Things can only get better (Starmer hopes) – politicalbetting.com

Hard cases often make bad law.

This appears to be an exception - and more as importantly, they ran a trial to assess its effectiveness.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/dec/17/marthas-rule-having-transformative-effect-nhs-england-data-shows

Alanbrooke said:

Recession Reeves killing the jobs market

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/17/ftse-100-markets-latest-news-uk-vacancies-employment-wages/

It's all part of her cunning plan to fix immigration. No jobs, no immigrants, simples.

From this side of the timeline, it's a shame Truss didn't last 5 months to take her place in this survey.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah.

Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.

At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.

Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.

Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-could-return-to-eu-laws-as-keir-starmer-seeks-trade-deal-s7dfl5p92

Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Recession Reeves killing the jobs market

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/17/ftse-100-markets-latest-news-uk-vacancies-employment-wages/

It's all part of her cunning plan to fix immigration. No jobs, no immigrants, simples.

Yes, just think if it as delivering the real purpose of Brexit.

No doubt this decision is heading for appeal

Judge rules Trump’s conviction withstands Supreme Court immunity decision
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043247-trump-hush-money-conviction-uphold/

Alanbrooke said:

Recession Reeves killing the jobs market

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/17/ftse-100-markets-latest-news-uk-vacancies-employment-wages/

She's penned an article in the Mirror today.

It's full of the requisite wisdom we have come to expect


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/national-minimum-wage-increase-is-proof-labour-improves-living-standards/ar-AA1vZMfJ?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=4b1c978a52b949d2bb5419cf3a650dd6&ei=10

So, after this latest disaster, Rohit Sharma must now be odds on to retire gracefully at the end of the series. While he has spent years not being dropped when he doesn't produce, there is only so long you can carry a player who's a passenger with the bat and a patent liability as captain and I don't think his pride will allow him to be sacked and dropped.

Time for some consideration of the markets for next India captain.

Bumrah - is the vice-captain, and the team looked a completely different unit with him in charge. His win in among a series of catastrophic losses and skin-of-the-teeth draws under Rohit suggest he has what it takes. Drawbacks - is a bowler and although his fitness is remarkable he won't play every match.

Rishabh Pant - popular, famous, clearly very tough, in with the board. Drawback - keeps wicket and as Dhoni showed, keeping wicket, captaining and being vital with the bat is a lot to deal with.

Shubman Gill - young, ardent, in a career on the up. Drawback - still rather young and could do with a few more runs.

KL Rahul - vastly experienced, respected, could manage a transitory period. Drawback - not sure of his place in the team.

Bumrah would probably be the smart choice, with Pant as his vice captain and Gill being carefully groomed for the long term succession - a bit like Australia with Cummins, Smith and Head. But the BCCI is, like the Civil Service, prone to doing what it thinks is right rather than what would be right, so I would say Pant is probably the favourite.

Come 2026, I will have served 15 years as an MSP. The time will be right for me to move on.

As the son of immigrants, I could never have imagined the incredible political journey I have been on. I feel blessed.

Thank you to all of those who have supported me over the years.

https://x.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1868930492059517379

Foxy said:

How much is down to the flat-footed approach of Starmer and Reeves?

How much down to a volatile electorate, who oppose and criticise everything?

And how much down to starting with no political capital (and no financial capital either)?

And how much down to an orchestrated campaign by telegraph etc

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Recession Reeves killing the jobs market

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/17/ftse-100-markets-latest-news-uk-vacancies-employment-wages/

It's all part of her cunning plan to fix immigration. No jobs, no immigrants, simples.

Yes, just think if it as delivering the real purpose of Brexit.

So job vacancies are higher than pre-Covid, but have been in a slump for 21/2 years.
Is this just not the post-Covid rehiring tailing off?

I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.

Brace Brace !!!!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/mystery-deadly-virus-could-be-disease-x-as-death-toll-soars-across-world/ar-AA1vYhUv?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=4d47784f27f640af850275430aee3124&ei=22

Broadcaster Kim Ou-joon claims martial law included plan to assassinate Han Dong-hoon

https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=388403&utm_source=taboola
Broadcaster and YouTuber Kim Ou-joon, known to have been on the list of potential detainees during the short-lived martial law on Dec. 3 and 4, said Friday that he received a tip about an order to assassinate Han Dong-hoon, leader of the ruling People Power Party.

He said that the first piece of information he received was about an "assassination squad being mobilized," which he subsequently reported to Rep. Kim Byung-joo of the opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK).

Speaking as a witness at the National Assembly's Science, ICT, Broadcasting, and Communications Committee hearing, Kim said that Rep. Kim was the first to publicly mention the assassination squad during an MBC radio appearance.

Kim claimed he was the source of that tip. He recalled that when he told Rep. Kim, the lawmaker was initially skeptical but later confirmed its validity after a few hours.

"The information I am about to share has not been fully verified," Kim said, before detailing allegations regarding plans reportedly tied to martial law. "There was a plan within the martial law forces to assassinate Han Dong-hoon while he was being detained and transported."

Additionally, he shared information about other alleged plans: one involved staging an attack on the transport units holding figures like Cho Kuk, former leader of the minor opposition Rebuilding Korea Party, Yang Jung-chul, former chief of the Institute for Democracy, and Kim Ou-joon himself, to make it appear as though they were being rescued.

According to Kim, the scheme also involved burying North Korean military uniforms at specific locations, which would later be "discovered" and used to frame North Korea as the perpetrator...

What's worrying is that this isn't completely incredible (though I'm sceptical).

Foxy said:

How much is down to the flat-footed approach of Starmer and Reeves?

How much down to a volatile electorate, who oppose and criticise everything?

And how much down to starting with no political capital (and no financial capital either)?

The result of 14 years of saying austerity is unnecessary and counter-productive. Chickens coming home to roost.

Taz said:

Brace Brace !!!!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/mystery-deadly-virus-could-be-disease-x-as-death-toll-soars-across-world/ar-AA1vYhUv?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=4d47784f27f640af850275430aee3124&ei=22

That reporting is a bit dated. The WHO are coming around to this being existing diseases, notably malaria, hitting kids with high rates of malnutrition: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/malaria/initial-samples-dr-congo-unexplained-outbreak-positive-malaria

Seasoned pandemic watchers are back to avian flu being the #1 threat.

Alanbrooke said:

Taz said:

Alanbrooke said:

Recession Reeves killing the jobs market

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/17/ftse-100-markets-latest-news-uk-vacancies-employment-wages/

She's penned an article in the Mirror today.

It's full of the requisite wisdom we have come to expect


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/national-minimum-wage-increase-is-proof-labour-improves-living-standards/ar-AA1vZMfJ?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=4b1c978a52b949d2bb5419cf3a650dd6&ei=10

Yes, I read it. Apparently she is going to increase employment as employers close down jobs.
That's a hard circle tosquare

I thought rightwing brexiters were all in favour of wages going up because fewer immigrants.

Foxy said:

How much is down to the flat-footed approach of Starmer and Reeves?

How much down to a volatile electorate, who oppose and criticise everything?

And how much down to starting with no political capital (and no financial capital either)?

For some, it's as simple as this government being one they opposed on general principle. Many of those are on the right, shocked at being ignored for the first time in their lives. Others are on the left, cross that they're not getting everything they want. Bluntly, they're not worth the government fighting for. "Cons 2024 voter doesn't like this government" really isn't news.

For some, it is that the government didn't make a smooth start. Only a nitwit would say it did. But that it much more fixable. Partly by Starmer, Reeves etc growing into the role, but also by employing better scriptwriters behind the scenes.

But in many ways, the situation is what it always was. The country is in a state, the only plausible way out is a nervous shuffle, it will take time to improve, the public are in no mood to accept purple prose about the sunlit uplands, even if Starmer did purple prose.

The big picture, meanwhile, is that nothing important has changed. Starmer has few, if any, fans. But, given the alternatives, he'll have to do. And if he can say in 2028/9 "I did", his party will be fine.

Alanbrooke said:

Taz said:

Alanbrooke said:

Recession Reeves killing the jobs market

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/17/ftse-100-markets-latest-news-uk-vacancies-employment-wages/

She's penned an article in the Mirror today.

It's full of the requisite wisdom we have come to expect


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/national-minimum-wage-increase-is-proof-labour-improves-living-standards/ar-AA1vZMfJ?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=4b1c978a52b949d2bb5419cf3a650dd6&ei=10

Yes, I read it. Apparently she is going to increase employment as employers close down jobs.
That's a hard circle tosquare

The domestic workforce is going to decrease over time because of demographics.

So we can either have good employment growth or no/low immigration but not both. It is as simple as that.

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

How much is down to the flat-footed approach of Starmer and Reeves?

How much down to a volatile electorate, who oppose and criticise everything?

And how much down to starting with no political capital (and no financial capital either)?

For some, it's as simple as this government being one they opposed on general principle. Many of those are on the right, shocked at being ignored for the first time in their lives. Others are on the left, cross that they're not getting everything they want. Bluntly, they're not worth the government fighting for. "Cons 2024 voter doesn't like this government" really isn't news.

For some, it is that the government didn't make a smooth start. Only a nitwit would say it did. But that it much more fixable. Partly by Starmer, Reeves etc growing into the role, but also by employing better scriptwriters behind the scenes.

But in many ways, the situation is what it always was. The country is in a state, the only plausible way out is a nervous shuffle, it will take time to improve, the public are in no mood to accept purple prose about the sunlit uplands, even if Starmer did purple prose.

The big picture, meanwhile, is that nothing important has changed. Starmer has few, if any, fans. But, given the alternatives, he'll have to do. And if he can say in 2028/9 "I did", his party will be fine.

His cabinet is second rate.

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.

LOL

yes, but I dont think it would have been by £40 billion.

love to know what they would actually have cut - because they had run out of never-never options and the banks would need to see something actually being done...

noneoftheabove said:

Alanbrooke said:

Taz said:

Alanbrooke said:

Recession Reeves killing the jobs market

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/17/ftse-100-markets-latest-news-uk-vacancies-employment-wages/

She's penned an article in the Mirror today.

It's full of the requisite wisdom we have come to expect


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/national-minimum-wage-increase-is-proof-labour-improves-living-standards/ar-AA1vZMfJ?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=4b1c978a52b949d2bb5419cf3a650dd6&ei=10

Yes, I read it. Apparently she is going to increase employment as employers close down jobs.
That's a hard circle tosquare

The domestic workforce is going to decrease over time because of demographics.

So we can either have good employment growth or no/low immigration but not both. It is as simple as that.

If AI is going to close down the number of jobs people predict we can shrink the workforce s and not need immigratuion. Basic productivity says we will need less people.

Alanbrooke said:

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

How much is down to the flat-footed approach of Starmer and Reeves?

How much down to a volatile electorate, who oppose and criticise everything?

And how much down to starting with no political capital (and no financial capital either)?

For some, it's as simple as this government being one they opposed on general principle. Many of those are on the right, shocked at being ignored for the first time in their lives. Others are on the left, cross that they're not getting everything they want. Bluntly, they're not worth the government fighting for. "Cons 2024 voter doesn't like this government" really isn't news.

For some, it is that the government didn't make a smooth start. Only a nitwit would say it did. But that it much more fixable. Partly by Starmer, Reeves etc growing into the role, but also by employing better scriptwriters behind the scenes.

But in many ways, the situation is what it always was. The country is in a state, the only plausible way out is a nervous shuffle, it will take time to improve, the public are in no mood to accept purple prose about the sunlit uplands, even if Starmer did purple prose.

The big picture, meanwhile, is that nothing important has changed. Starmer has few, if any, fans. But, given the alternatives, he'll have to do. And if he can say in 2028/9 "I did", his party will be fine.

His cabinet is second rate.

You flatter them Alan

Stuartinromford said:

Alanbrooke said:

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

How much is down to the flat-footed approach of Starmer and Reeves?

How much down to a volatile electorate, who oppose and criticise everything?

And how much down to starting with no political capital (and no financial capital either)?

For some, it's as simple as this government being one they opposed on general principle. Many of those are on the right, shocked at being ignored for the first time in their lives. Others are on the left, cross that they're not getting everything they want. Bluntly, they're not worth the government fighting for. "Cons 2024 voter doesn't like this government" really isn't news.

For some, it is that the government didn't make a smooth start. Only a nitwit would say it did. But that it much more fixable. Partly by Starmer, Reeves etc growing into the role, but also by employing better scriptwriters behind the scenes.

But in many ways, the situation is what it always was. The country is in a state, the only plausible way out is a nervous shuffle, it will take time to improve, the public are in no mood to accept purple prose about the sunlit uplands, even if Starmer did purple prose.

The big picture, meanwhile, is that nothing important has changed. Starmer has few, if any, fans. But, given the alternatives, he'll have to do. And if he can say in 2028/9 "I did", his party will be fine.

His cabinet is second rate.

So a definite improvement on their predecessors.

They've been officially shelved.

Stuartinromford said:

Alanbrooke said:

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

How much is down to the flat-footed approach of Starmer and Reeves?

How much down to a volatile electorate, who oppose and criticise everything?

And how much down to starting with no political capital (and no financial capital either)?

For some, it's as simple as this government being one they opposed on general principle. Many of those are on the right, shocked at being ignored for the first time in their lives. Others are on the left, cross that they're not getting everything they want. Bluntly, they're not worth the government fighting for. "Cons 2024 voter doesn't like this government" really isn't news.

For some, it is that the government didn't make a smooth start. Only a nitwit would say it did. But that it much more fixable. Partly by Starmer, Reeves etc growing into the role, but also by employing better scriptwriters behind the scenes.

But in many ways, the situation is what it always was. The country is in a state, the only plausible way out is a nervous shuffle, it will take time to improve, the public are in no mood to accept purple prose about the sunlit uplands, even if Starmer did purple prose.

The big picture, meanwhile, is that nothing important has changed. Starmer has few, if any, fans. But, given the alternatives, he'll have to do. And if he can say in 2028/9 "I did", his party will be fine.

His cabinet is second rate.

So a definite improvement on their predecessors.

same old same old.

Alanbrooke said:

noneoftheabove said:

Alanbrooke said:

Taz said:

Alanbrooke said:

Recession Reeves killing the jobs market

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/17/ftse-100-markets-latest-news-uk-vacancies-employment-wages/

She's penned an article in the Mirror today.

It's full of the requisite wisdom we have come to expect


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/national-minimum-wage-increase-is-proof-labour-improves-living-standards/ar-AA1vZMfJ?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=4b1c978a52b949d2bb5419cf3a650dd6&ei=10

Yes, I read it. Apparently she is going to increase employment as employers close down jobs.
That's a hard circle tosquare

The domestic workforce is going to decrease over time because of demographics.

So we can either have good employment growth or no/low immigration but not both. It is as simple as that.

If AI is going to close down the number of jobs people predict we can shrink the workforce s and not need immigratuion. Basic productivity says we will need less people.

Except given the choice of employing locals or immigrants - most companies go for the immigrants.

There is a fired Economics Professor who demonstrated such things last week when looking at Red Wall areas and immigration...

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.

LOL

yes, but I dont think it would have been by £40 billion.

love to know what they would actually have cut - because they had run out of never-never options and the banks would need to see something actually being done...

I think we are going to find out very soon in the US just what happens when huge cuts in public spending and taxes are engineered by Trump

Watch this space

IanB2 said:

Ukraine claims responsibility for the motorcycle incident

Have they initiated an explosive new cycle of the war?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.

LOL

yes, but I dont think it would have been by £40 billion.

love to know what they would actually have cut - because they had run out of never-never options and the banks would need to see something actually being done...

I think we are going to find out very soon in the US just what happens when huge cuts in public spending and taxes are engineered by Trump

Watch this space

Spending rose rapidly under Trump last time. His job is to hand out billions to other billionaires whilst pretending to make cuts.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Come 2026, I will have served 15 years as an MSP. The time will be right for me to move on.

As the son of immigrants, I could never have imagined the incredible political journey I have been on. I feel blessed.

Thank you to all of those who have supported me over the years.

https://x.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1868930492059517379

One total arsehole gone , hopefully many to follow

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.

LOL

yes, but I dont think it would have been by £40 billion.

love to know what they would actually have cut - because they had run out of never-never options and the banks would need to see something actually being done...

Red tape, bureaucracy and diversity officers? Surely that is easily enough?

So you've saved £100-500m. now where are the rest of the savings coming from?

Staff christmas parties? Centralise purchasing of stationery? Am I nearly there yet?

Stuartinromford said:

Alanbrooke said:

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

How much is down to the flat-footed approach of Starmer and Reeves?

How much down to a volatile electorate, who oppose and criticise everything?

And how much down to starting with no political capital (and no financial capital either)?

For some, it's as simple as this government being one they opposed on general principle. Many of those are on the right, shocked at being ignored for the first time in their lives. Others are on the left, cross that they're not getting everything they want. Bluntly, they're not worth the government fighting for. "Cons 2024 voter doesn't like this government" really isn't news.

For some, it is that the government didn't make a smooth start. Only a nitwit would say it did. But that it much more fixable. Partly by Starmer, Reeves etc growing into the role, but also by employing better scriptwriters behind the scenes.

But in many ways, the situation is what it always was. The country is in a state, the only plausible way out is a nervous shuffle, it will take time to improve, the public are in no mood to accept purple prose about the sunlit uplands, even if Starmer did purple prose.

The big picture, meanwhile, is that nothing important has changed. Starmer has few, if any, fans. But, given the alternatives, he'll have to do. And if he can say in 2028/9 "I did", his party will be fine.

His cabinet is second rate.

So a definite improvement on their predecessors.

That's a low bar.

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.

LOL

yes, but I dont think it would have been by £40 billion.

love to know what they would actually have cut - because they had run out of never-never options and the banks would need to see something actually being done...

Red tape, bureaucracy and diversity officers? Surely that is easily enough?

So you've saved £100-500m. now where are the rest of the savings coming from?

Staff christmas parties? Centralise purchasing of stationery? Am I nearly there yet?

What Christmas parties? Self-funded by staff in the public sector, in contrast to much ofd the private sector.

And right-wingers banned centralised purchasing in favour of local contracting, remember, becayse it was supposedly more efficient.

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.

LOL

yes, but I dont think it would have been by £40 billion.

love to know what they would actually have cut - because they had run out of never-never options and the banks would need to see something actually being done...

Red tape, bureaucracy and diversity officers? Surely that is easily enough?

So you've saved £100-500m. now where are the rest of the savings coming from?

Look after the 10s of millions and the billions take care of themselves.

We're seeing the anti incumbent effect when Starmer hasn't had time to be an incumbent.

Anti incumbent in advance as it were

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Affordable homes held up as providers cannot afford them

Rayner waves a magic wand but reality is very different

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/dec/17/17400-affordable-homes-england-wales-not-being-built-lack-of-housing-association-money?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Restock council homes with a massive govt building plan also including significant training and apprenticeships so we have enough builders and trades for the next couple of decades rather than the shortage of the last decade.

But that does not address affordability of these homes by the providers

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Affordable homes held up as providers cannot afford them

Rayner waves a magic wand but reality is very different

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/dec/17/17400-affordable-homes-england-wales-not-being-built-lack-of-housing-association-money?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Restock council homes with a massive govt building plan also including significant training and apprenticeships so we have enough builders and trades for the next couple of decades rather than the shortage of the last decade.

But that does not address affordability of these homes by the providers

Govt can afford them. It can borrow cheaper than companies or housing trusts and in the medium term starts to save money by providing accommodation itself rather than paying landlords housing benefit.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.

I don't think Hunt would have specifically raised employer NI. Other taxes, maybe but not E'er NI to the crippling degree Reeves has.

Sandpit said:

Alanbrooke said:

eek said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I feel like we’ve forgotten that if the Tories had been re-elected, they too would be raising taxes.

LOL

yes, but I dont think it would have been by £40 billion.

love to know what they would actually have cut - because they had run out of never-never options and the banks would need to see something actually being done...

The increase in taxes was primarily driven by Labours wish to fund its projects hence the fictitious £22 billion.

Have to pay for Ed Miliband’s carbon storage scheme somehow.

Which was, of course, also Sunak's carbon storage scheme.
In this case, Alanbrooke is quite right about same old, same old.

He just thinks the Tories would have left their projects unfunded.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Apologies if this has been covered but Trudeau’s Liberals have suffered a Sunakian drubbing in a federal by election in the beautifully named Cloverdale - Langley City riding.

The riding was unexpectedly lost by the Conservatives in the 2021 election but Tamara Jensen, the unsuccessful Conservative candidate, has had their revenge on the Liberals turning a 3-point loss into a 49-point lead on a 26% swing.

That’s about double the swing in the current federal polling which shows the Conservatives set to win a landslide at the next election on a swing of 12-13% from the September 2021 election.

Our son and Canadian daughter in law in Vancouver would agree

The parallels with the UK are obvious. Poilievre has capitalised on all the post-pandemic issues which have blighted every other country and it’s clear Trudeau, once incredibly popular, is now widely loathed.

The Conservatives will win big as Starmer did but how effective they will be and whether they actually have any kind of answers to Canada’s problems is far from clear.

TimS said:

carnforth said:

FF43 said:

We're seeing the anti incumbent effect when Starmer hasn't had time to be an incumbent.

Anti incumbent in advance as it were

The odd part is he didn't really promise much - so it's not broken promises as such.

The public must be particularly febrile these days.

I think the public is rather just not particularly loyal to any one political brand at the moment. That's kind of encouraging if it means we're a less partisan country. Quite the contrast with the US.

Meanwhile the Lib Dems continue to "pootle along"/"languish" in the low double digits as if the election never happened. The least volatile support base of all.

Its time for the LDs to start putting forward a positive vision for the country (yes I know the others havent bothered either).

Disastrous poll for Starmer, he is now even more unpopular than Sunak and Brown.

Boris also may have had a net negative rating when he became PM but he had a 38% favourable rating, clearly enough to win a majority under FPTP. Starmer's 27% favourable rating now though is far below the level needed to win a majority

Good morning everyone, and thanks for the header.

Being Canadian by common acclamation, do we have a way of betting on Canadian politics sensibly, including named ministers?

Election next year, and at present best odds are Liberal 11/1, Conservative 1/9 afaics (Oddschecker).

Not good enough for a dabble, but it is looking volatile with Mr Trump jumping up and down.

HYUFD said:

Disastrous poll for Starmer, he is now even more unpopular than Sunak and Brown.

Boris also may have had a net negative rating when he became PM but he had a 38% favourable rating, clearly enough to win a majority under FPTP. Starmer's 27% favourable rating now though is far below the level needed to win a majority

He already has one.

MattW said:

Good morning everyone, and thanks for the header.

Being Canadian by common acclamation, do we have a way of betting on Canadian politics sensibly?

Yes.

https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/11/16/the-conservatives-are-the-1-10-favourites-to-win-the-next-general-election/

theProle said:

Dopermean said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah.

Downing Street has refused to rule out returning Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time since Brexit as the price of Sir Keir Starmer’s reset with the bloc.

At a meeting this week ministers from the European Union are expected to demand that the government agrees to follow new and existing European law on food and agricultural standards as part of an improved trade deal.

Britain would also be obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in specific areas as part of a new trade and co-operation agreement.

Both issues were a red line for the former Conservative government when the original trade and co-operation agreement was signed. It resulted in the imposition of new checks and restrictions on UK exports to the EU that are believed to have cost the economy £3 billion a year.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-could-return-to-eu-laws-as-keir-starmer-seeks-trade-deal-s7dfl5p92

Cue the populist right / mad Tories foaming on about how this would be the End Of Britain. True patriots will pay the stupidity tax.

If companies want to export to the EU then they'll have to comply with EU standards, you can see it with the quiet abandonment of the UK standard mark prior to the GE. EU standards are a global recognised standard that are cited in technical specifications, you can have your own mark but it'll have to be equivalent to a global standard and thus becomes redundant, Any deviation just creates inefficiency.

The problem is that the EU regulations are often very poorly thought out and badly written. Most stuff we make is not for export, but internal consumption. No-one has ever disputed that to export to the EU we would have to meet their standards (their gaff, their rules!), the issue is that because their standards are often stupid and ultimately wealth destroying (e.g. I've spent many thousands of pounds and wasted countless hours completely pointlessly to comply with bits of the Pressure Equipment Directive which are plain wrong) we shouldn't be applying them for products made in the UK for UK consumption. That savings from regulating UK stuff intelligently* should be vastly more than the quoted £3 billion costs to exporters. If Starmer takes us back into compliance with all EU regulations, he's even more stupid that I thought he was.

*This does require that we regulate intelligently - unfortunately the last government mainly just transposed EU directives into UK law anyway, rather than considering them on their merits.

This illustrates the insoluble problem. Both being in and out of the EU is, for the UK, highly unsatisfactory.

Very few were given the choices they wanted in 2016. What most wanted was this. Best: an EU which had been shaped differently by the UK being given referendums earlier. Second best: A reformed EU.

The first was unsayable by mainstream politicos, as they had all been complicit in this epic fail. The second, we concluded, was not going to happen.

HYUFD said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Disastrous poll for Starmer, he is now even more unpopular than Sunak and Brown.

Boris also may have had a net negative rating when he became PM but he had a 38% favourable rating, clearly enough to win a majority under FPTP. Starmer's 27% favourable rating now though is far below the level needed to win a majority

He already has one.

Which he will almost certainly lose at the next GE on current polls

And may win or may lose when you take into account they are just current polls. The downfall of the Boris govt was partly an obsession with current polls rather than doing any of the government work.