. I think (and hope) that Labour will respond in kind. But if the Tories act like spoiled brats, encouraged by Farage heckling from the back, then there is no hope for them.
The 2024 Tory vote is their core vote, they aren't losing any more of it or at most a trickle to the LDs. If they gain Reform votes, especially after a pact with Reform in seats where the Tories were second and the Tory and Reform combined vote was bigger than Labour they gain over 100 seats plus
It is an iron fact that the Illegal Crime Syndicate with no right to Even Exist that is the EU is at the root of all evils:
"According to WSJ: Microsoft says the European Commission made it illegal for them to block the level of access that made the Crowdstrike outage possible."
You are going to hate me for this, but the EU was right. Microsoft had such a monopoly they could control access to the market and maintained it by keeping details of its product secret. The EU forced it to open up and allow greater access. That allowed greater freedom and better growth. But it transferred the risk from the producer to the consumer who, when this happened, was unprotected.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
As Keir Starmer looks on to another 5 years
Starmer has had an excellent start and it seems, as he looks over the wreckage of the conservative party, he intends taking the best bits ( and there are some) and adopting them going forward thereby delivering a devastating coup d'etat on any thoughts the conservatives may have of winning again in 2029
Conservatives underestimating Starmer do so at their peril and moving to the right might be their only remaining space, but as in the left, is the road to the political wilderness
If in doubt - witness Jeremy Corbyn
Corbyn got 7% more in 2017 than Starmer did in 2024, Corbyn was only 1% behind what Starmer got in 2024 in 2019 even. Corbyn also held his seat against a Starmer approved candidate.
Corbyn was electorally only bad as Boris beat him convincingly, he actually otherwise was a good campaigner
That indicates he's a very bad campaigner (as leader). The point of campaigning is to win seats not to rack up votes for their own sake. Do you think Reform had more of a successful campaign in 2024 than the Liberal Democrats?
In terms of second place finishes for next time arguably yes, even not in terms of actual seats won this time
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Pick some winners, eh?
I’ve got this awesome scheme to grow peanuts in Africa to make bio-fuel…
And increase employment in Tyneside, and use up old Sherman tank parts, making the tractors ...
The Tories need to go on a HUNT for a new leader that will be listened to and vaguely coherent. This temptation to a bit of self indulgence just shows that they have not learned the lessons of a comprehensive defeat. The voters they lost to Labour and the Lib Dems cost far more seats than the votes lost to Reform.
Wrong, the Tories lost more of their 2019 voters to Reform than to Labour and the LDs combined.
In most 2019 Tory seats Labour won for instance the Tory and Reform vote was bigger than the Labour vote.
The Tories need to reunite the right first and then target centrist Labour and LD voters if the Starmer government becomes unpopular
The Tories need an answer to - What are you for?
At the moment it seems to be pocket lining, cruelty to the disabled, and shitty rivers. I am amazed they got 130.
I’m sad about the death of the conservatives but they need to wtfu. The big picture is made out of a lot of little pictures. They need those little pics to matter to people.
I told them to shift to PR. They didn’t. Now I’m telling them to stop and think.
We just brought you lines from Lord Houchen's appearance on Sky News - and the Tees Valley mayor has also been speaking to BBC Politics North.
Houchen tells us he has received a series of death threats but police "haven't done anything" about them.
"I've had people threatening to cut me up with a chainsaw," he says.
"I've had Special Branch knock on my door late at night because of a credible threat against my personal safety.
"My wife answers the door and is absolutely petrified about what might or might not happen. I mean this is something that is just unacceptable and...it's all driven by social media."
"I think the police need to be much firmer," he adds.
"I mean you can talk about free speech but ultimately, if we want a democracy where people are able to share different ideas in a civil manner, we need to have enforcement.
"So for example, when I was getting death threats - police haven't done anything about it. Nobody's been arrested."
The Tories need to go on a HUNT for a new leader that will be listened to and vaguely coherent. This temptation to a bit of self indulgence just shows that they have not learned the lessons of a comprehensive defeat. The voters they lost to Labour and the Lib Dems cost far more seats than the votes lost to Reform.
Wrong, the Tories lost more of their 2019 voters to Reform than to Labour and the LDs combined.
In most 2019 Tory seats Labour won for instance the Tory and Reform vote was bigger than the Labour vote.
The Tories need to reunite the right first and then target centrist Labour and LD voters if the Starmer government becomes unpopular
Hang on a moment. DavidL emphasised *seats* not your "votes".
Quite different thing given the weird performances under FPTP.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
This really goes back to a problem that we have discussed before, namely that since Brown made the return on dividends less attractive our pension funds have increasingly found other homes for their money. There is a useful chart showing the position since 1997 in this article: https://www.ft.com/content/03280cd7-8013-4212-a98e-e0c35194d009
I agree with Reeves that it would be much better for UK plc if more of these savings were being invested to help our companies grow but reversing such a trend is not going to be straightforward.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
This really goes back to a problem that we have discussed before, namely that since Brown made the return on dividends less attractive our pension funds have increasingly found other homes for their money. There is a useful chart showing the position since 1997 in this article: https://www.ft.com/content/03280cd7-8013-4212-a98e-e0c35194d009
I agree with Reeves that it would be much better for UK plc if more of these savings were being invested to help our companies grow but reversing such a trend is not going to be straightforward.
When Gordon Brown's record is criticised, the go to is always the gold sell off. That was a one time absolute balls up, however the decisions he made over pensions are negatively impacted everybody for 20+ years and counting.
The Tories need to go on a HUNT for a new leader that will be listened to and vaguely coherent. This temptation to a bit of self indulgence just shows that they have not learned the lessons of a comprehensive defeat. The voters they lost to Labour and the Lib Dems cost far more seats than the votes lost to Reform.
Wrong, the Tories lost more of their 2019 voters to Reform than to Labour and the LDs combined.
In most 2019 Tory seats Labour won for instance the Tory and Reform vote was bigger than the Labour vote.
The Tories need to reunite the right first and then target centrist Labour and LD voters if the Starmer government becomes unpopular
The Tories need to find out what it is that they stand for, what it is that the country wants, and tailor the former to the latter. You've got the NatCon lectures for people who really want to be American, and the PopCon lectures for people who really want to be the 80's. Go to them, see the ideas that are being generated, form them into a coherent whole, then sell them to the public. Victory will eventually follow.
I hate to point this out (OK I love it, but bear with me) but my Solarpunk article[1] demonstrated that the Greens had an imagined future that is attractive, and they achieved electoral success as a result.
The Conservatives have no such vision. Go get one.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
Good morning
And so ends the conservative party
What utter rubbish. 38% of voters voted for the Tories and Reform on July 4th, more than the 33% who voted for Labour
Time for my regular reminder that the right have never won a majority of the post-war vote:
In 2015 the DUP got 0.6% and the UUP 0.4%. So the combined right of centre Tory, UKIP, DUP and UUP UK voteshare was 50.4% and a majority. Plus the 8% who voted LD were voting for an Orange Book, free market, Cleggite Liberal party too
I concede on 2015 with the DUP/UUP vote. I deliberately left nationalists and the NI vote out but yes, the DUP/UUP are clearly of the right.
Personally, I'm not going to accept that the LDs have ever been right of centre but I acknowledge that it's in the eye of the beholder to some extent.
Anyway, to correct my earlier assertion: "The right have only once won a majority of the post-war vote".
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
Your plan has numerous problems including:
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Reform MPs can be relied on more than Labour MPs they would replace to vote with the Tories though
Can they ???
What will be the political views of any future potential Reform MP ?
Immigration frothing and some level of social conservatism seem likely but apart from that what ?
You only have to look at the mish-mash fantasies of the reform manifesto and the differences between that and what Reform voters actually want to see that they are utterly unreliable for any form of actual governance.
The political views of any Reform MP will certainly be closer to the ERG and right of the Tories and most Tory members than a Labour MPs
Its irrelevant.
A successful government depends on intellectual substance, hard work and a willingness to do difficult things at a cost.
And these attributes are where Reform would go missing.
To be fair to the LibDems, they were able to supply them during the coalition.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Is this government approved winning picks?
Better than leaving the free market to it. What happened in reality is people opted out of pensions altogether and engaged in an insane, but lucrative (for them) zero-sum game of property market speculation, which fucked the next generation (at least, those without parents with property wealth).
Anyway, leaving pensions to one side, have you not been paying attention these last 5 years? The tories were picking winners (and often, losers) left, right and centre.
the lack of talent in the Con leadership is very alarming. Jenrick is perhaps of PPS standard. Even the best of those mentioned is Cabinet Minister level. There is no-one close to leadership - let alone PM - material. These are people tainted with past failure and only the time and wisdom needed to move on to a fresh cohort can get the Cons back into any sort of competitive shape.
But what if Lab collapse into total failure? Those votes won't necessarily coalesce around the Cons. That automatic assumption is long gone. Forces to the right and the centre will look much more attractive to anyone with a memory span of more than the average goldfish.
Geoffrey Cox can save us. His mellifluous tones and perfectly judged syntax at the dispatch box will make mincemeat of lesser barrister Kier 'tea boy' Starmer, and remind all that only the Conservatives can return the nation to the spacious days of Good Queen Bess.
And on an unrelated note, I will win a big payout on Betfair.
It is an iron fact that the Illegal Crime Syndicate with no right to Even Exist that is the EU is at the root of all evils:
"According to WSJ: Microsoft says the European Commission made it illegal for them to block the level of access that made the Crowdstrike outage possible."
You are going to hate me for this, but the EU was right. Microsoft had such a monopoly they could control access to the market and maintained it by keeping details of its product secret. The EU forced it to open up and allow greater access. That allowed greater freedom and better growth. But it transferred the risk from the producer to the consumer who, when this happened, was unprotected.
It's actually an argument for Rejoin because the UK is subject to the vicissitudes of these regulations but now has no influence in shaping them.
If we aren't going to imprison the eco-fascists, I think the minimum punishment should be to made to act as the tackle bags for Premiership rugby clubs....
Those sentences are making all the right people screech.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Is this government approved winning picks?
Better than leaving the free market to it. What happened in reality is people opted out of pensions altogether and engaged in an insane, but lucrative (for them) zero-sum game of property market speculation, which fucked the next generation (at least, those without parents with property wealth).
Anyway, leaving pensions to one side, have you not been paying attention these last 5 years? The tories were picking winners (and often, losers) left, right and centre.
Your small state libertarianism is dead.
It has died at roughly the same rate as the economy has declined. Funny that.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
Your plan has numerous problems including:
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Reform MPs can be relied on more than Labour MPs they would replace to vote with the Tories though
Can they ???
What will be the political views of any future potential Reform MP ?
Immigration frothing and some level of social conservatism seem likely but apart from that what ?
You only have to look at the mish-mash fantasies of the reform manifesto and the differences between that and what Reform voters actually want to see that they are utterly unreliable for any form of actual governance.
The political views of any Reform MP will certainly be closer to the ERG and right of the Tories and most Tory members than a Labour MPs
Its irrelevant.
A successful government depends on intellectual substance, hard work and a willingness to do difficult things at a cost.
And these attributes are where Reform would go missing.
To be fair to the LibDems, they were able to supply them during the coalition.
All very well but without the votes united on the right by either pact or merger with Reform the Tories ain't getting near government again under FPTP. Post Brexit the LDs are unlikely to touch the Tories with a bargepole again for a generation
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Is this government approved winning picks?
Better than leaving the free market to it. What happened in reality is people opted out of pensions altogether and engaged in an insane, but lucrative (for them) zero-sum game of property market speculation, which fucked the next generation (at least, those without parents with property wealth).
Anyway, leaving pensions to one side, have you not been paying attention these last 5 years? The tories were picking winners (and often, losers) left, right and centre.
Your small state libertarianism is dead.
Just wait for the IMF bailout. Then all bets are off.
The size of the state is unsustainable. I'd say in my extended family (say 60 people) only 2 of us are paying more in than they're getting out.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
Your plan has numerous problems including:
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Reform MPs can be relied on more than Labour MPs they would replace to vote with the Tories though
Can they ???
What will be the political views of any future potential Reform MP ?
Immigration frothing and some level of social conservatism seem likely but apart from that what ?
You only have to look at the mish-mash fantasies of the reform manifesto and the differences between that and what Reform voters actually want to see that they are utterly unreliable for any form of actual governance.
The political views of any Reform MP will certainly be closer to the ERG and right of the Tories and most Tory members than a Labour MPs
Its irrelevant.
A successful government depends on intellectual substance, hard work and a willingness to do difficult things at a cost.
And these attributes are where Reform would go missing.
To be fair to the LibDems, they were able to supply them during the coalition.
All very well but without the votes united on the right by either pact or merger with Reform the Tories ain't getting near government again under FPTP. Post Brexit the LDs are unlikely to touch the Tories with a bargepole again for a generation
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
Good morning
And so ends the conservative party
What utter rubbish. 38% of voters voted for the Tories and Reform on July 4th, more than the 33% who voted for Labour
Time for my regular reminder that the right have never won a majority of the post-war vote:
In 2015 the DUP got 0.6% and the UUP 0.4%. So the combined right of centre Tory, UKIP, DUP and UUP UK voteshare was 50.4% and a majority. Plus the 8% who voted LD were voting for an Orange Book, free market, Cleggite Liberal party too
I concede on 2015 with the DUP/UUP vote. I deliberately left nationalists and the NI vote out but yes, the DUP/UUP are clearly of the right.
Personally, I'm not going to accept that the LDs have ever been right of centre but I acknowledge that it's in the eye of the beholder to some extent.
Anyway, to correct my earlier assertion: "The right have only once won a majority of the post-war vote".
The left have never won a majority of the post war vote, not even once like the right, if we take the LDs, SDP/Alliance and Liberals as centre not right nor left then.
Closest they got was 48.8% for Attlee's Labour in 1951
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Perhaps Reeves could start off by publicly investing her own money in 'productive assets'.
And then announce that all public sector pensions will henceforth be dependent upon the return on 'productive assets'.
The Tories hold just five seats with majorities of over 10,000. The LibDems hold 25 seats and Labour hold 115 seats with 10,000+ majorities.
The Tories are in a desperate position. How can they make it worse?
Easy. By electing Braverman or Jenrick as leader.
A quick modelling exercise on the recent results shows that if the Tories elect Braverman or Jenrick as leader and lose 10% of their support to Lab and LDs then they lose an extra 30 seats or so. But if they gain back 10% of RUF support they gain back 20 seats. It's a bit of a wash.
But I don't think the future of the Tory party depends on arithmetic. It depends much more on behaviour. Poor behaviour is what has caused their recent defeat. If it continues, they won't recover. The entitled antics of Victoria Atkins yesterday is not a good omen.
The LIbDems, on the other hand, I think will provide a model of how to oppose with constructive suggestions and mutually respectful behaviour. I think (and hope) that Labour will respond in kind. But if the Tories act like spoiled brats, encouraged by Farage heckling from the back, then there is no hope for them.
The 2024 Tory vote is their core vote, they aren't losing any more of it or at most a trickle to the LDs. If they gain Reform votes, especially after a pact with Reform in seats where the Tories were second and the Tory and Reform combined vote was bigger than Labour they gain over 100 seats plus
I love modelling with spreadsheets. I have all the data and as many assumptions as you like. But I think the future of the Tory Party is more dependent on behaviour and personalities than arithmetic. Is the Tory membership collectively capable of choosing a winning leader? I suspect not.
the lack of talent in the Con leadership is very alarming. Jenrick is perhaps of PPS standard. Even the best of those mentioned is Cabinet Minister level. There is no-one close to leadership - let alone PM - material. These are people tainted with past failure and only the time and wisdom needed to move on to a fresh cohort can get the Cons back into any sort of competitive shape.
But what if Lab collapse into total failure? Those votes won't necessarily coalesce around the Cons. That automatic assumption is long gone. Forces to the right and the centre will look much more attractive to anyone with a memory span of more than the average goldfish.
I haven't really been paying attention to the Cons, for the same reasons I don't send my dead grandmother a birthday card, but of those I have seen the only two that impressed me were Steve Baker and - yes, I know - Jacob Rees Mogg. Neither of them are now MPs.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
Your plan has numerous problems including:
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Reform MPs can be relied on more than Labour MPs they would replace to vote with the Tories though
Can they ???
What will be the political views of any future potential Reform MP ?
Immigration frothing and some level of social conservatism seem likely but apart from that what ?
You only have to look at the mish-mash fantasies of the reform manifesto and the differences between that and what Reform voters actually want to see that they are utterly unreliable for any form of actual governance.
The political views of any Reform MP will certainly be closer to the ERG and right of the Tories and most Tory members than a Labour MPs
Its irrelevant.
A successful government depends on intellectual substance, hard work and a willingness to do difficult things at a cost.
And these attributes are where Reform would go missing.
To be fair to the LibDems, they were able to supply them during the coalition.
All very well but without the votes united on the right by either pact or merger with Reform the Tories ain't getting near government again under FPTP. Post Brexit the LDs are unlikely to touch the Tories with a bargepole again for a generation
Better that they don't get into government if:
1) They cannot understand where they went wrong in government 2) They are unable to reform themselves in opposition 3) They are dependent upon a rabble of malcontents
The first things the Conservatives need do do is learn from their own failings.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Is this government approved winning picks?
Better than leaving the free market to it. What happened in reality is people opted out of pensions altogether and engaged in an insane, but lucrative (for them) zero-sum game of property market speculation, which fucked the next generation (at least, those without parents with property wealth).
Anyway, leaving pensions to one side, have you not been paying attention these last 5 years? The tories were picking winners (and often, losers) left, right and centre.
Your small state libertarianism is dead.
Just wait for the IMF bailout. Then all bets are off.
The size of the state is unsustainable. I'd say in my extended family (say 60 people) only 2 of us are paying more in than they're getting out.
So that's where all my taxes are going!
Seriously, the size of the state is sustainable at significantly higher levels than currently. See Denmark, France, Austria, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Nowrway, Belgium, Netherlands, and Germany, for example.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
This really goes back to a problem that we have discussed before, namely that since Brown made the return on dividends less attractive our pension funds have increasingly found other homes for their money. There is a useful chart showing the position since 1997 in this article: https://www.ft.com/content/03280cd7-8013-4212-a98e-e0c35194d009
I agree with Reeves that it would be much better for UK plc if more of these savings were being invested to help our companies grow but reversing such a trend is not going to be straightforward.
When Gordon Brown's record is criticised, the go to is always the gold sell off. That was a one time absolute balls up, however the decisions he made over pensions are negatively impacted everybody for 20+ years and counting.
Only Truss has proved to be a worse PM than Brown. He really was far more damaging that Labour supporters will ever concede.
BP is forecasting that total oil demand peaks next year, and then declines.
Peak! Oil!
Ha!
For those who don’t remember, Peak Oil was a scare thing about the world being about to run out of oil, next week.
No, that was only Scottish North Sea Oil, around 2014. That was not a scare tactic at all. Oh, no. Certainly not!
No, it’s been a thing far longer ago than that.
Complete with predictions of societal collapse etc.
A classic part of it is the belief that the Saudis are lying and are about to run out of oil Any Minute Now.
Peak oil predictions were always accompanied by a chart, showing that new oil discoveries had declined sharply over time.
The only problem with the chart was that - as existing fields reserves were proven out - you were constantly adding to historic years. Which gave the entirely erroneous impression of collapsing new discoveries, when it was simply that initial estimates of for field reserves are conservative and tend to rise over time.
The Tories need to go on a HUNT for a new leader that will be listened to and vaguely coherent. This temptation to a bit of self indulgence just shows that they have not learned the lessons of a comprehensive defeat. The voters they lost to Labour and the Lib Dems cost far more seats than the votes lost to Reform.
I see what you did there...
He [Hunt] saw what was happening in his seat, deployed sufficient time and resources to head off the problem, and won. That's rather impressive when you think about it.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Is this government approved winning picks?
Better than leaving the free market to it. What happened in reality is people opted out of pensions altogether and engaged in an insane, but lucrative (for them) zero-sum game of property market speculation, which fucked the next generation (at least, those without parents with property wealth).
Anyway, leaving pensions to one side, have you not been paying attention these last 5 years? The tories were picking winners (and often, losers) left, right and centre.
Your small state libertarianism is dead.
It has died at roughly the same rate as the economy has declined. Funny that.
Society and several governments worked together to produce a setup where house prices have gone up for 40 years. A one way punt.
Being upset when people bet on the proven sure thing is ridiculous.
Build houses until occupancy declines below 95% and strangely, investment will move.
On government investment - for the same 40 years, the government bet on Hydrogen as the fuel of the future. It was the choice of the oil companies, the civil servants who wrote long memos to each other. Billions were invested in subsidies. How many hydrogen powered cars have you seen on real life?
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
Good morning
And so ends the conservative party
What utter rubbish. 38% of voters voted for the Tories and Reform on July 4th, more than the 33% who voted for Labour
Time for my regular reminder that the right have never won a majority of the post-war vote:
In 2015 the DUP got 0.6% and the UUP 0.4%. So the combined right of centre Tory, UKIP, DUP and UUP UK voteshare was 50.4% and a majority. Plus the 8% who voted LD were voting for an Orange Book, free market, Cleggite Liberal party too
I concede on 2015 with the DUP/UUP vote. I deliberately left nationalists and the NI vote out but yes, the DUP/UUP are clearly of the right.
Personally, I'm not going to accept that the LDs have ever been right of centre but I acknowledge that it's in the eye of the beholder to some extent.
Anyway, to correct my earlier assertion: "The right have only once won a majority of the post-war vote".
The left have never won a majority of the post war vote, not even once like the right, if we take the LDs, SDP/Alliance and Liberals as centre not right nor left then.
Closest they got was 48.8% for Attlee's Labour in 1951
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
Your plan has numerous problems including:
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Reform MPs can be relied on more than Labour MPs they would replace to vote with the Tories though
Can they ???
What will be the political views of any future potential Reform MP ?
Immigration frothing and some level of social conservatism seem likely but apart from that what ?
You only have to look at the mish-mash fantasies of the reform manifesto and the differences between that and what Reform voters actually want to see that they are utterly unreliable for any form of actual governance.
The political views of any Reform MP will certainly be closer to the ERG and right of the Tories and most Tory members than a Labour MPs
Its irrelevant.
A successful government depends on intellectual substance, hard work and a willingness to do difficult things at a cost.
And these attributes are where Reform would go missing.
To be fair to the LibDems, they were able to supply them during the coalition.
All very well but without the votes united on the right by either pact or merger with Reform the Tories ain't getting near government again under FPTP. Post Brexit the LDs are unlikely to touch the Tories with a bargepole again for a generation
The problem for the Conservatives is not that they were perceived as too left-wing, so lost votes to RefUK, or too right-wing, so shed votes to the LibDems, but overwhelmingly that they were seen as incompetent and therefore irrelevant. It did not matter what they promised or pledged because voters did not believe they could implement it organise a piss-up in a brewery. People stopped listening.
The Tories hold just five seats with majorities of over 10,000. The LibDems hold 25 seats and Labour hold 115 seats with 10,000+ majorities.
The Tories are in a desperate position. How can they make it worse?
Easy. By electing Braverman or Jenrick as leader.
A quick modelling exercise on the recent results shows that if the Tories elect Braverman or Jenrick as leader and lose 10% of their support to Lab and LDs then they lose an extra 30 seats or so. But if they gain back 10% of RUF support they gain back 20 seats. It's a bit of a wash.
But I don't think the future of the Tory party depends on arithmetic. It depends much more on behaviour. Poor behaviour is what has caused their recent defeat. If it continues, they won't recover. The entitled antics of Victoria Atkins yesterday is not a good omen.
The LIbDems, on the other hand, I think will provide a model of how to oppose with constructive suggestions and mutually respectful behaviour. I think (and hope) that Labour will respond in kind. But if the Tories act like spoiled brats, encouraged by Farage heckling from the back, then there is no hope for them.
The 2024 Tory vote is their core vote, they aren't losing any more of it or at most a trickle to the LDs. If they gain Reform votes, especially after a pact with Reform in seats where the Tories were second and the Tory and Reform combined vote was bigger than Labour they gain over 100 seats plus
I love modelling with spreadsheets. I have all the data and as many assumptions as you like. But I think the future of the Tory Party is more dependent on behaviour and personalities than arithmetic. Is the Tory membership collectively capable of choosing a winning leader? I suspect not.
The Tory membership chose Cameron and Boris, the only Conservative majority winners this century
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs
I would have thought that there were two different options for the Conservatives:
1. Go right, and shore up the threat from Reform. The goal being to return them to zero MPs, and therefore to be the sole right wing party in the UK. 2. Go Central, and enter into some kind of pact with Reform.
I think the first is by far the most sensible option. The second option is absolutely fraught with danger, because there is the very real risk that Reform starts out polling you.
Not if 2 only means the Tories standing down for Reform where Reform were second and Reform standing down for the Tories where the Tories were second
Your plan has numerous problems including:
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Reform MPs can be relied on more than Labour MPs they would replace to vote with the Tories though
Can they ???
What will be the political views of any future potential Reform MP ?
Immigration frothing and some level of social conservatism seem likely but apart from that what ?
You only have to look at the mish-mash fantasies of the reform manifesto and the differences between that and what Reform voters actually want to see that they are utterly unreliable for any form of actual governance.
The political views of any Reform MP will certainly be closer to the ERG and right of the Tories and most Tory members than a Labour MPs
Its irrelevant.
A successful government depends on intellectual substance, hard work and a willingness to do difficult things at a cost.
And these attributes are where Reform would go missing.
To be fair to the LibDems, they were able to supply them during the coalition.
All very well but without the votes united on the right by either pact or merger with Reform the Tories ain't getting near government again under FPTP. Post Brexit the LDs are unlikely to touch the Tories with a bargepole again for a generation
The problem for the Conservatives is not that they were perceived as too left-wing, so lost votes to RefUK, or too right-wing, so shed votes to the LibDems, but overwhelmingly that they were seen as incompetent and therefore irrelevant. It did not matter what they promised or pledged because voters did not believe they could implement it organise a piss-up in a brewery. People stopped listening.
Or that they would give an enormous contract to the brewery in return for a political donation / lucrative non-job.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Perhaps Reeves could start off by publicly investing her own money in 'productive assets'.
And then announce that all public sector pensions will henceforth be dependent upon the return on 'productive assets'.
Is the Reeves scheme markedly different from Jeremy Hunt's? I share the general scepticism that there is an untapped mass of world-beating British industry, but I get the intent.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Is this government approved winning picks?
Better than leaving the free market to it. What happened in reality is people opted out of pensions altogether and engaged in an insane, but lucrative (for them) zero-sum game of property market speculation, which fucked the next generation (at least, those without parents with property wealth).
Anyway, leaving pensions to one side, have you not been paying attention these last 5 years? The tories were picking winners (and often, losers) left, right and centre.
Your small state libertarianism is dead.
It has died at roughly the same rate as the economy has declined. Funny that.
Society and several governments worked together to produce a setup where house prices have gone up for 40 years. A one way punt.
Being upset when people bet on the proven sure thing is ridiculous.
Build houses until occupancy declines below 95% and strangely, investment will move.
On government investment - for the same 40 years, the government bet on Hydrogen as the fuel of the future. It was the choice of the oil companies, the civil servants who wrote long memos to each other. Billions were invested in subsidies. How many hydrogen powered cars have you seen on real life?
Governments always make the wrong calls on virtually everything.
I think Reeves is right about pension funds, but in order for them to invest in the UK's 'growth economy', the conditions need to be there for growth. That means not a permanent situation where energy costs twice as much as it does in the UK. That means light regulation and low business taxes. I see absolutely no evidence of Labour wanting to create the appropriate conditions for growth - some of their first actions have been to take chunks out of the economy.
I've no idea what Google is thinking but if you depend on these shortened links, change them.
Is there a more inefficient company in terms of product success vs killed off? I talk with Google people quite often, its even more a shit show for the non-customer facing / research stuff, where teams recreate exactly what another team in Google has already produced. They have 2 different ML frameworks, and within that multiple different core Neural Network libraries. Meta made one framework, with all core functionality required.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Is this government approved winning picks?
Better than leaving the free market to it. What happened in reality is people opted out of pensions altogether and engaged in an insane, but lucrative (for them) zero-sum game of property market speculation, which fucked the next generation (at least, those without parents with property wealth).
Anyway, leaving pensions to one side, have you not been paying attention these last 5 years? The tories were picking winners (and often, losers) left, right and centre.
Your small state libertarianism is dead.
It has died at roughly the same rate as the economy has declined. Funny that.
Yes but what you think is cause and effect is actually effect and cause.
Neoliberalism has ruined the economy, no wonder it has been rejected.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Perhaps Reeves could start off by publicly investing her own money in 'productive assets'.
And then announce that all public sector pensions will henceforth be dependent upon the return on 'productive assets'.
Is the Reeves scheme markedly different from Jeremy Hunt's? I share the general scepticism that there is an untapped mass of world-beating British industry, but I get the intent.
As I have mentioned before a big problem with have with the UK economy is it is totally imbalanced and stopping much chance of "untapped" world beating industry. We have a small number of mega corps and loads and loads of small / micro / solo companies. The number of medium sized companies employing 1000+ and not simply a subsidiary of a mega corp and if only they could get a bit of extra funding they could gang busters is really small by international comparisons. It is very very difficult and generational to go micro -> medium -> world beating mega corp.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Perhaps Reeves could start off by publicly investing her own money in 'productive assets'.
And then announce that all public sector pensions will henceforth be dependent upon the return on 'productive assets'.
Is the Reeves scheme markedly different from Jeremy Hunt's? I share the general scepticism that there is an untapped mass of world-beating British industry, but I get the intent.
Wasn't Hunt's an ISA ?
If so then investing would be from personal choice.
Defined contribution pensions are more towards obligatory for many people.
Now if Reeves would suggest an optional extra pension aimed at investing in UK assets and businesses then that would be worthwhile.
In fact that could be linked with putting a maximum pension cap into a 'standard' pension scheme.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Perhaps Reeves could start off by publicly investing her own money in 'productive assets'.
And then announce that all public sector pensions will henceforth be dependent upon the return on 'productive assets'.
Is the Reeves scheme markedly different from Jeremy Hunt's? I share the general scepticism that there is an untapped mass of world-beating British industry, but I get the intent.
Wasn't Hunt's an ISA ?
If so then investing would be from personal choice.
Defined contribution pensions are more towards obligatory for many people.
Now if Reeves would suggest an optional extra pension aimed at investing in UK assets and businesses then that would be worthwhile.
In fact that could be linked with putting a maximum pension cap into a 'standard' pension scheme.
Be interesting to know how many people actually taken advantage of this ISA. I haven't rushed out looking to stick any of my spare cash in it.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
Good morning
And so ends the conservative party
What utter rubbish. 38% of voters voted for the Tories and Reform on July 4th, more than the 33% who voted for Labour
Time for my regular reminder that the right have never won a majority of the post-war vote:
In 2015 the DUP got 0.6% and the UUP 0.4%. So the combined right of centre Tory, UKIP, DUP and UUP UK voteshare was 50.4% and a majority. Plus the 8% who voted LD were voting for an Orange Book, free market, Cleggite Liberal party too
I concede on 2015 with the DUP/UUP vote. I deliberately left nationalists and the NI vote out but yes, the DUP/UUP are clearly of the right.
Personally, I'm not going to accept that the LDs have ever been right of centre but I acknowledge that it's in the eye of the beholder to some extent.
Anyway, to correct my earlier assertion: "The right have only once won a majority of the post-war vote".
A heavy minority of Liberal/Alliance/LibDem voters will have preferred the Tories over Labour in many elections over the years, which means when the Tories have won more than 40% of the vote they may have got over 50% in a preferential voting system.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Is this government approved winning picks?
Better than leaving the free market to it. What happened in reality is people opted out of pensions altogether and engaged in an insane, but lucrative (for them) zero-sum game of property market speculation, which fucked the next generation (at least, those without parents with property wealth).
Anyway, leaving pensions to one side, have you not been paying attention these last 5 years? The tories were picking winners (and often, losers) left, right and centre.
Your small state libertarianism is dead.
It has died at roughly the same rate as the economy has declined. Funny that.
Yes but what you think is cause and effect is actually effect and cause.
Neoliberalism has ruined the economy, no wonder it has been rejected.
You're old enough to remember the last time socialism was given a whirl with the post-war consensus. That ended up with the country on its knees. By the mid-90s things were on a very positive trajectory, then we got Blair. The economy's arteries have been getting more atrophied by socialism ever since, under governments of all stripes.
Well that was a bit of a shit show at the end of the session in the cricket. They go in with only Brook out and could have come out and gone T20 mode for an hour or so and game out of reach of WI. Instead, if they collapso quickly, game on.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Perhaps Reeves could start off by publicly investing her own money in 'productive assets'.
And then announce that all public sector pensions will henceforth be dependent upon the return on 'productive assets'.
Is the Reeves scheme markedly different from Jeremy Hunt's? I share the general scepticism that there is an untapped mass of world-beating British industry, but I get the intent.
As I have mentioned before a big problem with have with the UK economy is it is totally imbalanced and stopping much chance of "untapped" world beating industry. We have a small number of mega corps and loads and loads of small / micro / solo companies. The number of medium sized companies employing 1000+ and not simply a subsidiary of a mega corp and if only they could get a bit of extra funding they could gang busters is really small by international comparisons. It is very very difficult and generational to go micro -> medium -> world beating mega corp.
Brown virtually forcing pensions into gilts has deprived a lot of investment from UK stocks.
And enabled the government to effectively loot defined contribution pensions by mass selling gilts at 0.25% which then lost half of their market value when interest rates went up and they started selling 5.25% gilts.
They spent years financing in work benefits and public sector pensions by selling those gilts and those in the private sector took a huge haircut in their pension pot to pay them.
The bigger problem our and the US governments now have is that low paid people in the far east have got wise and are no longer willing to buy gilts and treasuriea with their savings to finance western land whales to sit at home not working.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Perhaps Reeves could start off by publicly investing her own money in 'productive assets'.
And then announce that all public sector pensions will henceforth be dependent upon the return on 'productive assets'.
Is the Reeves scheme markedly different from Jeremy Hunt's? I share the general scepticism that there is an untapped mass of world-beating British industry, but I get the intent.
Wasn't Hunt's an ISA ?
If so then investing would be from personal choice.
Defined contribution pensions are more towards obligatory for many people.
Now if Reeves would suggest an optional extra pension aimed at investing in UK assets and businesses then that would be worthwhile.
In fact that could be linked with putting a maximum pension cap into a 'standard' pension scheme.
Be interesting to know how many people actually taken advantage of this ISA. I haven't rushed out looking to stick any of my spare cash in it.
Zero. Just consultation so far. Didn't get launched before Mr Sunak pulled the chain on the electoral cistern. So down the toilet for now, I believe.
Was going to be 5K addition to the normal 20K pa, but spent on UK stocks and shares.
Buit thanks for mentioning it. I had clean forgotten it, and am doing my annual tax etc sort out, so good to have it checked.
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs.
I appreciate this is you hypothesising @HYUFD and you may well be right, although I can't see tacking to the centre and also doing a deal with Reform can work. They seem mutually exclusive.
If the Tories move to the right, which I fully expect them to do (although as with both Labour [to the left] and Conservatives [to the right] they normally correct themselves in time), they will solidify the LD base all over the South and South West and fill in most of the remaining blue with yellow in these areas.
I never understand why both the right of the Tories and the left of Labour always think they lost because they weren't left wing or right wing enough. It is weird (again I know that isn't necessarily your view @hyufd)
The Tories lost mainly because they were incompetent, of course. The problem is that competency is hard to demonstrate in opposition when it is still the same faces in charge.
Tacking to the centre doesn’t automatically win them LD seats back. Fishing in the same pool of centrist voters at this stage as Labour and the LDs is, in my mind, as risky if not more so than tacking to the right. They might be better off strategically shoring up their right flank in this Parliament. There is no easy fix.
I agree that perceived competence is crucial to winning an election: the clown shoes theory.
Competency in opposition is demonstrated by how the party is managed. And that's usually about how you are seen to shut down your extremes, and then develop some kind of coherent policy platform.
If the government itself is broadly competent part 2 - the policy - becomes more important. If not, it is less critical.
The problem for the South of England Tories is that to win back the voters in the now Lib Dem seats, they have to start complaining about the things, such as sewage in the rivers and a lack of dentists, that happened on the Tories' watch.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
Perhaps Reeves could start off by publicly investing her own money in 'productive assets'.
And then announce that all public sector pensions will henceforth be dependent upon the return on 'productive assets'.
Is the Reeves scheme markedly different from Jeremy Hunt's? I share the general scepticism that there is an untapped mass of world-beating British industry, but I get the intent.
Wasn't Hunt's an ISA ?
If so then investing would be from personal choice.
Defined contribution pensions are more towards obligatory for many people.
Now if Reeves would suggest an optional extra pension aimed at investing in UK assets and businesses then that would be worthwhile.
In fact that could be linked with putting a maximum pension cap into a 'standard' pension scheme.
Be interesting to know how many people actually taken advantage of this ISA. I haven't rushed out looking to stick any of my spare cash in it.
Zero. Just consultation so far. Didn't get launched before Mr Sunak pulled the chain on the electoral cistern. So down the toilet for now, I believe.
Was going to be 5K addition to the normal 20K pa, but spent on UK stocks and shares.
Buit thanks for mentioning it. I had clean forgotten it, and am doing my annual tax etc sort out, so good to have it checked.
I think it's quite likely ISA limit goes down to £10k from 2025 and the 'British ISA' will be dropped. Hopefully the 'Help to Buy ISA' or whatever it is which simply fuels house prices will be dropped too
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
This really goes back to a problem that we have discussed before, namely that since Brown made the return on dividends less attractive our pension funds have increasingly found other homes for their money. There is a useful chart showing the position since 1997 in this article: https://www.ft.com/content/03280cd7-8013-4212-a98e-e0c35194d009
I agree with Reeves that it would be much better for UK plc if more of these savings were being invested to help our companies grow but reversing such a trend is not going to be straightforward.
When Gordon Brown's record is criticised, the go to is always the gold sell off. That was a one time absolute balls up, however the decisions he made over pensions are negatively impacted everybody for 20+ years and counting.
Only Truss has proved to be a worse PM than Brown. He really was far more damaging that Labour supporters will ever concede.
I'm not sure that his trashing of the finances of the at the time world leading mobile phone operators didn't also sabotage a chance of a larger, self-financing UK tech sector.
The Tories hold just five seats with majorities of over 10,000. The LibDems hold 25 seats and Labour hold 115 seats with 10,000+ majorities.
The Tories are in a desperate position. How can they make it worse?
Easy. By electing Braverman or Jenrick as leader.
A quick modelling exercise on the recent results shows that if the Tories elect Braverman or Jenrick as leader and lose 10% of their support to Lab and LDs then they lose an extra 30 seats or so. But if they gain back 10% of RUF support they gain back 20 seats. It's a bit of a wash.
But I don't think the future of the Tory party depends on arithmetic. It depends much more on behaviour. Poor behaviour is what has caused their recent defeat. If it continues, they won't recover. The entitled antics of Victoria Atkins yesterday is not a good omen.
The LIbDems, on the other hand, I think will provide a model of how to oppose with constructive suggestions and mutually respectful behaviour. I think (and hope) that Labour will respond in kind. But if the Tories act like spoiled brats, encouraged by Farage heckling from the back, then there is no hope for them.
The 2024 Tory vote is their core vote, they aren't losing any more of it or at most a trickle to the LDs. If they gain Reform votes, especially after a pact with Reform in seats where the Tories were second and the Tory and Reform combined vote was bigger than Labour they gain over 100 seats plus
I love modelling with spreadsheets. I have all the data and as many assumptions as you like. But I think the future of the Tory Party is more dependent on behaviour and personalities than arithmetic. Is the Tory membership collectively capable of choosing a winning leader? I suspect not.
The Tory membership chose Cameron and Boris, the only Conservative majority winners this century
And then there's Truss, and Jeffrey Archer was a darling of the members too...
Jenrick was at Cambridge with Braverman and they got on, if she backs him rather than defects to Reform that suggests she thinks he will reach out to Farage voters.
At the moment the momentum is with Jenrick, he had a good interview in the Telegraph yesterday which highlighted his provincial upbringing and working class parents. He can appeal to the right of the party by promising to be tougher on immigration for example while also he was the only leadership contender who backed Sunak over Truss so can appeal to some former Sunak loyalist MPs too.
I expect the final 2 picked by MPs to be Jenrick and Tugendhat as it stands, with Jenrick then winning the membership vote to become Tory leader
He's my bet at 14 - so that's performing well.
He'll run from the Right then tack to the centre if he wins, don't you think? Take a leaf from SKS?
Possibly, I would though also expect Jenrick to try and do a deal with Farage at the next general election so the Tories don't put up a candidate or if they do only a paper one in seats where Reform were second to Labour or the LDs. That would be in return for Farage not running a Reform candidate or only a paper candidate in seats where the Tories were second to Labour or the LDs.
I appreciate this is you hypothesising @HYUFD and you may well be right, although I can't see tacking to the centre and also doing a deal with Reform can work. They seem mutually exclusive.
If the Tories move to the right, which I fully expect them to do (although as with both Labour [to the left] and Conservatives [to the right] they normally correct themselves in time), they will solidify the LD base all over the South and South West and fill in most of the remaining blue with yellow in these areas.
I never understand why both the right of the Tories and the left of Labour always think they lost because they weren't left wing or right wing enough. It is weird (again I know that isn't necessarily your view @hyufd)
The Tories lost mainly because they were incompetent, of course. The problem is that competency is hard to demonstrate in opposition when it is still the same faces in charge.
Tacking to the centre doesn’t automatically win them LD seats back. Fishing in the same pool of centrist voters at this stage as Labour and the LDs is, in my mind, as risky if not more so than tacking to the right. They might be better off strategically shoring up their right flank in this Parliament. There is no easy fix.
I agree that perceived competence is crucial to winning an election: the clown shoes theory.
Competency in opposition is demonstrated by how the party is managed. And that's usually about how you are seen to shut down your extremes, and then develop some kind of coherent policy platform.
If the government itself is broadly competent part 2 - the policy - becomes more important. If not, it is less critical.
The problem for the South of England Tories is that to win back the voters in the now Lib Dem seats, they have to start complaining about the things, such as sewage in the rivers and a lack of dentists, that happened on the Tories' watch.
Looks as if they have already started complaining about such things, if not quite the ones you specify. Complete with disruptive behaviour.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
This really goes back to a problem that we have discussed before, namely that since Brown made the return on dividends less attractive our pension funds have increasingly found other homes for their money. There is a useful chart showing the position since 1997 in this article: https://www.ft.com/content/03280cd7-8013-4212-a98e-e0c35194d009
I agree with Reeves that it would be much better for UK plc if more of these savings were being invested to help our companies grow but reversing such a trend is not going to be straightforward.
When Gordon Brown's record is criticised, the go to is always the gold sell off. That was a one time absolute balls up, however the decisions he made over pensions are negatively impacted everybody for 20+ years and counting.
Only Truss has proved to be a worse PM than Brown. He really was far more damaging that Labour supporters will ever concede.
Is it true she has been working for CrowdStrike, or is someone having me on?
Comments
https://abc7chicago.com/mccain-defends-obama-arab-2008-campaign-john/4058948/
The LibDems hold 25 seats and Labour hold 115 seats with 10,000+ majorities.
The Tories are in a desperate position. How can they make it worse?
I particularly liked your first para and the logic of your argument in the 2nd para, although I don't agree with the 2nd para, although I do agree with the 1st sentence in it.
Competency in opposition is demonstrated by how the party is managed. And that's usually about how you are seen to shut down your extremes, and then develop some kind of coherent policy platform.
If the government itself is broadly competent part 2 - the policy - becomes more important. If not, it is less critical.
Complete with predictions of societal collapse etc.
A classic part of it is the belief that the Saudis are lying and are about to run out of oil Any Minute Now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the watchdog for passenger rights, wrote to airlines on Friday saying that disruption directly caused by the global IT issue is likely to be viewed as “extraordinary circumstances” for which the industry should not be financially liable. “As a result, passengers are unlikely to be entitled to fixed-sum compensation,” the letter stated....
...The CAA’s guidance does not affect passengers’ entitlement to reimbursement of expenses such as hotel and food costs, as well as a refund of the cost of the ticket, but it will enable airlines to deny passengers the compensation of between £211 and £506 they would be entitled under standard EU regulations.
The CAA’s designation of the IT outage places the incident on a par with acts of terrorism, sabotage, dangerous weather conditions and the impact of sick or unruly passengers — all of which are also deemed to be beyond an airline’s control.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/technology-uk/article/global-it-outage-fix-delays-disruptions-travel-gp-appointments-crowdstrike-microsoft-27cn5w5r3
As to the compensation. That is what travel insurance is for. Can the insurers get any of it back from CrowStrike?
But what that video shows fairly starkly is an accelerated, some will think precipitous decline in the last twelve months.
As you know, I've been one of the strongest advocates on PB for his administration's record. But I think he'll very, very probably lose if he stays in.
Harris has a chance.
In most 2019 Tory seats Labour won for instance the Tory and Reform vote was bigger than the Labour vote.
The Tories need to reunite the right first and then target centrist Labour and LD voters if the Starmer government becomes unpopular
David Collier
@mishtal
3h
Finally, Please support my hard hitting and unique research if you can. Help to the fight back. Subscribe to me here or sSupport my Patreon- https://patreon.com/davidcollier or donate via PayPal/CC https://paypal.com/paypalme/davidhcollier
- thank you!!!! END
In 1975 Thatcher was seen as an unelectable rightwinger, by 1979 she was PM.
History suggests the more centrist party normally wins in the UK but it is not always the case
"According to WSJ: Microsoft says the European Commission made it illegal for them to block the level of access that made the Crowdstrike outage possible."
https://x.com/AndrewMayne/status/1814899702846108035?t=iYK8E03kXmgKyFyXOSb6RQ&s=19
Corbyn was electorally only bad as Boris beat him convincingly, he actually otherwise was a good campaigner
'They'd only use the money saved on deep fried confectionary and Buckfast!'
1) Conservative votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think.
2) Reform votes aren't as transferrable as you seem to think
3) To get back into government the Conservatives need 300+ MPs they can rely on - Reform MPs cannot be relied upon.
Basically, fighting a war on two fronts at once is always horrid, and if I were the Conservative Party, I wouldn't start from here.
I’ve been told that apparently Labour candidate Jovan Owusu-Nepaul who stood in Clacton, has said today is his last day [working] at the Labour Party.
see https://x.com/melissasigodo/status/1814362789848162344#m
But I don't think the future of the Tory party depends on arithmetic. It depends much more on behaviour. Poor behaviour is what has caused their recent defeat. If it continues, they won't recover. The entitled antics of Victoria Atkins yesterday is not a good omen.
The LIbDems, on the other hand, I think will provide a model of how to oppose with constructive suggestions and mutually respectful behaviour. I think (and hope) that Labour will respond in kind. But if the Tories act like spoiled brats, encouraged by Farage heckling from the back, then there is no hope for them.
"If we could unlock just 1% of the money in defined contribution schemes - and invest that in more productive assets [and] fast-growing British companies - that’d be £8bn to help finance growth and prosperity and wealth creation here in Britain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
It's been argued frequently here that it's an obsolete and highly imperfect analysis of our politics.
But what if Lab collapse into total failure? Those votes won't necessarily coalesce around the Cons. That automatic assumption is long gone. Forces to the right and the centre will look much more attractive to anyone with a memory span of more than the average goldfish.
What will be the political views of any future potential Reform MP ?
Immigration frothing and some level of social conservatism seem likely but apart from that what ?
You only have to look at the mish-mash fantasies of the reform manifesto and the differences between that and what Reform voters actually want to see that they are utterly unreliable for any form of actual governance.
I’ve got this awesome scheme to grow peanuts in Africa to make bio-fuel…
The Tories need an answer to - What are you for?
At the moment it seems to be pocket lining, cruelty to the disabled, and shitty rivers. I am amazed they got 130.
I’m sad about the death of the conservatives but they need to wtfu. The big picture is made out of a lot of little pictures. They need those little pics to matter to people.
I told them to shift to PR. They didn’t.
Now I’m telling them to stop and think.
Houchen tells us he has received a series of death threats but police "haven't done anything" about them.
"I've had people threatening to cut me up with a chainsaw," he says.
"I've had Special Branch knock on my door late at night because of a credible threat against my personal safety.
"My wife answers the door and is absolutely petrified about what might or might not happen. I mean this is something that is just unacceptable and...it's all driven by social media."
"I think the police need to be much firmer," he adds.
"I mean you can talk about free speech but ultimately, if we want a democracy where people are able to share different ideas in a civil manner, we need to have enforcement.
"So for example, when I was getting death threats - police haven't done anything about it. Nobody's been arrested."
We have approached Cleveland Police for comment.
Quite different thing given the weird performances under FPTP.
I agree with Reeves that it would be much better for UK plc if more of these savings were being invested to help our companies grow but reversing such a trend is not going to be straightforward.
I hate to point this out (OK I love it, but bear with me) but my Solarpunk article[1] demonstrated that the Greens had an imagined future that is attractive, and they achieved electoral success as a result.
The Conservatives have no such vision. Go get one.
[1] https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/05/12/solarpunk/
Personally, I'm not going to accept that the LDs have ever been right of centre but I acknowledge that it's in the eye of the beholder to some extent.
Anyway, to correct my earlier assertion: "The right have only once won a majority of the post-war vote".
A successful government depends on intellectual substance, hard work and a willingness to do difficult things at a cost.
And these attributes are where Reform would go missing.
To be fair to the LibDems, they were able to supply them during the coalition.
Anyway, leaving pensions to one side, have you not been paying attention these last 5 years? The tories were picking winners (and often, losers) left, right and centre.
Your small state libertarianism is dead.
And on an unrelated note, I will win a big payout on Betfair.
The size of the state is unsustainable. I'd say in my extended family (say 60 people) only 2 of us are paying more in than they're getting out.
Closest they got was 48.8% for Attlee's Labour in 1951
And then announce that all public sector pensions will henceforth be dependent upon the return on 'productive assets'.
1) They cannot understand where they went wrong in government
2) They are unable to reform themselves in opposition
3) They are dependent upon a rabble of malcontents
The first things the Conservatives need do do is learn from their own failings.
Seriously, the size of the state is sustainable at significantly higher levels than currently. See Denmark, France, Austria, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Nowrway, Belgium, Netherlands, and Germany, for example.
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-data-item/total-tax-revenue-share-gdp-oecd-countries
https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/19/google_to_kill_off_url_shortener/
I've no idea what Google is thinking but if you depend on these shortened links, change them.
The only problem with the chart was that - as existing fields reserves were proven out - you were constantly adding to historic years. Which gave the entirely erroneous impression of collapsing new discoveries, when it was simply that initial estimates of for field reserves are conservative and tend to rise over time.
He [Hunt] saw what was happening in his seat, deployed sufficient time and resources to head off the problem, and won. That's rather impressive when you think about it.
Being upset when people bet on the proven sure thing is ridiculous.
Build houses until occupancy declines below 95% and strangely, investment will move.
On government investment - for the same 40 years, the government bet on Hydrogen as the fuel of the future. It was the choice of the oil companies, the civil servants who wrote long memos to each other. Billions were invested in subsidies. How many hydrogen powered cars have you seen on real life?
implement itorganise a piss-up in a brewery. People stopped listening.As planemaker showered shareholders with billions, a tragic crisis was brewing
By Christopher Jasper"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/21/boeing-safety-crisis-737-max-aviation-industry/
I think Reeves is right about pension funds, but in order for them to invest in the UK's 'growth economy', the conditions need to be there for growth. That means not a permanent situation where energy costs twice as much as it does in the UK. That means light regulation and low business taxes. I see absolutely no evidence of Labour wanting to create the appropriate conditions for growth - some of their first actions have been to take chunks out of the economy.
Neoliberalism has ruined the economy, no wonder it has been rejected.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/20/albert-memorial-considered-offensive-royal-parks/
If so then investing would be from personal choice.
Defined contribution pensions are more towards obligatory for many people.
Now if Reeves would suggest an optional extra pension aimed at investing in UK assets and businesses then that would be worthwhile.
In fact that could be linked with putting a maximum pension cap into a 'standard' pension scheme.
And enabled the government to effectively loot defined contribution pensions by mass selling gilts at 0.25% which then lost half of their market value when interest rates went up and they started selling 5.25% gilts.
They spent years financing in work benefits and public sector pensions by selling those gilts and those in the private sector took a huge haircut in their pension pot to pay them.
The bigger problem our and the US governments now have is that low paid people in the far east have got wise and are no longer willing to buy gilts and treasuriea with their savings to finance western land whales to sit at home not working.
Was going to be 5K addition to the normal 20K pa, but spent on UK stocks and shares.
Buit thanks for mentioning it. I had clean forgotten it, and am doing my annual tax etc sort out, so good to have it checked.
https://www.ajbell.co.uk/isa/uk-isa
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/20/shadow-health-secretary-rebuked-for-behaving-abominably-in-commons