Whatever one thinks of Starmer's 'joke' (McDonaldsgate/007gate), Badenoch's response to it is just utterly bizarre, particularly: "And if a Conservative prime minister had made those comments about a black party leader, they would have been called a racist and asked to resign." Woke as I am in my awareness of racial injustice etc., I just can't see where she's got the racial angle from. Bizarre.
The implication is she expects preferential treatment on account of being black - having previously made a big deal of criticising that sort of attitude.
At the risk of being proved wrong (any columnist’s worst nightmare), I predict that Starmer’s own personality will not get him to the end of this Parliament.
Then even less likely that Farage or Badenoch are next PM, and they both remain screaming lays
Why? A new leader isn't going to turn things around. They might be less of a toe curling embarrassment, but the damage is largely done.
The bet is next Prime Minister, not Prime Minister after the next election. Thus, if Starmer does not stay to contest the next election, the next Prime Minister will be a Labour MP.
I'd agree that the value in this market is on the Labour MPs.
Three main scenarios from here:
A. Labour continue to struggle, and push Starmer overboard before GE2029. Next PM is red.
B. Starmer stays on and loses in 2029. Next PM isn't red.
C. Starmer wins in 2028/9 and retires to muted appreciation a couple of years after that. Next PM is red.
I know Labour don't ditch leaders like the Conservatives do, but B doesn't seem that likely. (And the numbers sort of reflect that. Nigel or Kemi combined is under 50% chance, even with the mug punters boost.)
About right I think. Within those boundaries, and allowing for black swans, the next PM race is a 50 horse steeplechase in the mud, not a 6 runner 5 furlong on the flat. Whoever is the favourite should be at longish odds - something like 8/1 or longer. The next PM may be someone we have hardly heard of, it is just possible they are not even in the HoC at this moment. (Miliband D would be easily the best Labour candidate though he is now 59).
Of those outside parliament, Andy Burnham is far and away the most likely. He is generally thought to be doing a good job in Greater Manchester, is authentically Northern and has a lot of support. David Miliband has no infrastructure.
Don't you find Burnham to be one of the most annoying politicians anywhere in the UK? Labour need to be looking to the future. I doubt he will get a look in on account of the fact that he is the wrong gender but Darren Jones seems to have Blair's charisma and self assurance but without Blair's dreadful earnestness.
In May of this year Burnham won his 3rd term as Mayor of Greater Manchester, with 63% of the vote and won every constituency within it, so clearly has a lot of support.
I am not suggesting that he would be the best choice, but could step down as Mayor in 2028 at the end of this term and be back in Parliament. He is far and away the most likely successor outside parliament, and being outside of parliament does help him look like a new broom, not tainted by Starmer/Reeves.
His stuff on buses is very good. A public good - so everyone can benefit*, an investment - so boosts growth, and users are primarily from lower income deciles - so improves services for the kind of people Labour cares about most.
It's the kind of policy that brings people together, rather than chopping us up into taxpayers and claimants, public and private sector, white and non-white.
*Including indirectly by reducing congestion for commercial and private drivers
When you have a decent bus service in a sector not served by trains, the users start extending into the middle and upper deciles in urban areas, as is well shown by the Edinburgh commuter runs. They'd be even more reliable if it weren't for cars. I really dislike the idiots who persist in queuing for the bypass slip roads even when it's been announced the bypass is u/s, and blocking the radials for the rest of us.
Bus services require a critical mass of people to allow a frequent enough service that people will use it.
A regular 10 service every 10 minutes and people just turn up and go, anything beyond about 15 minutes results in people having to think about it and passes some potential customers to using their car.
Agree. Any bus service that requires consultation of a timetable is a failure, and missing your bus during commuting times should never leave you more than 10 minutes late for work.
That's why I advocate a big bang approach to buses - none of this piecemeal additional service here and there. Have the bravery to go all in on a fully comprehensive network.
Back when I lived in Wiltshire, a local taxi company owner proposed using Priuses to create a higher frequency - 4 per hour - bus service. On routes that had about 1 bus every 2 hours.
The buses were empty, of course.
His theory was that if you start getting people onto a “bus” it would grow from there. Bigger vehicles at the popular times etc….
His side of it, was that it would subsidise his taxi business.
Will we see Reeves ditched at next reshuffle in an attempt to save Starmer. Let her take the blame for the first few months of technocratic nothing and failings?
It's a rough old trade.
But for who? And does that mean ditching policies?
I just can’t see how SKS becomes more popular if he does a U-turn now,
Whoever replaces her - and you are right it is really not obvious who that would be - will have to ditch the cut to WFA on day one. They also need to be far bolder. They have a massive majority - seize this opportunity to finally sort out local gov finance and council tax for example.
My gut feeling with the WFA, is they will tweak it next year or just cancel the cut as you said.
But I have to be honest, I accept it’s not popular but I find it hard to disagree with this policy. I mean, why were so many people getting it?
The mistake was in not getting rid of WFA for everyone.
By allowing those on pension credit to keep WFA it has reduced savings to miniscule levels (as more will now claim pension credit), created another financial cliff edge, discouraged people saving for their old age and still embittered ten million oldies.
An easy, effective, easy to administer option would be a tweak to Council Tax to give every property where bill payer is a pensioner a discount on Council Tax. Could exempt higher level council tax bands
Simple implementation
Government then covers Council shortfall with direct payment to Council
Better still administer longer term via Great British Energy who seek to get best rates with selective Energy Suppliers passed on and recommend recommend for all.
So you're suggesting lower council taxes for oldies even though oldies receive proportionally more of the council spending.
This country suffers from intergenerational inequality and you want to make it worse ?
As the population ages, inevitably the pendulum has to swing and non pensioners have to pay proportionately more.
We do need a 30 year national plan to resolve this with cross party support.
If you don't accept this logic you'll need to explain how we fund NHS and Social Care increased funding needed for aging population
Prevention is cheaper and better than cure.
Everyone needs to contribute:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
No exceptions.
Not oldies, not public sector workers, not the poor.
Everyone needs to lose out and to be seen to be losing out.
And find a political party willing to risk such a platform let alone be able to win many votes with it
It will be imposed by governments or the financial markets.
Some of it is already happening and other parts, for example increasing the state retirement age, will happen soon.
No it won't, no government or financial market can impose for long what a majority of the population reject. Italy tried it briefly with a technocrat PM, ended up with a populist right landslide for Meloni.
Macron has tried it recently and just seen a surge for Melenchon's block on far left and Le Pen's block on far right
The population will get what the population can afford.
When the limits of affordability are reached the only way some can get more is to take it from others.
Yes, which means the population will vote for big tax rises on the rich and deportation of immigrants claiming welfare and using public services taken to its extreme ie a combination of far left and far right.
As overall the average voter is neither rich nor an immigrant
There aren't enough rich willing to be taxed heavily enough.
There aren't enough poor immigrants willing to be deported.
The financial burden will be shared across everyone.
Which is why you will not be getting your state pension until you are 70.
Globally the average voter will vote for the rich to be squeezed until the pips squeek across the western world and for mass deportations for immigrants before they even consider voting for higher taxes for themselves and lower spending on the services they use for themselves.
If all the centre right offer is slashing spending on key services and all the centre liberal left offer is higher taxes on the average voter and small businesses and neither do anything to control immigration it is little surprise if the populist nationalist right and populist hard left both surge in the gap offering what most voters want
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
I don't think the Tories will be overtaken by Reform when the votes are counted. They may be ahead of them in a lot of opinion polls between now and then.
At the risk of being proved wrong (any columnist’s worst nightmare), I predict that Starmer’s own personality will not get him to the end of this Parliament.
Well in a speech in America Kemi was tacitly calling for Starmer's head because of his vicious racial attack on her.during his Pinewood snoozefest. (The MacDonalds vicious racial attack).
Starmer's McDonald's comment wasn't racist, but it was also a poor joke, and an insult. Not just to her, but everyone else who works at McDonalds.
His definition of 'work' may cause him issues in the future. He doesn't seem to respect people who do genuinely low-paid work in the private sector.
Starmer's point was the absurd assertion by Badenoch that working a few days in MaccieDs made her working class. What is this ludicrous rekindled British obsession with class? If you follow the "joke" through it doesn't demean anyone but Badenoch. She implies he only made such a "joke" because she is black.
If Badenoch is mortally offended and believes Starmer's comment was racially motivated she had every right to demand his resignation. She is the one who feels racially offended, not you.
As a matter of interest, where does the 'working a few days' in McD's come from?
Reporting has suggested a fortnight. Irrespective of days worked, remember Trump only worked in MaccieDs for five minutes and captured the zeitgeist, it is her assertion that raises an eyebrow The problem was she claimed working in MacDonalds made her working class which is arrant nonsense.
Her most recent point is Starmer is a racist for attacking her personally in any capacity. Entitled white man attacks black lady is her irrefutable point.
So these people who say "a few days" are making stuff up. Why do that, as her comment is so obviously stoopid?
Fourteen days is a few days if disingenuously impish on my part. But you are still missing both points. Her assertion on class was absurd, however if she detects and is offended by Starmer's jibe and considers he is guilty of racism she is better qualified than a pair of centrist dads.
Talking of reviled centrist dad posters on PB. @mexicanpete has lost a roof tile. Karma for his centrism?
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
I don't think the Tories will be overtaken by Reform when the votes are counted. They may be ahead of them in a lot of opinion polls between now and then.
The next election is just too far away for us to have much certainty about what will happen. I think it’s possible that the Tories do collapse and Reform benefit from that.
However, I’d lay Farage at the current odds for next PM.
I still think we’re talking the end of this government five months into office.
Ultimately if people feel better off in 2029 Labour wins otherwise they don’t.
To his credit, SKS has identified immigration as being a big problem for Labour. Unlike the leadership of the party between 2010 and 2020 who just decided to ignore it. But it’s whether he will actually do anything about it that matters. And what success is, I’m still not sure. Does anyone have a number?
I lean SKS loses but for an intelligent site it just seems odd to me that people are saying SKS is finished in December 2024.
He is a boring twat and should lose for that alone, his voice drives me crazy. Add fact he has no clue and is surrounded by duds , it is a foregone conclusion.
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
After a term in office, Labour will be down from this year’s 34%; that’s almost a given. So 32% is right at the upper end of credible scores. Nevertheless it is possible that if the rest of the vote is more evenly split between Tories, Reform and LibDems than last time, they could retain their big majority.
Unlikely given most Reform gains since the GE have now come from Labour not the Tories who are already down to their core vote
That core vote is elderly and moving to the cemetary at three times the rate of that for the other parties. You seem remarkably relaxed about the prospect of your party - which has dominated British governance for two centuries - becoming just a crutch for Farage and his merry bunch of idiots.
As a share of the electorate pensioners are the fastest growing group and there will always be pensioners who will always be more culturally conservative than the average voter and more likely to be home owners.
Farage of course would go to war on the woke liberal left if he won, if anything the Tories would be the moderating influence on that
If immigration came down to say 200,000 a year is that enough to demonstrate progress?
Absolutely not. Barry, 63, from Hartlepool who looks like a shaven pated Eric von Stroheim clad in head to foot Adidas wants net negative immigration and he wants to see and feel the difference on the litter strewn streets of the festering crap hole in which he lives.
At the risk of being proved wrong (any columnist’s worst nightmare), I predict that Starmer’s own personality will not get him to the end of this Parliament.
Then even less likely that Farage or Badenoch are next PM, and they both remain screaming lays
Why? A new leader isn't going to turn things around. They might be less of a toe curling embarrassment, but the damage is largely done.
The bet is next Prime Minister, not Prime Minister after the next election. Thus, if Starmer does not stay to contest the next election, the next Prime Minister will be a Labour MP.
I'd agree that the value in this market is on the Labour MPs.
Three main scenarios from here:
A. Labour continue to struggle, and push Starmer overboard before GE2029. Next PM is red.
B. Starmer stays on and loses in 2029. Next PM isn't red.
C. Starmer wins in 2028/9 and retires to muted appreciation a couple of years after that. Next PM is red.
I know Labour don't ditch leaders like the Conservatives do, but B doesn't seem that likely. (And the numbers sort of reflect that. Nigel or Kemi combined is under 50% chance, even with the mug punters boost.)
About right I think. Within those boundaries, and allowing for black swans, the next PM race is a 50 horse steeplechase in the mud, not a 6 runner 5 furlong on the flat. Whoever is the favourite should be at longish odds - something like 8/1 or longer. The next PM may be someone we have hardly heard of, it is just possible they are not even in the HoC at this moment. (Miliband D would be easily the best Labour candidate though he is now 59).
Of those outside parliament, Andy Burnham is far and away the most likely. He is generally thought to be doing a good job in Greater Manchester, is authentically Northern and has a lot of support. David Miliband has no infrastructure.
Don't you find Burnham to be one of the most annoying politicians anywhere in the UK? Labour need to be looking to the future. I doubt he will get a look in on account of the fact that he is the wrong gender but Darren Jones seems to have Blair's charisma and self assurance but without Blair's dreadful earnestness.
In May of this year Burnham won his 3rd term as Mayor of Greater Manchester, with 63% of the vote and won every constituency within it, so clearly has a lot of support.
I am not suggesting that he would be the best choice, but could step down as Mayor in 2028 at the end of this term and be back in Parliament. He is far and away the most likely successor outside parliament, and being outside of parliament does help him look like a new broom, not tainted by Starmer/Reeves.
His stuff on buses is very good. A public good - so everyone can benefit*, an investment - so boosts growth, and users are primarily from lower income deciles - so improves services for the kind of people Labour cares about most.
It's the kind of policy that brings people together, rather than chopping us up into taxpayers and claimants, public and private sector, white and non-white.
*Including indirectly by reducing congestion for commercial and private drivers
When you have a decent bus service in a sector not served by trains, the users start extending into the middle and upper deciles in urban areas, as is well shown by the Edinburgh commuter runs. They'd be even more reliable if it weren't for cars. I really dislike the idiots who persist in queuing for the bypass slip roads even when it's been announced the bypass is u/s, and blocking the radials for the rest of us.
Bus services require a critical mass of people to allow a frequent enough service that people will use it.
A regular 10 service every 10 minutes and people just turn up and go, anything beyond about 15 minutes results in people having to think about it and passes some potential customers to using their car.
Agree. Any bus service that requires consultation of a timetable is a failure, and missing your bus during commuting times should never leave you more than 10 minutes late for work.
That's why I advocate a big bang approach to buses - none of this piecemeal additional service here and there. Have the bravery to go all in on a fully comprehensive network.
Back when I lived in Wiltshire, a local taxi company owner proposed using Priuses to create a higher frequency - 4 per hour - bus service. On routes that had about 1 bus every 2 hours.
The buses were empty, of course.
His theory was that if you start getting people onto a “bus” it would grow from there. Bigger vehicles at the popular times etc….
His side of it, was that it would subsidise his taxi business.
Will we see Reeves ditched at next reshuffle in an attempt to save Starmer. Let her take the blame for the first few months of technocratic nothing and failings?
It's a rough old trade.
But for who? And does that mean ditching policies?
I just can’t see how SKS becomes more popular if he does a U-turn now,
Whoever replaces her - and you are right it is really not obvious who that would be - will have to ditch the cut to WFA on day one. They also need to be far bolder. They have a massive majority - seize this opportunity to finally sort out local gov finance and council tax for example.
My gut feeling with the WFA, is they will tweak it next year or just cancel the cut as you said.
But I have to be honest, I accept it’s not popular but I find it hard to disagree with this policy. I mean, why were so many people getting it?
The mistake was in not getting rid of WFA for everyone.
By allowing those on pension credit to keep WFA it has reduced savings to miniscule levels (as more will now claim pension credit), created another financial cliff edge, discouraged people saving for their old age and still embittered ten million oldies.
An easy, effective, easy to administer option would be a tweak to Council Tax to give every property where bill payer is a pensioner a discount on Council Tax. Could exempt higher level council tax bands
Simple implementation
Government then covers Council shortfall with direct payment to Council
Better still administer longer term via Great British Energy who seek to get best rates with selective Energy Suppliers passed on and recommend recommend for all.
So you're suggesting lower council taxes for oldies even though oldies receive proportionally more of the council spending.
This country suffers from intergenerational inequality and you want to make it worse ?
As the population ages, inevitably the pendulum has to swing and non pensioners have to pay proportionately more.
We do need a 30 year national plan to resolve this with cross party support.
If you don't accept this logic you'll need to explain how we fund NHS and Social Care increased funding needed for aging population
Prevention is cheaper and better than cure.
Everyone needs to contribute:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
No exceptions.
Not oldies, not public sector workers, not the poor.
Everyone needs to lose out and to be seen to be losing out.
And find a political party willing to risk such a platform let alone be able to win many votes with it
It will be imposed by governments or the financial markets.
Some of it is already happening and other parts, for example increasing the state retirement age, will happen soon.
No it won't, no government or financial market can impose for long what a majority of the population reject. Italy tried it briefly with a technocrat PM, ended up with a populist right landslide for Meloni.
Macron has tried it recently and just seen a surge for Melenchon's block on far left and Le Pen's block on far right
The population will get what the population can afford.
When the limits of affordability are reached the only way some can get more is to take it from others.
Yes, which means the population will vote for big tax rises on the rich and deportation of immigrants claiming welfare and using public services taken to its extreme ie a combination of far left and far right.
As overall the average voter is neither rich nor an immigrant
Something like that is coming to Europe. Not just harsh migration policies but actual deportations, and en masse
Indeed it is already happening. - Sweden is paying legal migrants to leave and has achieved net emigration. This will be scaled up
An entirely avoidable tragedy caused by a huge, stupid and failed experiment
Sweden's policy doesn't start until 2026.
And if they are leaving voluntarily and being paid, they will come back. We've tried this here. It failed.
At the risk of being proved wrong (any columnist’s worst nightmare), I predict that Starmer’s own personality will not get him to the end of this Parliament.
Then even less likely that Farage or Badenoch are next PM, and they both remain screaming lays
Why? A new leader isn't going to turn things around. They might be less of a toe curling embarrassment, but the damage is largely done.
The bet is next Prime Minister, not Prime Minister after the next election. Thus, if Starmer does not stay to contest the next election, the next Prime Minister will be a Labour MP.
I'd agree that the value in this market is on the Labour MPs.
Three main scenarios from here:
A. Labour continue to struggle, and push Starmer overboard before GE2029. Next PM is red.
B. Starmer stays on and loses in 2029. Next PM isn't red.
C. Starmer wins in 2028/9 and retires to muted appreciation a couple of years after that. Next PM is red.
I know Labour don't ditch leaders like the Conservatives do, but B doesn't seem that likely. (And the numbers sort of reflect that. Nigel or Kemi combined is under 50% chance, even with the mug punters boost.)
About right I think. Within those boundaries, and allowing for black swans, the next PM race is a 50 horse steeplechase in the mud, not a 6 runner 5 furlong on the flat. Whoever is the favourite should be at longish odds - something like 8/1 or longer. The next PM may be someone we have hardly heard of, it is just possible they are not even in the HoC at this moment. (Miliband D would be easily the best Labour candidate though he is now 59).
Of those outside parliament, Andy Burnham is far and away the most likely. He is generally thought to be doing a good job in Greater Manchester, is authentically Northern and has a lot of support. David Miliband has no infrastructure.
Don't you find Burnham to be one of the most annoying politicians anywhere in the UK? Labour need to be looking to the future. I doubt he will get a look in on account of the fact that he is the wrong gender but Darren Jones seems to have Blair's charisma and self assurance but without Blair's dreadful earnestness.
In May of this year Burnham won his 3rd term as Mayor of Greater Manchester, with 63% of the vote and won every constituency within it, so clearly has a lot of support.
I am not suggesting that he would be the best choice, but could step down as Mayor in 2028 at the end of this term and be back in Parliament. He is far and away the most likely successor outside parliament, and being outside of parliament does help him look like a new broom, not tainted by Starmer/Reeves.
His stuff on buses is very good. A public good - so everyone can benefit*, an investment - so boosts growth, and users are primarily from lower income deciles - so improves services for the kind of people Labour cares about most.
It's the kind of policy that brings people together, rather than chopping us up into taxpayers and claimants, public and private sector, white and non-white.
*Including indirectly by reducing congestion for commercial and private drivers
When you have a decent bus service in a sector not served by trains, the users start extending into the middle and upper deciles in urban areas, as is well shown by the Edinburgh commuter runs. They'd be even more reliable if it weren't for cars. I really dislike the idiots who persist in queuing for the bypass slip roads even when it's been announced the bypass is u/s, and blocking the radials for the rest of us.
Bus services require a critical mass of people to allow a frequent enough service that people will use it.
A regular 10 service every 10 minutes and people just turn up and go, anything beyond about 15 minutes results in people having to think about it and passes some potential customers to using their car.
Agree. Any bus service that requires consultation of a timetable is a failure, and missing your bus during commuting times should never leave you more than 10 minutes late for work.
That's why I advocate a big bang approach to buses - none of this piecemeal additional service here and there. Have the bravery to go all in on a fully comprehensive network.
Back when I lived in Wiltshire, a local taxi company owner proposed using Priuses to create a higher frequency - 4 per hour - bus service. On routes that had about 1 bus every 2 hours.
The buses were empty, of course.
His theory was that if you start getting people onto a “bus” it would grow from there. Bigger vehicles at the popular times etc….
His side of it, was that it would subsidise his taxi business.
Will we see Reeves ditched at next reshuffle in an attempt to save Starmer. Let her take the blame for the first few months of technocratic nothing and failings?
It's a rough old trade.
But for who? And does that mean ditching policies?
I just can’t see how SKS becomes more popular if he does a U-turn now,
Whoever replaces her - and you are right it is really not obvious who that would be - will have to ditch the cut to WFA on day one. They also need to be far bolder. They have a massive majority - seize this opportunity to finally sort out local gov finance and council tax for example.
My gut feeling with the WFA, is they will tweak it next year or just cancel the cut as you said.
But I have to be honest, I accept it’s not popular but I find it hard to disagree with this policy. I mean, why were so many people getting it?
The mistake was in not getting rid of WFA for everyone.
By allowing those on pension credit to keep WFA it has reduced savings to miniscule levels (as more will now claim pension credit), created another financial cliff edge, discouraged people saving for their old age and still embittered ten million oldies.
An easy, effective, easy to administer option would be a tweak to Council Tax to give every property where bill payer is a pensioner a discount on Council Tax. Could exempt higher level council tax bands
Simple implementation
Government then covers Council shortfall with direct payment to Council
Better still administer longer term via Great British Energy who seek to get best rates with selective Energy Suppliers passed on and recommend recommend for all.
So you're suggesting lower council taxes for oldies even though oldies receive proportionally more of the council spending.
This country suffers from intergenerational inequality and you want to make it worse ?
As the population ages, inevitably the pendulum has to swing and non pensioners have to pay proportionately more.
We do need a 30 year national plan to resolve this with cross party support.
If you don't accept this logic you'll need to explain how we fund NHS and Social Care increased funding needed for aging population
Prevention is cheaper and better than cure.
Everyone needs to contribute:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
No exceptions.
Not oldies, not public sector workers, not the poor.
Everyone needs to lose out and to be seen to be losing out.
And find a political party willing to risk such a platform let alone be able to win many votes with it
It will be imposed by governments or the financial markets.
Some of it is already happening and other parts, for example increasing the state retirement age, will happen soon.
No it won't, no government or financial market can impose for long what a majority of the population reject. Italy tried it briefly with a technocrat PM, ended up with a populist right landslide for Meloni.
Macron has tried it recently and just seen a surge for Melenchon's block on far left and Le Pen's block on far right
The population will get what the population can afford.
When the limits of affordability are reached the only way some can get more is to take it from others.
Yes, which means the population will vote for big tax rises on the rich and deportation of immigrants claiming welfare and using public services taken to its extreme ie a combination of far left and far right.
As overall the average voter is neither rich nor an immigrant
Something like that is coming to Europe. Not just harsh migration policies but actual deportations, and en masse
Indeed it is already happening. - Sweden is paying legal migrants to leave and has achieved net emigration. This will be scaled up
An entirely avoidable tragedy caused by a huge, stupid and failed experiment
Plus Trump and Le Pen offering more of the same and Meloni and Salvini similar in Italy, as is Dutton in Australia and the AfD in Germany, Vox in Spain and Farage here and the Freedom Party topped the poll in Austria.
However growing hardline anti immigration sentiment is also counterbalanced by significant support for taxing the rich more and spending more on healthcare and core public services. I suspect the Democrats would have done better with Sanders in November than uber woke rich liberal elitist Harris for example. Corbyn for all his faults got a higher voteshare in 2017 than Starmer did in July and even in 2019 Corbyn polled higher than Starmer is now.
Melenchon too saw his block of leftists surprisingly get most seats in the recent French legislative elections in the second round even though Le Pen's party had won the first round
At the risk of being proved wrong (any columnist’s worst nightmare), I predict that Starmer’s own personality will not get him to the end of this Parliament.
Then even less likely that Farage or Badenoch are next PM, and they both remain screaming lays
Why? A new leader isn't going to turn things around. They might be less of a toe curling embarrassment, but the damage is largely done.
The bet is next Prime Minister, not Prime Minister after the next election. Thus, if Starmer does not stay to contest the next election, the next Prime Minister will be a Labour MP.
I'd agree that the value in this market is on the Labour MPs.
Three main scenarios from here:
A. Labour continue to struggle, and push Starmer overboard before GE2029. Next PM is red.
B. Starmer stays on and loses in 2029. Next PM isn't red.
C. Starmer wins in 2028/9 and retires to muted appreciation a couple of years after that. Next PM is red.
I know Labour don't ditch leaders like the Conservatives do, but B doesn't seem that likely. (And the numbers sort of reflect that. Nigel or Kemi combined is under 50% chance, even with the mug punters boost.)
About right I think. Within those boundaries, and allowing for black swans, the next PM race is a 50 horse steeplechase in the mud, not a 6 runner 5 furlong on the flat. Whoever is the favourite should be at longish odds - something like 8/1 or longer. The next PM may be someone we have hardly heard of, it is just possible they are not even in the HoC at this moment. (Miliband D would be easily the best Labour candidate though he is now 59).
Of those outside parliament, Andy Burnham is far and away the most likely. He is generally thought to be doing a good job in Greater Manchester, is authentically Northern and has a lot of support. David Miliband has no infrastructure.
Don't you find Burnham to be one of the most annoying politicians anywhere in the UK? Labour need to be looking to the future. I doubt he will get a look in on account of the fact that he is the wrong gender but Darren Jones seems to have Blair's charisma and self assurance but without Blair's dreadful earnestness.
In May of this year Burnham won his 3rd term as Mayor of Greater Manchester, with 63% of the vote and won every constituency within it, so clearly has a lot of support.
I am not suggesting that he would be the best choice, but could step down as Mayor in 2028 at the end of this term and be back in Parliament. He is far and away the most likely successor outside parliament, and being outside of parliament does help him look like a new broom, not tainted by Starmer/Reeves.
His stuff on buses is very good. A public good - so everyone can benefit*, an investment - so boosts growth, and users are primarily from lower income deciles - so improves services for the kind of people Labour cares about most.
It's the kind of policy that brings people together, rather than chopping us up into taxpayers and claimants, public and private sector, white and non-white.
*Including indirectly by reducing congestion for commercial and private drivers
When you have a decent bus service in a sector not served by trains, the users start extending into the middle and upper deciles in urban areas, as is well shown by the Edinburgh commuter runs. They'd be even more reliable if it weren't for cars. I really dislike the idiots who persist in queuing for the bypass slip roads even when it's been announced the bypass is u/s, and blocking the radials for the rest of us.
Bus services require a critical mass of people to allow a frequent enough service that people will use it.
A regular 10 service every 10 minutes and people just turn up and go, anything beyond about 15 minutes results in people having to think about it and passes some potential customers to using their car.
Agree. Any bus service that requires consultation of a timetable is a failure, and missing your bus during commuting times should never leave you more than 10 minutes late for work.
That's why I advocate a big bang approach to buses - none of this piecemeal additional service here and there. Have the bravery to go all in on a fully comprehensive network.
Back when I lived in Wiltshire, a local taxi company owner proposed using Priuses to create a higher frequency - 4 per hour - bus service. On routes that had about 1 bus every 2 hours.
The buses were empty, of course.
His theory was that if you start getting people onto a “bus” it would grow from there. Bigger vehicles at the popular times etc….
His side of it, was that it would subsidise his taxi business.
Will we see Reeves ditched at next reshuffle in an attempt to save Starmer. Let her take the blame for the first few months of technocratic nothing and failings?
It's a rough old trade.
But for who? And does that mean ditching policies?
I just can’t see how SKS becomes more popular if he does a U-turn now,
Whoever replaces her - and you are right it is really not obvious who that would be - will have to ditch the cut to WFA on day one. They also need to be far bolder. They have a massive majority - seize this opportunity to finally sort out local gov finance and council tax for example.
My gut feeling with the WFA, is they will tweak it next year or just cancel the cut as you said.
But I have to be honest, I accept it’s not popular but I find it hard to disagree with this policy. I mean, why were so many people getting it?
The mistake was in not getting rid of WFA for everyone.
By allowing those on pension credit to keep WFA it has reduced savings to miniscule levels (as more will now claim pension credit), created another financial cliff edge, discouraged people saving for their old age and still embittered ten million oldies.
An easy, effective, easy to administer option would be a tweak to Council Tax to give every property where bill payer is a pensioner a discount on Council Tax. Could exempt higher level council tax bands
Simple implementation
Government then covers Council shortfall with direct payment to Council
Better still administer longer term via Great British Energy who seek to get best rates with selective Energy Suppliers passed on and recommend recommend for all.
So you're suggesting lower council taxes for oldies even though oldies receive proportionally more of the council spending.
This country suffers from intergenerational inequality and you want to make it worse ?
As the population ages, inevitably the pendulum has to swing and non pensioners have to pay proportionately more.
We do need a 30 year national plan to resolve this with cross party support.
If you don't accept this logic you'll need to explain how we fund NHS and Social Care increased funding needed for aging population
Prevention is cheaper and better than cure.
Everyone needs to contribute:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
No exceptions.
Not oldies, not public sector workers, not the poor.
Everyone needs to lose out and to be seen to be losing out.
And find a political party willing to risk such a platform let alone be able to win many votes with it
It will be imposed by governments or the financial markets.
Some of it is already happening and other parts, for example increasing the state retirement age, will happen soon.
No it won't, no government or financial market can impose for long what a majority of the population reject. Italy tried it briefly with a technocrat PM, ended up with a populist right landslide for Meloni.
Macron has tried it recently and just seen a surge for Melenchon's block on far left and Le Pen's block on far right
The population will get what the population can afford.
When the limits of affordability are reached the only way some can get more is to take it from others.
Yes, which means the population will vote for big tax rises on the rich and deportation of immigrants claiming welfare and using public services taken to its extreme ie a combination of far left and far right.
As overall the average voter is neither rich nor an immigrant
Something like that is coming to Europe. Not just harsh migration policies but actual deportations, and en masse
Indeed it is already happening. - Sweden is paying legal migrants to leave and has achieved net emigration. This will be scaled up
An entirely avoidable tragedy caused by a huge, stupid and failed experiment
Plus Trump and Le Pen offering more of the same and Meloni and Salvini similar in Italy, as is Dutton in Australia and the AfD in Germany, Vox in Spain and Farage here and the Freedom Party topped the poll in Austria.
However growing hardline anti immigration sentiment is also counterbalanced by significant support for taxing the rich more and spending more on healthcare and core public services. I suspect the Democrats would have done better with Sanders in November than uber woke rich liberal elitist Harris for example. Corbyn for all his faults got a higher voteshare in 2017 than Starmer did in July and even in 2019 Corbyn polled higher than Starmer is now.
Melenchon too saw his block of leftists surprisingly get most seats in the recent French legislative elections in the second round even though Le Pen's party had won the first round
Up the revolution!
As we have the ballot box and universal suffrage we no longer need the guillotine, block and firing squad and dungeons if the rich elite are seen to have failed now fortunately, they just lose power to the populists
A light show advertising the screen the size of a building, dominating the White City Circle - one of the more complex signallised (with traffic lights) junctions in Manchester with 4 or 8 lane carriageways everywhere. Then the sillies in their auto-bubbles with their heads in their phones get screens outside as well? WATF?
A short 2 minute video, also pointing out how horrible this is for pedestrians - multiple staggered crossing taking a number of minutes to get anywhere.
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
In 2029 with better disposable income better housing provision, better NHS, better Transport infrastructure, net migration halved, the seeding of clouds over Calais ensuring permanent force 9 gales in the Channel... Why not
Net migration halved from almost 1 million is still half a million! Far too high.
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
After a term in office, Labour will be down from this year’s 34%; that’s almost a given. So 32% is right at the upper end of credible scores. Nevertheless it is possible that if the rest of the vote is more evenly split between Tories, Reform and LibDems than last time, they could retain their big majority.
Unlikely given most Reform gains since the GE have now come from Labour not the Tories who are already down to their core vote
That core vote is elderly and moving to the cemetary at three times the rate of that for the other parties. You seem remarkably relaxed about the prospect of your party - which has dominated British governance for two centuries - becoming just a crutch for Farage and his merry bunch of idiots.
As a share of the electorate pensioners are the fastest growing group and there will always be pensioners who will always be more culturally conservative than the average voter and more likely to be home owners.
Farage of course would go to war on the woke liberal left if he won, if anything the Tories would be the moderating influence on that
Sadly for your party, people are no longer turning to the Conservatives as they get older.
At the risk of being proved wrong (any columnist’s worst nightmare), I predict that Starmer’s own personality will not get him to the end of this Parliament.
Then even less likely that Farage or Badenoch are next PM, and they both remain screaming lays
Why? A new leader isn't going to turn things around. They might be less of a toe curling embarrassment, but the damage is largely done.
The bet is next Prime Minister, not Prime Minister after the next election. Thus, if Starmer does not stay to contest the next election, the next Prime Minister will be a Labour MP.
I'd agree that the value in this market is on the Labour MPs.
Three main scenarios from here:
A. Labour continue to struggle, and push Starmer overboard before GE2029. Next PM is red.
B. Starmer stays on and loses in 2029. Next PM isn't red.
C. Starmer wins in 2028/9 and retires to muted appreciation a couple of years after that. Next PM is red.
I know Labour don't ditch leaders like the Conservatives do, but B doesn't seem that likely. (And the numbers sort of reflect that. Nigel or Kemi combined is under 50% chance, even with the mug punters boost.)
About right I think. Within those boundaries, and allowing for black swans, the next PM race is a 50 horse steeplechase in the mud, not a 6 runner 5 furlong on the flat. Whoever is the favourite should be at longish odds - something like 8/1 or longer. The next PM may be someone we have hardly heard of, it is just possible they are not even in the HoC at this moment. (Miliband D would be easily the best Labour candidate though he is now 59).
Of those outside parliament, Andy Burnham is far and away the most likely. He is generally thought to be doing a good job in Greater Manchester, is authentically Northern and has a lot of support. David Miliband has no infrastructure.
Don't you find Burnham to be one of the most annoying politicians anywhere in the UK? Labour need to be looking to the future. I doubt he will get a look in on account of the fact that he is the wrong gender but Darren Jones seems to have Blair's charisma and self assurance but without Blair's dreadful earnestness.
In May of this year Burnham won his 3rd term as Mayor of Greater Manchester, with 63% of the vote and won every constituency within it, so clearly has a lot of support.
I am not suggesting that he would be the best choice, but could step down as Mayor in 2028 at the end of this term and be back in Parliament. He is far and away the most likely successor outside parliament, and being outside of parliament does help him look like a new broom, not tainted by Starmer/Reeves.
His stuff on buses is very good. A public good - so everyone can benefit*, an investment - so boosts growth, and users are primarily from lower income deciles - so improves services for the kind of people Labour cares about most.
It's the kind of policy that brings people together, rather than chopping us up into taxpayers and claimants, public and private sector, white and non-white.
*Including indirectly by reducing congestion for commercial and private drivers
When you have a decent bus service in a sector not served by trains, the users start extending into the middle and upper deciles in urban areas, as is well shown by the Edinburgh commuter runs. They'd be even more reliable if it weren't for cars. I really dislike the idiots who persist in queuing for the bypass slip roads even when it's been announced the bypass is u/s, and blocking the radials for the rest of us.
Bus services require a critical mass of people to allow a frequent enough service that people will use it.
A regular 10 service every 10 minutes and people just turn up and go, anything beyond about 15 minutes results in people having to think about it and passes some potential customers to using their car.
Agree. Any bus service that requires consultation of a timetable is a failure, and missing your bus during commuting times should never leave you more than 10 minutes late for work.
That's why I advocate a big bang approach to buses - none of this piecemeal additional service here and there. Have the bravery to go all in on a fully comprehensive network.
Back when I lived in Wiltshire, a local taxi company owner proposed using Priuses to create a higher frequency - 4 per hour - bus service. On routes that had about 1 bus every 2 hours.
The buses were empty, of course.
His theory was that if you start getting people onto a “bus” it would grow from there. Bigger vehicles at the popular times etc….
His side of it, was that it would subsidise his taxi business.
Will we see Reeves ditched at next reshuffle in an attempt to save Starmer. Let her take the blame for the first few months of technocratic nothing and failings?
It's a rough old trade.
But for who? And does that mean ditching policies?
I just can’t see how SKS becomes more popular if he does a U-turn now,
Whoever replaces her - and you are right it is really not obvious who that would be - will have to ditch the cut to WFA on day one. They also need to be far bolder. They have a massive majority - seize this opportunity to finally sort out local gov finance and council tax for example.
My gut feeling with the WFA, is they will tweak it next year or just cancel the cut as you said.
But I have to be honest, I accept it’s not popular but I find it hard to disagree with this policy. I mean, why were so many people getting it?
The mistake was in not getting rid of WFA for everyone.
By allowing those on pension credit to keep WFA it has reduced savings to miniscule levels (as more will now claim pension credit), created another financial cliff edge, discouraged people saving for their old age and still embittered ten million oldies.
An easy, effective, easy to administer option would be a tweak to Council Tax to give every property where bill payer is a pensioner a discount on Council Tax. Could exempt higher level council tax bands
Simple implementation
Government then covers Council shortfall with direct payment to Council
Better still administer longer term via Great British Energy who seek to get best rates with selective Energy Suppliers passed on and recommend recommend for all.
So you're suggesting lower council taxes for oldies even though oldies receive proportionally more of the council spending.
This country suffers from intergenerational inequality and you want to make it worse ?
As the population ages, inevitably the pendulum has to swing and non pensioners have to pay proportionately more.
We do need a 30 year national plan to resolve this with cross party support.
If you don't accept this logic you'll need to explain how we fund NHS and Social Care increased funding needed for aging population
Prevention is cheaper and better than cure.
Everyone needs to contribute:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
No exceptions.
Not oldies, not public sector workers, not the poor.
Everyone needs to lose out and to be seen to be losing out.
And find a political party willing to risk such a platform let alone be able to win many votes with it
It will be imposed by governments or the financial markets.
Some of it is already happening and other parts, for example increasing the state retirement age, will happen soon.
No it won't, no government or financial market can impose for long what a majority of the population reject. Italy tried it briefly with a technocrat PM, ended up with a populist right landslide for Meloni.
Macron has tried it recently and just seen a surge for Melenchon's block on far left and Le Pen's block on far right
The population will get what the population can afford.
When the limits of affordability are reached the only way some can get more is to take it from others.
Yes, which means the population will vote for big tax rises on the rich and deportation of immigrants claiming welfare and using public services taken to its extreme ie a combination of far left and far right.
As overall the average voter is neither rich nor an immigrant
There aren't enough rich willing to be taxed heavily enough.
There aren't enough poor immigrants willing to be deported.
The financial burden will be shared across everyone.
Which is why you will not be getting your state pension until you are 70.
Globally the average voter will vote for the rich to be squeezed until the pips squeek across the western world and for mass deportations for immigrants before they even consider voting for higher taxes for themselves and lower spending on the services they use for themselves.
If all the centre right offer is slashing spending on key services and all the centre liberal left offer is higher taxes on the average voter and small businesses and neither do anything to control immigration it is little surprise if the populist nationalist right and populist hard left both surge in the gap offering what most voters want
People can vote for what they want.
But people will get what can be afforded.
So it comes back to what will happen:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
Many people will discover that the 'rich' they want to tax includes themselves and/or the 'undeserving' they want to cut services on includes themselves.
I am leaving Santa Cruz de Mompox. The city on the island in the river in the middle of watery nowhere. This makes me sad, not least because when you return to Mompox by water, as I did yesterday, it looks like this
So is this Eel Pie Island, Ile de la Cite, or St Helena?
Gabriel Garcia Marquez:
“Mompox no existe. A veces soñamos con ella, pero no existe.”
“Mompox does not exist. Sometimes we dream of it, but it does not exist.”
I disagree with Gabo. Mompox is a dream that exists, - shimmering on the watery edge of reality, but it exists.
Have you been licking Columbian Colorado River toads?
I still think we’re talking the end of this government five months into office.
Ultimately if people feel better off in 2029 Labour wins otherwise they don’t.
To his credit, SKS has identified immigration as being a big problem for Labour. Unlike the leadership of the party between 2010 and 2020 who just decided to ignore it. But it’s whether he will actually do anything about it that matters. And what success is, I’m still not sure. Does anyone have a number?
I lean SKS loses but for an intelligent site it just seems odd to me that people are saying SKS is finished in December 2024.
He is a boring twat and should lose for that alone, his voice drives me crazy. Add fact he has no clue and is surrounded by duds , it is a foregone conclusion.
If being a boring twat were disqualification, we on PB wouldn't have to wade through so many of Leon’s posts to get to those from people who have actually thought about stuff, before typing it out.
Whatever one thinks of Starmer's 'joke' (McDonaldsgate/007gate), Badenoch's response to it is just utterly bizarre, particularly: "And if a Conservative prime minister had made those comments about a black party leader, they would have been called a racist and asked to resign." Woke as I am in my awareness of racial injustice etc., I just can't see where she's got the racial angle from. Bizarre.
The implication is she expects preferential treatment on account of being black - having previously made a big deal of criticising that sort of attitude.
Looking forward to Kemi being asked to comment next time there’s a gammony explosion at the suggestion that 007 should be black.
Al Qaeda linked rebels HTS dominate the rebels overall.
Assad will try and hold the Alawite heartlands on the coast and Lebanese border and parts of Damascus with Russian mercenary and Hezbollah support. Alawites will also fight for Assad as he is one of their own
A light show advertising the screen the size of a building, dominating the White City Circle - one of the more complex signallised (with traffic lights) junctions in Manchester with 4 or 8 lane carriageways everywhere. Then the sillies in their auto-bubbles with their heads in their phones get screens outside as well? WATF?
A short 2 minute video, also pointing out how horrible this is for pedestrians - multiple staggered crossing taking a number of minutes to get anywhere.
My bete noir is when a phone box has gone, an advertising sign is permitted to remain blocking half a footway. Why?
Not sure. The trouble with the video is the bloke squeezed every complaint he could think of into one short video rather than just making his main point.
The safety of tap water in the UK could be at risk because water companies are unable to use products to clean it, industry insiders have said, as all the laboratories that test and certify the chemicals have shut down.
People in the industry have called it a “Brexit problem” because EU countries will share laboratory capacity from 2026, meaning that if the UK was still in the EU, water companies would be able to use products that passed tests on the continent.
But UK rules mean products cannot be tested abroad; they have to be tested in the country in a certified lab, of which there are now none.
I still think we’re talking the end of this government five months into office.
Ultimately if people feel better off in 2029 Labour wins otherwise they don’t.
To his credit, SKS has identified immigration as being a big problem for Labour. Unlike the leadership of the party between 2010 and 2020 who just decided to ignore it. But it’s whether he will actually do anything about it that matters. And what success is, I’m still not sure. Does anyone have a number?
I lean SKS loses but for an intelligent site it just seems odd to me that people are saying SKS is finished in December 2024.
He is a boring twat and should lose for that alone, his voice drives me crazy. Add fact he has no clue and is surrounded by duds , it is a foregone conclusion.
If being a boring twat were disqualification, we on PB wouldn't have to wade through so many of Leon’s posts to get to those from people who have actually thought about stuff, before typing it out.
Only my posts are worth reading! I am the world’s first computer-using horse!
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
After a term in office, Labour will be down from this year’s 34%; that’s almost a given. So 32% is right at the upper end of credible scores. Nevertheless it is possible that if the rest of the vote is more evenly split between Tories, Reform and LibDems than last time, they could retain their big majority.
Unlikely given most Reform gains since the GE have now come from Labour not the Tories who are already down to their core vote
That core vote is elderly and moving to the cemetary at three times the rate of that for the other parties. You seem remarkably relaxed about the prospect of your party - which has dominated British governance for two centuries - becoming just a crutch for Farage and his merry bunch of idiots.
As a share of the electorate pensioners are the fastest growing group and there will always be pensioners who will always be more culturally conservative than the average voter and more likely to be home owners.
Farage of course would go to war on the woke liberal left if he won, if anything the Tories would be the moderating influence on that
Sadly for your party, people are no longer turning to the Conservatives as they get older.
Once they are pensioners they are, overwhelmingly so when in 1997 the Tories lost pensioners.
Just Reform doing better with the middle aged. Of course a Farage led government would be far more rightwing culturally than any we have had for a generation and would go to war with the woke liberal left. If he wins most seats but not a majority the Tory ministers in Farage's Cabinet would if anything be the moderates, certainly on social issues
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
After a term in office, Labour will be down from this year’s 34%; that’s almost a given. So 32% is right at the upper end of credible scores. Nevertheless it is possible that if the rest of the vote is more evenly split between Tories, Reform and LibDems than last time, they could retain their big majority.
Unlikely given most Reform gains since the GE have now come from Labour not the Tories who are already down to their core vote
That core vote is elderly and moving to the cemetary at three times the rate of that for the other parties. You seem remarkably relaxed about the prospect of your party - which has dominated British governance for two centuries - becoming just a crutch for Farage and his merry bunch of idiots.
As a share of the electorate pensioners are the fastest growing group and there will always be pensioners who will always be more culturally conservative than the average voter and more likely to be home owners.
Farage of course would go to war on the woke liberal left if he won, if anything the Tories would be the moderating influence on that
Sadly for your party, people are no longer turning to the Conservatives as they get older.
Once they are pensioners they are, overwhelmingly so when in 1997 the Tories lost pensioners.
At the risk of being proved wrong (any columnist’s worst nightmare), I predict that Starmer’s own personality will not get him to the end of this Parliament.
Then even less likely that Farage or Badenoch are next PM, and they both remain screaming lays
Why? A new leader isn't going to turn things around. They might be less of a toe curling embarrassment, but the damage is largely done.
The bet is next Prime Minister, not Prime Minister after the next election. Thus, if Starmer does not stay to contest the next election, the next Prime Minister will be a Labour MP.
I'd agree that the value in this market is on the Labour MPs.
Three main scenarios from here:
A. Labour continue to struggle, and push Starmer overboard before GE2029. Next PM is red.
B. Starmer stays on and loses in 2029. Next PM isn't red.
C. Starmer wins in 2028/9 and retires to muted appreciation a couple of years after that. Next PM is red.
I know Labour don't ditch leaders like the Conservatives do, but B doesn't seem that likely. (And the numbers sort of reflect that. Nigel or Kemi combined is under 50% chance, even with the mug punters boost.)
About right I think. Within those boundaries, and allowing for black swans, the next PM race is a 50 horse steeplechase in the mud, not a 6 runner 5 furlong on the flat. Whoever is the favourite should be at longish odds - something like 8/1 or longer. The next PM may be someone we have hardly heard of, it is just possible they are not even in the HoC at this moment. (Miliband D would be easily the best Labour candidate though he is now 59).
Of those outside parliament, Andy Burnham is far and away the most likely. He is generally thought to be doing a good job in Greater Manchester, is authentically Northern and has a lot of support. David Miliband has no infrastructure.
Don't you find Burnham to be one of the most annoying politicians anywhere in the UK? Labour need to be looking to the future. I doubt he will get a look in on account of the fact that he is the wrong gender but Darren Jones seems to have Blair's charisma and self assurance but without Blair's dreadful earnestness.
In May of this year Burnham won his 3rd term as Mayor of Greater Manchester, with 63% of the vote and won every constituency within it, so clearly has a lot of support.
I am not suggesting that he would be the best choice, but could step down as Mayor in 2028 at the end of this term and be back in Parliament. He is far and away the most likely successor outside parliament, and being outside of parliament does help him look like a new broom, not tainted by Starmer/Reeves.
His stuff on buses is very good. A public good - so everyone can benefit*, an investment - so boosts growth, and users are primarily from lower income deciles - so improves services for the kind of people Labour cares about most.
It's the kind of policy that brings people together, rather than chopping us up into taxpayers and claimants, public and private sector, white and non-white.
*Including indirectly by reducing congestion for commercial and private drivers
When you have a decent bus service in a sector not served by trains, the users start extending into the middle and upper deciles in urban areas, as is well shown by the Edinburgh commuter runs. They'd be even more reliable if it weren't for cars. I really dislike the idiots who persist in queuing for the bypass slip roads even when it's been announced the bypass is u/s, and blocking the radials for the rest of us.
Bus services require a critical mass of people to allow a frequent enough service that people will use it.
A regular 10 service every 10 minutes and people just turn up and go, anything beyond about 15 minutes results in people having to think about it and passes some potential customers to using their car.
Agree. Any bus service that requires consultation of a timetable is a failure, and missing your bus during commuting times should never leave you more than 10 minutes late for work.
That's why I advocate a big bang approach to buses - none of this piecemeal additional service here and there. Have the bravery to go all in on a fully comprehensive network.
Back when I lived in Wiltshire, a local taxi company owner proposed using Priuses to create a higher frequency - 4 per hour - bus service. On routes that had about 1 bus every 2 hours.
The buses were empty, of course.
His theory was that if you start getting people onto a “bus” it would grow from there. Bigger vehicles at the popular times etc….
His side of it, was that it would subsidise his taxi business.
Will we see Reeves ditched at next reshuffle in an attempt to save Starmer. Let her take the blame for the first few months of technocratic nothing and failings?
It's a rough old trade.
But for who? And does that mean ditching policies?
I just can’t see how SKS becomes more popular if he does a U-turn now,
Whoever replaces her - and you are right it is really not obvious who that would be - will have to ditch the cut to WFA on day one. They also need to be far bolder. They have a massive majority - seize this opportunity to finally sort out local gov finance and council tax for example.
My gut feeling with the WFA, is they will tweak it next year or just cancel the cut as you said.
But I have to be honest, I accept it’s not popular but I find it hard to disagree with this policy. I mean, why were so many people getting it?
The mistake was in not getting rid of WFA for everyone.
By allowing those on pension credit to keep WFA it has reduced savings to miniscule levels (as more will now claim pension credit), created another financial cliff edge, discouraged people saving for their old age and still embittered ten million oldies.
An easy, effective, easy to administer option would be a tweak to Council Tax to give every property where bill payer is a pensioner a discount on Council Tax. Could exempt higher level council tax bands
Simple implementation
Government then covers Council shortfall with direct payment to Council
Better still administer longer term via Great British Energy who seek to get best rates with selective Energy Suppliers passed on and recommend recommend for all.
So you're suggesting lower council taxes for oldies even though oldies receive proportionally more of the council spending.
This country suffers from intergenerational inequality and you want to make it worse ?
As the population ages, inevitably the pendulum has to swing and non pensioners have to pay proportionately more.
We do need a 30 year national plan to resolve this with cross party support.
If you don't accept this logic you'll need to explain how we fund NHS and Social Care increased funding needed for aging population
Prevention is cheaper and better than cure.
Everyone needs to contribute:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
No exceptions.
Not oldies, not public sector workers, not the poor.
Everyone needs to lose out and to be seen to be losing out.
And find a political party willing to risk such a platform let alone be able to win many votes with it
It will be imposed by governments or the financial markets.
Some of it is already happening and other parts, for example increasing the state retirement age, will happen soon.
No it won't, no government or financial market can impose for long what a majority of the population reject. Italy tried it briefly with a technocrat PM, ended up with a populist right landslide for Meloni.
Macron has tried it recently and just seen a surge for Melenchon's block on far left and Le Pen's block on far right
The population will get what the population can afford.
When the limits of affordability are reached the only way some can get more is to take it from others.
Yes, which means the population will vote for big tax rises on the rich and deportation of immigrants claiming welfare and using public services taken to its extreme ie a combination of far left and far right.
As overall the average voter is neither rich nor an immigrant
There aren't enough rich willing to be taxed heavily enough.
There aren't enough poor immigrants willing to be deported.
The financial burden will be shared across everyone.
Which is why you will not be getting your state pension until you are 70.
Globally the average voter will vote for the rich to be squeezed until the pips squeek across the western world and for mass deportations for immigrants before they even consider voting for higher taxes for themselves and lower spending on the services they use for themselves.
If all the centre right offer is slashing spending on key services and all the centre liberal left offer is higher taxes on the average voter and small businesses and neither do anything to control immigration it is little surprise if the populist nationalist right and populist hard left both surge in the gap offering what most voters want
People can vote for what they want.
But people will get what can be afforded.
So it comes back to what will happen:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
Many people will discover that the 'rich' they want to tax includes themselves and/or the 'undeserving' they want to cut services on includes themselves.
You keep saying this but voters will vote for what they want and for what doesn't effect them ie tax rises on anyone earning over £50 k and massive tax rises on those earning over £100k and with assets over a million.
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
After a term in office, Labour will be down from this year’s 34%; that’s almost a given. So 32% is right at the upper end of credible scores. Nevertheless it is possible that if the rest of the vote is more evenly split between Tories, Reform and LibDems than last time, they could retain their big majority.
Unlikely given most Reform gains since the GE have now come from Labour not the Tories who are already down to their core vote
That core vote is elderly and moving to the cemetary at three times the rate of that for the other parties. You seem remarkably relaxed about the prospect of your party - which has dominated British governance for two centuries - becoming just a crutch for Farage and his merry bunch of idiots.
As a share of the electorate pensioners are the fastest growing group and there will always be pensioners who will always be more culturally conservative than the average voter and more likely to be home owners.
Farage of course would go to war on the woke liberal left if he won, if anything the Tories would be the moderating influence on that
Sadly for your party, people are no longer turning to the Conservatives as they get older.
Once they are pensioners they are, overwhelmingly so when in 1997 the Tories lost pensioners.
Just Reform doing better with the middle aged
No, really, they are not.
Of course they are. Labour are now polling lower than have done at any general election since 1983.
Where do you think all those lost Labour votes have gone with the Tories also in the mid 20s? Reform of course
A light show advertising the screen the size of a building, dominating the White City Circle - one of the more complex signallised (with traffic lights) junctions in Manchester with 4 or 8 lane carriageways everywhere. Then the sillies in their auto-bubbles with their heads in their phones get screens outside as well? WATF?
A short 2 minute video, also pointing out how horrible this is for pedestrians - multiple staggered crossing taking a number of minutes to get anywhere.
On topic: Rishi's legacy is going to be worse than Trusses.
Turns out useless managerialism combined with a sprinkling of bonkers policies about smoking doesn't cut the mustard
Rishi had the opportunity to fall with style. However cutting NI (twice) without a replacement tax (I don't accept keeping the tax threshold low qualifies) and canning HS2 were unforgivable. Even with those errors he remained head and shoulders better than his two immediate predecessors.
On topic: Rishi's legacy is going to be worse than Trusses.
Turns out useless managerialism combined with a sprinkling of bonkers policies about smoking doesn't cut the mustard
Rishi had the opportunity to fall with style. However cutting NI (twice) without a replacement tax and canning HS2 were unforgivable. Even with those errors he remained head and shoulders better than his two immediate predecessors.
Again with this lie.
There was a replacement tax. Income tax and NI went up when the tax thresholds were frozen for longer.
The safety of tap water in the UK could be at risk because water companies are unable to use products to clean it, industry insiders have said, as all the laboratories that test and certify the chemicals have shut down.
People in the industry have called it a “Brexit problem” because EU countries will share laboratory capacity from 2026, meaning that if the UK was still in the EU, water companies would be able to use products that passed tests on the continent.
But UK rules mean products cannot be tested abroad; they have to be tested in the country in a certified lab, of which there are now none.
Al Qaeda linked rebels HTS dominate the rebels overall.
Assad will try and hold the Alawite heartlands on the coast and Lebanese border and parts of Damascus with Russian mercenary and Hezbollah support. Alawites will also fight for Assad as he is one of their own
On topic: Rishi's legacy is going to be worse than Trusses.
Turns out useless managerialism combined with a sprinkling of bonkers policies about smoking doesn't cut the mustard
Rishi had the opportunity to fall with style. However cutting NI (twice) without a replacement tax and canning HS2 were unforgivable. Even with those errors he remained head and shoulders better than his two immediate predecessors.
Again with this lie.
There was a replacement tax. Income tax and NI went up when the tax thresholds were frozen for longer.
It was a tax rise, not a tax cut.
NI could have been merged quite simply with income tax. I thought that is what you were once asking for.
Al Qaeda linked rebels HTS dominate the rebels overall.
Assad will try and hold the Alawite heartlands on the coast and Lebanese border and parts of Damascus with Russian mercenary and Hezbollah support. Alawites will also fight for Assad as he is one of their own
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
After a term in office, Labour will be down from this year’s 34%; that’s almost a given. So 32% is right at the upper end of credible scores. Nevertheless it is possible that if the rest of the vote is more evenly split between Tories, Reform and LibDems than last time, they could retain their big majority.
The discrepancy between polling and GE for Labour voters was rather anomalous, but the extraordinary thing was the voting efficiency. The Labour voters turned out where it mattered and didn't where it didn't (or where they thought it didn', hence the Lab to Con in Leicester East and to Independent in Leicester South).
In general the Lab voters were correct and didn't turn out where the seats were thought safe. Whether this was apathy, dislike of Starmerism etc we can speculate.
Will this be repeated at GE 2029 we just don't know. If Lab voters felt that their seat mattered then they may well turn out next time. They may loathe Farage and be less bothered by Gaza for example.
So we shouldn't assume 32% as the Lab ceiling next GE as the voters may well feel different motivations, particularly if Starmerism delivers and the alternatives are anathema.
At the risk of being proved wrong (any columnist’s worst nightmare), I predict that Starmer’s own personality will not get him to the end of this Parliament.
Then even less likely that Farage or Badenoch are next PM, and they both remain screaming lays
Why? A new leader isn't going to turn things around. They might be less of a toe curling embarrassment, but the damage is largely done.
The bet is next Prime Minister, not Prime Minister after the next election. Thus, if Starmer does not stay to contest the next election, the next Prime Minister will be a Labour MP.
I'd agree that the value in this market is on the Labour MPs.
Three main scenarios from here:
A. Labour continue to struggle, and push Starmer overboard before GE2029. Next PM is red.
B. Starmer stays on and loses in 2029. Next PM isn't red.
C. Starmer wins in 2028/9 and retires to muted appreciation a couple of years after that. Next PM is red.
I know Labour don't ditch leaders like the Conservatives do, but B doesn't seem that likely. (And the numbers sort of reflect that. Nigel or Kemi combined is under 50% chance, even with the mug punters boost.)
About right I think. Within those boundaries, and allowing for black swans, the next PM race is a 50 horse steeplechase in the mud, not a 6 runner 5 furlong on the flat. Whoever is the favourite should be at longish odds - something like 8/1 or longer. The next PM may be someone we have hardly heard of, it is just possible they are not even in the HoC at this moment. (Miliband D would be easily the best Labour candidate though he is now 59).
Of those outside parliament, Andy Burnham is far and away the most likely. He is generally thought to be doing a good job in Greater Manchester, is authentically Northern and has a lot of support. David Miliband has no infrastructure.
Don't you find Burnham to be one of the most annoying politicians anywhere in the UK? Labour need to be looking to the future. I doubt he will get a look in on account of the fact that he is the wrong gender but Darren Jones seems to have Blair's charisma and self assurance but without Blair's dreadful earnestness.
In May of this year Burnham won his 3rd term as Mayor of Greater Manchester, with 63% of the vote and won every constituency within it, so clearly has a lot of support.
I am not suggesting that he would be the best choice, but could step down as Mayor in 2028 at the end of this term and be back in Parliament. He is far and away the most likely successor outside parliament, and being outside of parliament does help him look like a new broom, not tainted by Starmer/Reeves.
His stuff on buses is very good. A public good - so everyone can benefit*, an investment - so boosts growth, and users are primarily from lower income deciles - so improves services for the kind of people Labour cares about most.
It's the kind of policy that brings people together, rather than chopping us up into taxpayers and claimants, public and private sector, white and non-white.
*Including indirectly by reducing congestion for commercial and private drivers
When you have a decent bus service in a sector not served by trains, the users start extending into the middle and upper deciles in urban areas, as is well shown by the Edinburgh commuter runs. They'd be even more reliable if it weren't for cars. I really dislike the idiots who persist in queuing for the bypass slip roads even when it's been announced the bypass is u/s, and blocking the radials for the rest of us.
Bus services require a critical mass of people to allow a frequent enough service that people will use it.
A regular 10 service every 10 minutes and people just turn up and go, anything beyond about 15 minutes results in people having to think about it and passes some potential customers to using their car.
Agree. Any bus service that requires consultation of a timetable is a failure, and missing your bus during commuting times should never leave you more than 10 minutes late for work.
That's why I advocate a big bang approach to buses - none of this piecemeal additional service here and there. Have the bravery to go all in on a fully comprehensive network.
Back when I lived in Wiltshire, a local taxi company owner proposed using Priuses to create a higher frequency - 4 per hour - bus service. On routes that had about 1 bus every 2 hours.
The buses were empty, of course.
His theory was that if you start getting people onto a “bus” it would grow from there. Bigger vehicles at the popular times etc….
His side of it, was that it would subsidise his taxi business.
Will we see Reeves ditched at next reshuffle in an attempt to save Starmer. Let her take the blame for the first few months of technocratic nothing and failings?
It's a rough old trade.
But for who? And does that mean ditching policies?
I just can’t see how SKS becomes more popular if he does a U-turn now,
Whoever replaces her - and you are right it is really not obvious who that would be - will have to ditch the cut to WFA on day one. They also need to be far bolder. They have a massive majority - seize this opportunity to finally sort out local gov finance and council tax for example.
My gut feeling with the WFA, is they will tweak it next year or just cancel the cut as you said.
But I have to be honest, I accept it’s not popular but I find it hard to disagree with this policy. I mean, why were so many people getting it?
The mistake was in not getting rid of WFA for everyone.
By allowing those on pension credit to keep WFA it has reduced savings to miniscule levels (as more will now claim pension credit), created another financial cliff edge, discouraged people saving for their old age and still embittered ten million oldies.
An easy, effective, easy to administer option would be a tweak to Council Tax to give every property where bill payer is a pensioner a discount on Council Tax. Could exempt higher level council tax bands
Simple implementation
Government then covers Council shortfall with direct payment to Council
Better still administer longer term via Great British Energy who seek to get best rates with selective Energy Suppliers passed on and recommend recommend for all.
So you're suggesting lower council taxes for oldies even though oldies receive proportionally more of the council spending.
This country suffers from intergenerational inequality and you want to make it worse ?
As the population ages, inevitably the pendulum has to swing and non pensioners have to pay proportionately more.
We do need a 30 year national plan to resolve this with cross party support.
If you don't accept this logic you'll need to explain how we fund NHS and Social Care increased funding needed for aging population
Prevention is cheaper and better than cure.
Everyone needs to contribute:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
No exceptions.
Not oldies, not public sector workers, not the poor.
Everyone needs to lose out and to be seen to be losing out.
And find a political party willing to risk such a platform let alone be able to win many votes with it
It will be imposed by governments or the financial markets.
Some of it is already happening and other parts, for example increasing the state retirement age, will happen soon.
No it won't, no government or financial market can impose for long what a majority of the population reject. Italy tried it briefly with a technocrat PM, ended up with a populist right landslide for Meloni.
Macron has tried it recently and just seen a surge for Melenchon's block on far left and Le Pen's block on far right
The population will get what the population can afford.
When the limits of affordability are reached the only way some can get more is to take it from others.
Yes, which means the population will vote for big tax rises on the rich and deportation of immigrants claiming welfare and using public services taken to its extreme ie a combination of far left and far right.
As overall the average voter is neither rich nor an immigrant
Something like that is coming to Europe. Not just harsh migration policies but actual deportations, and en masse
Indeed it is already happening. - Sweden is paying legal migrants to leave and has achieved net emigration. This will be scaled up
An entirely avoidable tragedy caused by a huge, stupid and failed experiment
Plus Trump and Le Pen offering more of the same and Meloni and Salvini similar in Italy, as is Dutton in Australia and the AfD in Germany, Vox in Spain and Farage here and the Freedom Party topped the poll in Austria.
However growing hardline anti immigration sentiment is also counterbalanced by significant support for taxing the rich more and spending more on healthcare and core public services. I suspect the Democrats would have done better with Sanders in November than uber woke rich liberal elitist Harris for example. Corbyn for all his faults got a higher voteshare in 2017 than Starmer did in July and even in 2019 Corbyn polled higher than Starmer is now.
Melenchon too saw his block of leftists surprisingly get most seats in the recent French legislative elections in the second round even though Le Pen's party had won the first round
Up the revolution!
In general the "it's difficult, let's proceed cautiously" people (who overlap with centrists) are losing out internationally to "we've got a simple solution" people (who overlap with extremists): however, neither necessarily have an agenda for change (e.g. redistribution). PR, which on the whole I do favour, accelerates the process because it's really hard to get a PR majority for stolid centrism, though that sometimes civilises the more extreme parties as they have to actually govern.
Corbyn was attractive to many people not on the extreme because he appeared to make actual choices, rather than blandly trying to appeal to everyone.
Al Qaeda linked rebels HTS dominate the rebels overall.
Assad will try and hold the Alawite heartlands on the coast and Lebanese border and parts of Damascus with Russian mercenary and Hezbollah support. Alawites will also fight for Assad as he is one of their own
Assad is gone.
No he isn't
There are no tanks in Baghdad! (surely Damascus? -Ed)
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
After a term in office, Labour will be down from this year’s 34%; that’s almost a given. So 32% is right at the upper end of credible scores. Nevertheless it is possible that if the rest of the vote is more evenly split between Tories, Reform and LibDems than last time, they could retain their big majority.
The discrepancy between polling and GE for Labour voters was rather anomalous, but the extraordinary thing was the voting efficiency. The Labour voters turned out where it mattered and didn't where it didn't (or where they thought it didn', hence the Lab to Con in Leicester East and to Independent in Leicester South).
In general the Lab voters were correct and didn't turn out where the seats were thought safe. Whether this was apathy, dislike of Starmerism etc we can speculate.
Will this be repeated at GE 2029 we just don't know. If Lab voters felt that their seat mattered then they may well turn out next time. They may loathe Farage and be less bothered by Gaza for example.
So we shouldn't assume 32% as the Lab ceiling next GE as the voters may well feel different motivations, particularly if Starmerism delivers and the alternatives are anathema.
Can the Tories get above 40% again? No reason why not.
The headline is already absurd enough, then you realise they are talking about Chingford.
Building THREE new homes is now beyond the pale. THREE!
Approved by the Planning Committee.
Looking in the local press, it's classic NIMBYism. "I supporting housing, just not HERE .. ug, ug, ug !"
Resident Simon Twohig said during last night’s meeting: “We appreciate the long-term need [for housing], but this is too many residential buildings in too small and confined a location.” Locals previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the street was “losing its identity,” and extra cars would mean “chaos, absolute chaos”. https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/leafy-essex-border-neighbourhood-losing-9772295
The headline is already absurd enough, then you realise they are talking about Chingford.
Building THREE new homes is now beyond the pale. THREE!
Approved by the Planning Committee.
Looking in the local press, it's classic NIMBYism. "I supporting housing, just not HERE .. ug, ug, ug !"
Resident Simon Twohig said during last night’s meeting: “We appreciate the long-term need [for housing], but this is too many residential buildings in too small and confined a location.” Locals previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the street was “losing its identity,” and extra cars would mean “chaos, absolute chaos”. https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/leafy-essex-border-neighbourhood-losing-9772295
Why even the need for the planning committee? What is ever wrong with three houses?
These people need to be told to kindly F off.
If SKS loses on this issue with such a majority he’s lost me for good.
Or so Rentoul says he has been told. The article in the Indy is very clearly based on a conversation with "a friend of Blair", so it seems to be a continuation of the same shit-stirring that's been going on for the past week or so.
Is it Mandelson driving it, do we think? Or is it Blair himself?
It's a bit weird. Blair was five Labour leaders ago, and surely can't imagine anyone really wants to hear from him. I know Macmillan criticised Thatcher back at the start of her premiership, but this is the equivalent of Eden clambering out of the grave to abuse Thatcher for not informing America before going to war in the Falklands.
I was thinking the other day (following Dura's post) about similarities between Saudi Arabia and China. Both are intensely consumerist societies for those with the money, but with authorities which are shit-scared of people who think for themselves, and say their thoughts publicly.
Example: Saudi woman given 34-year prison sentence for using Twitter Salma al-Shehab, a Leeds University student, was charged with following and retweeting dissidents and activists
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
After a term in office, Labour will be down from this year’s 34%; that’s almost a given. So 32% is right at the upper end of credible scores. Nevertheless it is possible that if the rest of the vote is more evenly split between Tories, Reform and LibDems than last time, they could retain their big majority.
The discrepancy between polling and GE for Labour voters was rather anomalous, but the extraordinary thing was the voting efficiency. The Labour voters turned out where it mattered and didn't where it didn't (or where they thought it didn', hence the Lab to Con in Leicester East and to Independent in Leicester South).
In general the Lab voters were correct and didn't turn out where the seats were thought safe. Whether this was apathy, dislike of Starmerism etc we can speculate.
Will this be repeated at GE 2029 we just don't know. If Lab voters felt that their seat mattered then they may well turn out next time. They may loathe Farage and be less bothered by Gaza for example.
So we shouldn't assume 32% as the Lab ceiling next GE as the voters may well feel different motivations, particularly if Starmerism delivers and the alternatives are anathema.
Can the Tories get above 40% again? No reason why not.
Sure, with all the volatility of the last few years who knows what happens next, but I think the PB Tories are very busy counting chickens before they hatch.
I suppose the question is, does it matter if Reform replace the Conservatives, as Labour did the Liberals?
Not if you are a hard rightwinger, Reform will be tougher on immigration, withdraw from the ECHR, more anti woke, more anti trans, more anti net zero, more willing to cut taxes than the Tories.
However they would probably still need Tory support to form a government most of the time even then, many middle class Tories would not vote Reform. Indeed the biggest gains for Reform now are amongst white working class Labour voters, many the descendants of the first Labour voters who helped Labour replace the more middle class Liberals as the main anti Tory party once universal suffrage arrived in 1918
I suppose the question is, does it matter if Reform replace the Conservatives, as Labour did the Liberals?
The Conservatives could survive if they shrink to a rump, then agree a merger as the junior partner to create the "Conervative and Reform" Party, which then eventually gets branded as the Conservatives again. They need to fake their own death.
Or so Rentoul says he has been told. The article in the Indy is very clearly based on a conversation with "a friend of Blair", so it seems to be a continuation of the same shit-stirring that's been going on for the past week or so.
Is it Mandelson driving it, do we think? Or is it Blair himself?
It's a bit weird. Blair was five Labour leaders ago, and surely can't imagine anyone really wants to hear from him. I know Macmillan criticised Thatcher back at the start of her premiership, but this is the equivalent of Eden clambering out of the grave to abuse Thatcher for not informing America before going to war in the Falklands.
I think we dismiss Blair at our peril as he won three times.
But having said that, I do think he came in at a very different time to now. So it’s hard to say how applicable his experience is to today.
What would be more interesting would be if he’d led the UK through the GFC.
In Surrey it has been pretty windy, but nothing like some of you have been having and it has now finished, but I'm glad I haven't been out in my garden during it (you would have to be daft to do so). I have several very very large Ash trees and it is not uncommon for them to lose branches that would be lethal if they fell on you. I have just been out clearing them up as obvioulsy the storm brought down a few and noticed a new phenomena. Three of them have landed like javelins. 2- 3 metre long javelins, 10 cm in diameter with the tips buried 30 cm in the lawn. They have never done that before. These events are a handy top up for the log store.
Hope those of you who have had it bad are good and well.
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
After a term in office, Labour will be down from this year’s 34%; that’s almost a given. So 32% is right at the upper end of credible scores. Nevertheless it is possible that if the rest of the vote is more evenly split between Tories, Reform and LibDems than last time, they could retain their big majority.
The discrepancy between polling and GE for Labour voters was rather anomalous, but the extraordinary thing was the voting efficiency. The Labour voters turned out where it mattered and didn't where it didn't (or where they thought it didn', hence the Lab to Con in Leicester East and to Independent in Leicester South).
In general the Lab voters were correct and didn't turn out where the seats were thought safe. Whether this was apathy, dislike of Starmerism etc we can speculate.
Will this be repeated at GE 2029 we just don't know. If Lab voters felt that their seat mattered then they may well turn out next time. They may loathe Farage and be less bothered by Gaza for example.
So we shouldn't assume 32% as the Lab ceiling next GE as the voters may well feel different motivations, particularly if Starmerism delivers and the alternatives are anathema.
Can the Tories get above 40% again? No reason why not.
Sure, with all the volatility of the last few years who knows what happens next, but I think the PB Tories are very busy counting chickens before they hatch.
I just don’t remember people being like this when Johnson won. Do you?
UK warns Syrian government not to use chemical weapons against insurgent forces seizing territory across the country. FCDO Middle East Minister, Hamish Falconer, said any use of chemical weapons by either regime or Russian forces would be “intolerable”. 1/2
The headline is already absurd enough, then you realise they are talking about Chingford.
Building THREE new homes is now beyond the pale. THREE!
Approved by the Planning Committee.
Looking in the local press, it's classic NIMBYism. "I supporting housing, just not HERE .. ug, ug, ug !"
Resident Simon Twohig said during last night’s meeting: “We appreciate the long-term need [for housing], but this is too many residential buildings in too small and confined a location.” Locals previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the street was “losing its identity,” and extra cars would mean “chaos, absolute chaos”. https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/leafy-essex-border-neighbourhood-losing-9772295
Why even the need for the planning committee? What is ever wrong with three houses?
These people need to be told to kindly F off.
If SKS loses on this issue with such a majority he’s lost me for good.
Hang on, Horse, that headline isn't by the objectors, who are clearly referring to the street. And that is at least something that is logically tenable, whether or not the position taken is actually correct.
Obviously by some crap AI system. So don't blame them for it, [edit] like the tweeter does.
The headline is already absurd enough, then you realise they are talking about Chingford.
Building THREE new homes is now beyond the pale. THREE!
Approved by the Planning Committee.
Looking in the local press, it's classic NIMBYism. "I supporting housing, just not HERE .. ug, ug, ug !"
Resident Simon Twohig said during last night’s meeting: “We appreciate the long-term need [for housing], but this is too many residential buildings in too small and confined a location.” Locals previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the street was “losing its identity,” and extra cars would mean “chaos, absolute chaos”. https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/leafy-essex-border-neighbourhood-losing-9772295
Why even the need for the planning committee? What is ever wrong with three houses?
These people need to be told to kindly F off.
If SKS loses on this issue with such a majority he’s lost me for good.
Hang on, Horse, that headline isn't by the objectors, who are clearly referring to the street. And that is at least something that is logically tenable, whether or not the position taken.
Obviously by some crap AI system. So don't blame them for it, [edit] like the tweeter does.
No it isn’t.
Rejecting the building of three houses is not logically tenable in any way.
I suppose the question is, does it matter if Reform replace the Conservatives, as Labour did the Liberals?
The Conservatives could survive if they shrink to a rump, then agree a merger as the junior partner to create the "Conervative and Reform" Party, which then eventually gets branded as the Conservatives again. They need to fake their own death.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats then under FPTP the Tories would almost certainly be taken over by Reform Canada style, as their Reform and Tories merged to form today's Conservative party of Canada in 2003.
Ironically if it got to that stage the Tories best hope of survival would be PR, a Tory party even on 10-15% of the vote would still win 65-100 MPs with PR but could end up with 0 or less than 10 with FPTP. Indeed, in Italy the centre right Forza Italia are in government as the junior partner to Meloni's hard right block. In Sweden with PR the centre right still lead the government even though the Sweden Democrats got more votes and in New Zealand with PR the centre right Nationals are in government with the libertarian right ACT and nationalist right NZ First
The headline is already absurd enough, then you realise they are talking about Chingford.
Building THREE new homes is now beyond the pale. THREE!
Approved by the Planning Committee.
Looking in the local press, it's classic NIMBYism. "I supporting housing, just not HERE .. ug, ug, ug !"
Resident Simon Twohig said during last night’s meeting: “We appreciate the long-term need [for housing], but this is too many residential buildings in too small and confined a location.” Locals previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the street was “losing its identity,” and extra cars would mean “chaos, absolute chaos”. https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/leafy-essex-border-neighbourhood-losing-9772295
Why even the need for the planning committee? What is ever wrong with three houses?
These people need to be told to kindly F off.
If SKS loses on this issue with such a majority he’s lost me for good.
Hang on, Horse, that headline isn't by the objectors, who are clearly referring to the street. And that is at least something that is logically tenable, whether or not the position taken.
Obviously by some crap AI system. So don't blame them for it, [edit] like the tweeter does.
No it isn’t.
Rejecting the building of three houses is not logically tenable in any way.
It is, if the location is too small or dangerous, for instance.
Otherwise you're saying it is unjustifiable to refuse *any* planning application (OK, for three or more houses). And therefore effectively demanding that the planning system is completely cancelled.
Which is a completely different matter to complaining about a specific case of people complaining about three houses. Where you may well be justified [edit].
There was a massive storm on 8/9 December 1660, causing nationwide damage, including to York and Beverley Minsters.
Pepys records the effects, and the death of 20 mariners thus;
Saturday 8 December ......I was not very well all night, and the wind I observed was rose exceedingly before I went to bed.
Sunday 9 December 1660 (Lord’s day). Being called up early by Sir W. Batten I rose and went to his house and he told me the ill news that he had this morning from Woolwich, that the ship the 'Assurance' was by a gust of wind sunk down to the bottom. Twenty men drowned.
The headline is already absurd enough, then you realise they are talking about Chingford.
Building THREE new homes is now beyond the pale. THREE!
Approved by the Planning Committee.
Looking in the local press, it's classic NIMBYism. "I supporting housing, just not HERE .. ug, ug, ug !"
Resident Simon Twohig said during last night’s meeting: “We appreciate the long-term need [for housing], but this is too many residential buildings in too small and confined a location.” Locals previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the street was “losing its identity,” and extra cars would mean “chaos, absolute chaos”. https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/leafy-essex-border-neighbourhood-losing-9772295
Why even the need for the planning committee? What is ever wrong with three houses?
These people need to be told to kindly F off.
If SKS loses on this issue with such a majority he’s lost me for good.
Hang on, Horse, that headline isn't by the objectors, who are clearly referring to the street. And that is at least something that is logically tenable, whether or not the position taken.
Obviously by some crap AI system. So don't blame them for it, [edit] like the tweeter does.
No it isn’t.
Rejecting the building of three houses is not logically tenable in any way.
It is, if the location is too small or dangerous, for instance.
Otherwise you're saying it is unjustifiable to refuse *any* planning application (OK, for three or more houses). And therefore effectively demanding that the planning system is completely cancelled.
Which is a completely different matter to complaining about a specific case of people complaining about three houses. Where you may well be justified [edit].
If a location is dangerous, the company wanting to build it needs to prove it isn’t.
At the risk of being proved wrong (any columnist’s worst nightmare), I predict that Starmer’s own personality will not get him to the end of this Parliament.
Then even less likely that Farage or Badenoch are next PM, and they both remain screaming lays
Why? A new leader isn't going to turn things around. They might be less of a toe curling embarrassment, but the damage is largely done.
The bet is next Prime Minister, not Prime Minister after the next election. Thus, if Starmer does not stay to contest the next election, the next Prime Minister will be a Labour MP.
I'd agree that the value in this market is on the Labour MPs.
Three main scenarios from here:
A. Labour continue to struggle, and push Starmer overboard before GE2029. Next PM is red.
B. Starmer stays on and loses in 2029. Next PM isn't red.
C. Starmer wins in 2028/9 and retires to muted appreciation a couple of years after that. Next PM is red.
I know Labour don't ditch leaders like the Conservatives do, but B doesn't seem that likely. (And the numbers sort of reflect that. Nigel or Kemi combined is under 50% chance, even with the mug punters boost.)
About right I think. Within those boundaries, and allowing for black swans, the next PM race is a 50 horse steeplechase in the mud, not a 6 runner 5 furlong on the flat. Whoever is the favourite should be at longish odds - something like 8/1 or longer. The next PM may be someone we have hardly heard of, it is just possible they are not even in the HoC at this moment. (Miliband D would be easily the best Labour candidate though he is now 59).
Of those outside parliament, Andy Burnham is far and away the most likely. He is generally thought to be doing a good job in Greater Manchester, is authentically Northern and has a lot of support. David Miliband has no infrastructure.
Don't you find Burnham to be one of the most annoying politicians anywhere in the UK? Labour need to be looking to the future. I doubt he will get a look in on account of the fact that he is the wrong gender but Darren Jones seems to have Blair's charisma and self assurance but without Blair's dreadful earnestness.
In May of this year Burnham won his 3rd term as Mayor of Greater Manchester, with 63% of the vote and won every constituency within it, so clearly has a lot of support.
I am not suggesting that he would be the best choice, but could step down as Mayor in 2028 at the end of this term and be back in Parliament. He is far and away the most likely successor outside parliament, and being outside of parliament does help him look like a new broom, not tainted by Starmer/Reeves.
His stuff on buses is very good. A public good - so everyone can benefit*, an investment - so boosts growth, and users are primarily from lower income deciles - so improves services for the kind of people Labour cares about most.
It's the kind of policy that brings people together, rather than chopping us up into taxpayers and claimants, public and private sector, white and non-white.
*Including indirectly by reducing congestion for commercial and private drivers
When you have a decent bus service in a sector not served by trains, the users start extending into the middle and upper deciles in urban areas, as is well shown by the Edinburgh commuter runs. They'd be even more reliable if it weren't for cars. I really dislike the idiots who persist in queuing for the bypass slip roads even when it's been announced the bypass is u/s, and blocking the radials for the rest of us.
Bus services require a critical mass of people to allow a frequent enough service that people will use it.
A regular 10 service every 10 minutes and people just turn up and go, anything beyond about 15 minutes results in people having to think about it and passes some potential customers to using their car.
Agree. Any bus service that requires consultation of a timetable is a failure, and missing your bus during commuting times should never leave you more than 10 minutes late for work.
That's why I advocate a big bang approach to buses - none of this piecemeal additional service here and there. Have the bravery to go all in on a fully comprehensive network.
Back when I lived in Wiltshire, a local taxi company owner proposed using Priuses to create a higher frequency - 4 per hour - bus service. On routes that had about 1 bus every 2 hours.
The buses were empty, of course.
His theory was that if you start getting people onto a “bus” it would grow from there. Bigger vehicles at the popular times etc….
His side of it, was that it would subsidise his taxi business.
Will we see Reeves ditched at next reshuffle in an attempt to save Starmer. Let her take the blame for the first few months of technocratic nothing and failings?
It's a rough old trade.
But for who? And does that mean ditching policies?
I just can’t see how SKS becomes more popular if he does a U-turn now,
Whoever replaces her - and you are right it is really not obvious who that would be - will have to ditch the cut to WFA on day one. They also need to be far bolder. They have a massive majority - seize this opportunity to finally sort out local gov finance and council tax for example.
My gut feeling with the WFA, is they will tweak it next year or just cancel the cut as you said.
But I have to be honest, I accept it’s not popular but I find it hard to disagree with this policy. I mean, why were so many people getting it?
The mistake was in not getting rid of WFA for everyone.
By allowing those on pension credit to keep WFA it has reduced savings to miniscule levels (as more will now claim pension credit), created another financial cliff edge, discouraged people saving for their old age and still embittered ten million oldies.
An easy, effective, easy to administer option would be a tweak to Council Tax to give every property where bill payer is a pensioner a discount on Council Tax. Could exempt higher level council tax bands
Simple implementation
Government then covers Council shortfall with direct payment to Council
Better still administer longer term via Great British Energy who seek to get best rates with selective Energy Suppliers passed on and recommend recommend for all.
So you're suggesting lower council taxes for oldies even though oldies receive proportionally more of the council spending.
This country suffers from intergenerational inequality and you want to make it worse ?
As the population ages, inevitably the pendulum has to swing and non pensioners have to pay proportionately more.
We do need a 30 year national plan to resolve this with cross party support.
If you don't accept this logic you'll need to explain how we fund NHS and Social Care increased funding needed for aging population
Prevention is cheaper and better than cure.
Everyone needs to contribute:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
No exceptions.
Not oldies, not public sector workers, not the poor.
Everyone needs to lose out and to be seen to be losing out.
And find a political party willing to risk such a platform let alone be able to win many votes with it
It will be imposed by governments or the financial markets.
Some of it is already happening and other parts, for example increasing the state retirement age, will happen soon.
No it won't, no government or financial market can impose for long what a majority of the population reject. Italy tried it briefly with a technocrat PM, ended up with a populist right landslide for Meloni.
Macron has tried it recently and just seen a surge for Melenchon's block on far left and Le Pen's block on far right
The population will get what the population can afford.
When the limits of affordability are reached the only way some can get more is to take it from others.
Yes, which means the population will vote for big tax rises on the rich and deportation of immigrants claiming welfare and using public services taken to its extreme ie a combination of far left and far right.
As overall the average voter is neither rich nor an immigrant
There aren't enough rich willing to be taxed heavily enough.
There aren't enough poor immigrants willing to be deported.
The financial burden will be shared across everyone.
Which is why you will not be getting your state pension until you are 70.
Globally the average voter will vote for the rich to be squeezed until the pips squeek across the western world and for mass deportations for immigrants before they even consider voting for higher taxes for themselves and lower spending on the services they use for themselves.
If all the centre right offer is slashing spending on key services and all the centre liberal left offer is higher taxes on the average voter and small businesses and neither do anything to control immigration it is little surprise if the populist nationalist right and populist hard left both surge in the gap offering what most voters want
People can vote for what they want.
But people will get what can be afforded.
So it comes back to what will happen:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich. Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor. Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
Many people will discover that the 'rich' they want to tax includes themselves and/or the 'undeserving' they want to cut services on includes themselves.
You keep saying this but voters will vote for what they want and for what doesn't effect them ie tax rises on anyone earning over £50 k and massive tax rises on those earning over £100k and with assets over a million.
Plus mass deportations of immigrants
And do you think that people earning over £50k, ie only double minimum wage, regard themselves as the 'rich' ?
What sort of house could someone earning £50k afford in Epping Forest ?
As I said many people will discover that the 'rich' they want to tax includes themselves and/or the 'undeserving' they want to cut services on includes themselves.
The headline is already absurd enough, then you realise they are talking about Chingford.
Building THREE new homes is now beyond the pale. THREE!
Approved by the Planning Committee.
Looking in the local press, it's classic NIMBYism. "I supporting housing, just not HERE .. ug, ug, ug !"
Resident Simon Twohig said during last night’s meeting: “We appreciate the long-term need [for housing], but this is too many residential buildings in too small and confined a location.” Locals previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the street was “losing its identity,” and extra cars would mean “chaos, absolute chaos”. https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/leafy-essex-border-neighbourhood-losing-9772295
Why even the need for the planning committee? What is ever wrong with three houses?
These people need to be told to kindly F off.
If SKS loses on this issue with such a majority he’s lost me for good.
Hang on, Horse, that headline isn't by the objectors, who are clearly referring to the street. And that is at least something that is logically tenable, whether or not the position taken.
Obviously by some crap AI system. So don't blame them for it, [edit] like the tweeter does.
No it isn’t.
Rejecting the building of three houses is not logically tenable in any way.
It is, if the location is too small or dangerous, for instance.
Otherwise you're saying it is unjustifiable to refuse *any* planning application (OK, for three or more houses). And therefore effectively demanding that the planning system is completely cancelled.
Which is a completely different matter to complaining about a specific case of people complaining about three houses. Where you may well be justified [edit].
If a location is dangerous, the company wanting to build it needs to prove it isn’t.
But that isn’t why applications get refused.
If you read the story, the three houses got passed, with some modification [edit] in the sense that the original development was larger, for four houses, and didn't even get past discussion with council officers before it got to planning ctee. It sounds as if [edit] the developers were trying to do too much. So they did get refused, somewhat, albeit not in planning.
It’s a mad pointless exercise predicting GEs four years out but that’s what we were here for on PB. Mad pointless exercises in prediction. My go is, GE 2028:
Result: a right wing coalition govt with the Tories as JUNIOR partners
Labour 32 Tories 20 Reformation 16 (post Farage) LD 15 Muskovites (new Farage) 10 Green 5 SNP 2
You think THIRTY TWO PERCENT of the electorate are going to schlep to a polling booth to put a cross by LABOUR?
After a term in office, Labour will be down from this year’s 34%; that’s almost a given. So 32% is right at the upper end of credible scores. Nevertheless it is possible that if the rest of the vote is more evenly split between Tories, Reform and LibDems than last time, they could retain their big majority.
The discrepancy between polling and GE for Labour voters was rather anomalous, but the extraordinary thing was the voting efficiency. The Labour voters turned out where it mattered and didn't where it didn't (or where they thought it didn', hence the Lab to Con in Leicester East and to Independent in Leicester South).
In general the Lab voters were correct and didn't turn out where the seats were thought safe. Whether this was apathy, dislike of Starmerism etc we can speculate.
Will this be repeated at GE 2029 we just don't know. If Lab voters felt that their seat mattered then they may well turn out next time. They may loathe Farage and be less bothered by Gaza for example.
So we shouldn't assume 32% as the Lab ceiling next GE as the voters may well feel different motivations, particularly if Starmerism delivers and the alternatives are anathema.
Can the Tories get above 40% again? No reason why not.
But the trend ain’t their friend. Nor is it friendly to Labour
Reform is clearly surging, mirroring the rise of the populist right elsewhere (and a smaller rise of the hard left)
This global phenomenon echoes global forces: suppressing wages, raising prices, often making housing costly in countries enduring mass immigration
I see no reason why any of this will stop (apart from the technology I cannot mention) so I see no reason why the polarisation will stop. Ergo the populist right perhaps even far right will eventually achieve power in multiple countries
I reckon we could see:
1. Mass deportations 2. Repression of Islam 3. Higher taxes on the rich/tech corporations to pay for welfare 4. Western abandonment of proactive foreign policies 5. Brutal borders 6. Right wing suppression of left wing speech 7. Tariffs - aimed mainly at China 8. A Cold War between a US led west and a Chinese dominated alternative
I suppose the question is, does it matter if Reform replace the Conservatives, as Labour did the Liberals?
The Conservatives could survive if they shrink to a rump, then agree a merger as the junior partner to create the "Conervative and Reform" Party, which then eventually gets branded as the Conservatives again. They need to fake their own death.
They don't even need to shrink to a rump in terms of seats (esp. given the difficulties posed by FPTP), they just have to sit back and let the Refuk side of the partnership make the running in terms of policy and strategy.
That would mirror what happened with the Liberal Unionists from 1886 onwards - although there's no modern equivalent of the Bright/Chamberlain radicals who provided the real intellectual leadership. If Jenrick does jump ship, I suppose he might in the future play a role as a modern Goschen...
UK warns Syrian government not to use chemical weapons against insurgent forces seizing territory across the country. FCDO Middle East Minister, Hamish Falconer, said any use of chemical weapons by either regime or Russian forces would be “intolerable”. 1/2
Oh good, we’ve found Sir Keir’s Hail Mary
The Syrian Government has tended to use barrel bombs with chlorine in them, dropped I think from helicopters. It's useful when insurgent forces are hiding in the basements of civilian facilities. The chlorine is released flows downwards, and it causes intolerable coughing, breathing difficulties and panic (though not death it would appear) and the insurgents pour out of their hidey holes and can be dispatched with no harm to the civilians therein, and no destruction to the building. A 'chemical weapon' that seems infinitely preferable to me than turning cities into moonscapes Russia style. But it's all part of the grinding PR machine of war.
Hawkish elements of the US state (along with Turkey) seem highly rattled that Trump might take their ball away. Oh well.
UK warns Syrian government not to use chemical weapons against insurgent forces seizing territory across the country. FCDO Middle East Minister, Hamish Falconer, said any use of chemical weapons by either regime or Russian forces would be “intolerable”. 1/2
Oh good, we’ve found Sir Keir’s Hail Mary
The Syrian Government has tended to use barrel bombs with chlorine in them, dropped I think from helicopters. It's useful when insurgent forces are hiding in the basements of civilian facilities. The chlorine is released flows downwards, and it causes intolerable coughing, breathing difficulties and panic (though not death it would appear) and the insurgents pour out of their hidey holes and can be dispatched with no harm to the civilians therein, and no destruction to the building. A 'chemical weapon' that seems infinitely preferable to me than turning cities into moonscapes Russia style. But it's all part of the grinding PR machine of war.
Hawkish elements of the US state (along with Turkey) seem highly rattled that Trump might take their ball away. Oh well.
So you're for chemical weapons? Think how bad chlorine is for people who stand on their head.
If immigration came down to say 200,000 a year is that enough to demonstrate progress?
Absolutely not. Barry, 63, from Hartlepool who looks like a shaven pated Eric von Stroheim clad in head to foot Adidas wants net negative immigration and he wants to see and feel the difference on the litter strewn streets of the festering crap hole in which he lives.
but is a social democrat like all governments since 1945.
Reform has a social democrat + national populism prospectus. In coherent terms the national populism bit means 'get UK citizens off sickness welfare and working so we don't need to import people to do their fairly lowly job'. Which in fact 100% reflects the expressed wishes, though not the attainment, of successive governments.
(If anyone think Reform means 'close off the City of London to French and Italian bankers', I have a bridge to sell you).
It is suspected that Reform also has a sort of fascisitic, ultra agenda, libertarian mixed with the smack of firm government for other people and anti the social democrat consensus. This may be but won't happen. Voters are utterly wedded to NATO, cradle to grave state and regulated private enterprise (ie social democracy) and are not going to shift.
On topic: Rishi's legacy is going to be worse than Trusses.
Turns out useless managerialism combined with a sprinkling of bonkers policies about smoking doesn't cut the mustard
Sunak made mistakes - as Chancellor, as Prime Minister and as Conservative leader.
But the damage was done by the Downing Street parties, Truss cos-playing mytho-Thatcherism and the ocean of sleaze.
The rot was too intrinsic within the Conservatives - they deserved to lose and to lose big.
I say this as someone who voted for them and wants them to learn from their mistakes and misbehaviour.
No it wasn't. The polling trajectory is quite clear. If this were correct, we'd have seen severe drops under Boris, worse under Truss, and Sunak steadying things a bit but falling to mount a significant recovery.
Instead we saw reasonably good polling for Boris until the Sunakites stabbed him, followed by a crash in polling after Truss's minibudget, followed by a cautious recovery when Sunak came in promising to steady the ship, followed by a faltering of that recovery and a slow, steady decline, eventually equalling the worst of Truss. Sunak owns that fully.
You have your political opinion and that's fine, but please don't try to misrepresent the facts on a political betting forum where everyone knows what happened.
UK warns Syrian government not to use chemical weapons against insurgent forces seizing territory across the country. FCDO Middle East Minister, Hamish Falconer, said any use of chemical weapons by either regime or Russian forces would be “intolerable”. 1/2
Oh good, we’ve found Sir Keir’s Hail Mary
The Syrian Government has tended to use barrel bombs with chlorine in them, dropped I think from helicopters. It's useful when insurgent forces are hiding in the basements of civilian facilities. The chlorine is released flows downwards, and it causes intolerable coughing, breathing difficulties and panic (though not death it would appear) and the insurgents pour out of their hidey holes and can be dispatched with no harm to the civilians therein, and no destruction to the building. A 'chemical weapon' that seems infinitely preferable to me than turning cities into moonscapes Russia style. But it's all part of the grinding PR machine of war.
Hawkish elements of the US state (along with Turkey) seem highly rattled that Trump might take their ball away. Oh well.
So you're for chemical weapons? Think how bad chlorine is for people who stand on their head.
I'm not for any weapons, but it is foolish to think that a weapon is instantly more devillish because it has the word chemical in it. That's for stupid people. I could be wrong, but on balance using these barrel bombs appears to be slightly more humane than using the explosive variety.
What about another thing, SKS introduces PR by the end of 2029.
If he does a Reform and Tory coalition government would be inevitable in 5-10 years. Labour would also never win a majority again most likely but need LD and/or Green support to enter office
Comments
If all the centre right offer is slashing spending on key services and all the centre liberal left offer is higher taxes on the average voter and small businesses and neither do anything to control immigration it is little surprise if the populist nationalist right and populist hard left both surge in the gap offering what most voters want
That is not a good thing.
Talking of reviled centrist dad posters on PB. @mexicanpete has lost a roof tile. Karma for his centrism?
However, I’d lay Farage at the current odds for next PM.
Farage of course would go to war on the woke liberal left if he won, if anything the Tories would be the moderating influence on that
https://x.com/JackRyanlives/status/1865367065466437686
A light show advertising the screen the size of a building, dominating the White City Circle - one of the more complex signallised (with traffic lights) junctions in Manchester with 4 or 8 lane carriageways everywhere. Then the sillies in their auto-bubbles with their heads in their phones get screens outside as well? WATF?
A short 2 minute video, also pointing out how horrible this is for pedestrians - multiple staggered crossing taking a number of minutes to get anywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eefz4qy-Mpw
My bete noir is when a phone box has gone, an advertising sign is permitted to remain blocking half a footway. Why?
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1865392409279869427
But people will get what can be afforded.
So it comes back to what will happen:
Taxes need to be increased on property and the rich.
Services need to be cut on oldies and the poor.
Workers need to increase their productivity and have their state pensions delayed.
Many people will discover that the 'rich' they want to tax includes themselves and/or the 'undeserving' they want to cut services on includes themselves.
Turns out useless managerialism combined with a sprinkling of bonkers policies about smoking doesn't cut the mustard
The end is near.
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1865391700576714930
Assad is now in Tehran, I think ?
Another totally predictable erosion of post-“reconciliation” structures.
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1865387513256313155
*A completely separate group to HTS.
Assad will try and hold the Alawite heartlands on the coast and Lebanese border and parts of Damascus with Russian mercenary and Hezbollah support. Alawites will also fight for Assad as he is one of their own
People in the industry have called it a “Brexit problem” because EU countries will share laboratory capacity from 2026, meaning that if the UK was still in the EU, water companies would be able to use products that passed tests on the continent.
But UK rules mean products cannot be tested abroad; they have to be tested in the country in a certified lab, of which there are now none.
Just Reform doing better with the middle aged. Of course a Farage led government would be far more rightwing culturally than any we have had for a generation and would go to war with the woke liberal left. If he wins most seats but not a majority the Tory ministers in Farage's Cabinet would if anything be the moderates, certainly on social issues
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1864983932569006141
But the damage was done by the Downing Street parties, Truss cos-playing mytho-Thatcherism and the ocean of sleaze.
The rot was too intrinsic within the Conservatives - they deserved to lose and to lose big.
I say this as someone who voted for them and wants them to learn from their mistakes and misbehaviour.
Plus mass deportations of immigrants
Where do you think all those lost Labour votes have gone with the Tories also in the mid 20s? Reform of course
There was a replacement tax. Income tax and NI went up when the tax thresholds were frozen for longer.
It was a tax rise, not a tax cut.
The headline is already absurd enough, then you realise they are talking about Chingford.
Building THREE new homes is now beyond the pale. THREE!
In general the Lab voters were correct and didn't turn out where the seats were thought safe. Whether this was apathy, dislike of Starmerism etc we can speculate.
Will this be repeated at GE 2029 we just don't know. If Lab voters felt that their seat mattered then they may well turn out next time. They may loathe Farage and be less bothered by Gaza for example.
So we shouldn't assume 32% as the Lab ceiling next GE as the voters may well feel different motivations, particularly if Starmerism delivers and the alternatives are anathema.
Corbyn was attractive to many people not on the extreme because he appeared to make actual choices, rather than blandly trying to appeal to everyone.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1865383317060653272?t=XoX5a0Yx04u0R2tKMMZV_Q&s=19
Looking in the local press, it's classic NIMBYism. "I supporting housing, just not HERE .. ug, ug, ug !"
Resident Simon Twohig said during last night’s meeting: “We appreciate the long-term need [for housing], but this is too many residential buildings in too small and confined a location.” Locals previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the street was “losing its identity,” and extra cars would mean “chaos, absolute chaos”.
https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/leafy-essex-border-neighbourhood-losing-9772295
"@Charles_Lister
NEW - opposition fighters are inside Darayya, 5km from central #Damascus & 6.5km from #Assad’s Presidential Palace."
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1865385526880076246
These people need to be told to kindly F off.
If SKS loses on this issue with such a majority he’s lost me for good.
The other's led by somebody who looks like a frog.
But who knows ?
Is it Mandelson driving it, do we think? Or is it Blair himself?
It's a bit weird. Blair was five Labour leaders ago, and surely can't imagine anyone really wants to hear from him. I know Macmillan criticised Thatcher back at the start of her premiership, but this is the equivalent of Eden clambering out of the grave to abuse Thatcher for not informing America before going to war in the Falklands.
I was thinking the other day (following Dura's post) about similarities between Saudi Arabia and China. Both are intensely consumerist societies for those with the money, but with authorities which are shit-scared of people who think for themselves, and say their thoughts publicly.
Example:
Saudi woman given 34-year prison sentence for using Twitter
Salma al-Shehab, a Leeds University student, was charged with following and retweeting dissidents and activists
It's the usual poor headline. Locked up for half a lifetime for publicly opposing the regime and saying so. Since reduced to 27 years, which is not much better.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/16/saudi-woman-given-34-year-prison-sentence-for-using-twitter
However they would probably still need Tory support to form a government most of the time even then, many middle class Tories would not vote Reform. Indeed the biggest gains for Reform now are amongst white working class Labour voters, many the descendants of the first Labour voters who helped Labour replace the more middle class Liberals as the main anti Tory party once universal suffrage arrived in 1918
But having said that, I do think he came in at a very different time to now. So it’s hard to say how applicable his experience is to today.
What would be more interesting would be if he’d led the UK through the GFC.
Hope those of you who have had it bad are good and well.
So reputable and well-networked, but still capable of making mistakes in a febrile situation - like everyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Institute
UK warns Syrian government not to use chemical weapons against insurgent forces seizing territory across the country. FCDO Middle East Minister, Hamish Falconer, said any use of chemical weapons by either regime or Russian forces would be “intolerable”. 1/2
Oh good, we’ve found Sir Keir’s Hail Mary
Which is incredibly sad, of course.
As in, incredibly sad this didn't happen thirteen years ago when there was a sane rebel faction rather than this mob to replace him.
Obviously by some crap AI system. So don't blame them for it, [edit] like the tweeter does.
Rejecting the building of three houses is not logically tenable in any way.
Ironically if it got to that stage the Tories best hope of survival would be PR, a Tory party even on 10-15% of the vote would still win 65-100 MPs with PR but could end up with 0 or less than 10 with FPTP. Indeed, in Italy the centre right Forza Italia are in government as the junior partner to Meloni's hard right block. In Sweden with PR the centre right still lead the government even though the Sweden Democrats got more votes and in New Zealand with PR the centre right Nationals are in government with the libertarian right ACT and nationalist right NZ First
Otherwise you're saying it is unjustifiable to refuse *any* planning application (OK, for three or more houses). And therefore effectively demanding that the planning system is completely cancelled.
Which is a completely different matter to complaining about a specific case of people complaining about three houses. Where you may well be justified [edit].
Pepys records the effects, and the death of 20 mariners thus;
Saturday 8 December
......I was not very well all night, and the wind I observed was rose exceedingly before I went to bed.
Sunday 9 December 1660
(Lord’s day). Being called up early by Sir W. Batten I rose and went to his house and he told me the ill news that he had this morning from Woolwich, that the ship the 'Assurance' was by a gust of wind sunk down to the bottom. Twenty men drowned.
But that isn’t why applications get refused.
What sort of house could someone earning £50k afford in Epping Forest ?
As I said many people will discover that the 'rich' they want to tax includes themselves and/or the 'undeserving' they want to cut services on includes themselves.
Reform is clearly surging, mirroring the rise of the populist right elsewhere (and a smaller rise of the hard left)
This global phenomenon echoes global forces: suppressing wages, raising prices, often making housing costly in countries enduring mass
immigration
I see no reason why any of this will stop (apart from the technology I cannot mention) so I see no reason why the polarisation will stop. Ergo the populist right perhaps even far right will eventually achieve power in multiple countries
I reckon we could see:
1. Mass deportations
2. Repression of Islam
3. Higher taxes on the rich/tech corporations to pay for welfare
4. Western abandonment of proactive foreign policies
5. Brutal borders
6. Right wing suppression of left wing speech
7. Tariffs - aimed mainly at China
8. A Cold War between a US led west and a Chinese dominated alternative
Not pretty. Indeed ugly and sad and dystopian
Let’s hope the robots save us
That would mirror what happened with the Liberal Unionists from 1886 onwards - although there's no modern equivalent of the Bright/Chamberlain radicals who provided the real intellectual leadership. If Jenrick does jump ship, I suppose he might in the future play a role as a modern Goschen...
Luckily for him, Sunak has given him a free gift.
Hawkish elements of the US state (along with Turkey) seem highly rattled that Trump might take their ball away. Oh well.
Which is your favourite white van? Crafter or Sprinter, and why?
https://www.clpd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Keir-Starmers-10-Pledges.pdf
but is a social democrat like all governments since 1945.
Reform has a social democrat + national populism prospectus. In coherent terms the national populism bit means 'get UK citizens off sickness welfare and working so we don't need to import people to do their fairly lowly job'. Which in fact 100% reflects the expressed wishes, though not the attainment, of successive governments.
(If anyone think Reform means 'close off the City of London to French and Italian bankers', I have a bridge to sell you).
It is suspected that Reform also has a sort of fascisitic, ultra agenda, libertarian mixed with the smack of firm government for other people and anti the social democrat consensus. This may be but won't happen. Voters are utterly wedded to NATO, cradle to grave state and regulated private enterprise (ie social democracy) and are not going to shift.
Instead we saw reasonably good polling for Boris until the Sunakites stabbed him, followed by a crash in polling after Truss's minibudget, followed by a cautious recovery when Sunak came in promising to steady the ship, followed by a faltering of that recovery and a slow, steady decline, eventually equalling the worst of Truss. Sunak owns that fully.
You have your political opinion and that's fine, but please don't try to misrepresent the facts on a political betting forum where everyone knows what happened.
LOL - he's replied with BOTH accounts to deny this within MINUTES of each other.
QED. Well & truly BUSTED!💥👊💥
That Twitter account that’s been artificially boosted despite barely existing a month ago is a Reform member. And so silly he outed himself.