Like King James VI & I can Farage unite two auld enemies under one crown? – politicalbetting.com

noneoftheabove said:

Is anyone on here old enough to remember the good ol' days when the US had a far more sane and reasonable President who focused more on matters of import like covfefe and bleach injections rather than world domination?

Nigelb said:

Omnium said:

kinabalu said:

Omnium said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Ahhh

It’s coz I keep getting shit RIGHT

That’s it? Isn’t it? That’s what freaks you out?!

Ahahahahah

No.

You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹

Finally, I get it

😈

The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
 
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
 
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful.  In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
 
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
 
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you.  Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
 
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
 
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden.  When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.

And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️

We should simply keep the Islands we have. The whole International order thing is just nonsense. I've no idea what the Americans are paying us for their lease, but I suspect it isn't enough.

This whole running away nonsense really needs to end.

(I say this as someone that would never vote Reform)

AIUI, we receive an annual discount on Polaris in return for Diego Garcia, and said discount is in the tens of millions.

Whoopy doo - tens of millions vs tens of billions!?

Oi - you can't compare an annual to an aggregate. C'mon.

You're quite right. Nonetheless there's surely a disparity.

Unless the detail of both deals is published, we have no real idea.

What Starmer should have done is list it in the defence budget as the cost of maintaining the base, and published the full detail at the outset. At least it would count towards the 2.5% target.

Or just told Mauritius politely to FO.

Either would have been better.

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

maxh said:

Leon said:

It’s ok PB @maxh has spoken

The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs

Then…. Invade America

So we can

<<<<< checks notes again >>>>

Impose force on a chaotic American state

Yes

Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.

Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.

Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.

Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.

But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."

Nigelb said:

On the topic of DOGE’s attack on the NIH, anyone care to speculate about the ROI on these research projects ?

Since we're talking about funding of absurd research by NIH and other federal agencies, they funded scientists:

- watching flies fuck
- giving rats massages
- spending years digging into why jellyfish glow
- tracking penguin poop from space
- using horseshoe crab blood..
https://x.com/neubadah/status/1859095096396050637

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

On the topic of DOGE’s attack on the NIH, anyone care to speculate about the ROI on these research projects ?

Since we're talking about funding of absurd research by NIH and other federal agencies, they funded scientists:

- watching flies fuck
- giving rats massages
- spending years digging into why jellyfish glow
- tracking penguin poop from space
- using horseshoe crab blood..
https://x.com/neubadah/status/1859095096396050637

Since my son is keen on penguins, I might be able to help. "tracking penguin poop from space" allows scientists to detect and track penguin colonies, including undiscovered ones. This is because the poop leaves large brain stains that can be tracked much easier than individual penguins.

https://www.esa.int/kids/en/news/Spotting_penguin_poo_from_space

And horseshoe crab blood is in demand, as a component of it is used in detecting bacteria in medicine and medical devices.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/horseshoe-crab-blood-miracle-vaccine-ingredient.html

The others sound ridiculous, but there might be some interesting reasons why they were done.

Edit: ah, I can see from the replies that it was the point of the tweet!

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

maxh said:

Leon said:

It’s ok PB @maxh has spoken

The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs

Then…. Invade America

So we can

<<<<< checks notes again >>>>

Impose force on a chaotic American state

Yes

Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.

Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.

Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.

Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.

But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."

Come on. No-one has ever said that about Leon.

bondegezou said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://x.com/ZackPolanski/status/1887544716176056352

He tried to make a Sun reporter’s breasts bigger using hypnotherapy, so I struggle to take him seriously.

MattW said:

Nigelb said:

On the topic of DOGE’s attack on the NIH, anyone care to speculate about the ROI on these research projects ?

Since we're talking about funding of absurd research by NIH and other federal agencies, they funded scientists:

- watching flies fuck
- giving rats massages
- spending years digging into why jellyfish glow
- tracking penguin poop from space
- using horseshoe crab blood..
https://x.com/neubadah/status/1859095096396050637

Just in case anyone has not noticed yet, this was a very skilful Heffelump Trap to trip up, then maybe wake-up, some of the not-totally-programmed Trumpists, and neutrals.

Read the thread !

rottenborough said:

Sunder Katwala (sundersays)‬ ‪@sundersays.bsky.social‬
·
27m

I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration

If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Ahhh

It’s coz I keep getting shit RIGHT

That’s it? Isn’t it? That’s what freaks you out?!

Ahahahahah

No.

You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹

Finally, I get it

😈

The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
 
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
 
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful.  In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
 
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
 
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you.  Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
 
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
 
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden.  When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.

And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️

You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.

Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.

I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.

It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.

"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.

So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.

He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.

rottenborough said:

Sunder Katwala (sundersays)‬ ‪@sundersays.bsky.social‬
·
27m

I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration

If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier

bondegezou said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Ahhh

It’s coz I keep getting shit RIGHT

That’s it? Isn’t it? That’s what freaks you out?!

Ahahahahah

No.

You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹

Finally, I get it

😈

The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
 
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
 
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful.  In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
 
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
 
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you.  Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
 
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
 
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden.  When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.

And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️

You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.

Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.

I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.

It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.

"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.

So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.

He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.

"Vast" is a bit OTT. But that doesn't matter, I was just giving what I see as important context for the debate around this. Rules v Might is Right.

The modern structures of international law were a response to the devastating nature of the Napoleonic wars, the First World War, the Second World War and the Holocaust. They have worked extremely well in promoting peace and stability for the last three quarters of a century, and supported huge economic growth and prosperity.

Do we really want to be like those who ignore them — Putin, Netanyahu, Trump — or do we want to work towards a better world?

viewcode said:

CharlieShark said:

Quick check on Prediction competition. Haven't blown it yet.

Westminster Voting Intention:

RFM: 29% (+2)
LAB: 25% (+2)
CON: 18% (-3)
LDM: 13% (+2)
GRN: 10% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)

Via
@FindoutnowUK
, 5 Feb.
Changes w/ 29 Jan.

‼️NEW | Reform projected to win 300+ seats

🟣 REF 29% (+2)
🔴 LAB 25% (+2)
🔵 CON 18% (-3)
🟠 LD 13% (+2)
🟢 GRN 10% (-)

Via FindoutnowUK, 5 Feb (+/- vs 27 Jan)



Source: https://bsky.app/profile/leftiestats.bsky.social/post/3lhjk7tfcbk2h

kjh said:

TOPPING said:

kjh said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

maxh said:

Leon said:

It’s ok PB @maxh has spoken

The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs

Then…. Invade America

So we can

<<<<< checks notes again >>>>

Impose force on a chaotic American state

Yes

Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.

Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.

Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.

Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.

But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."

It’s one thing I envy Leon.
He has a job which allows him a huge amount of time for reading.

Or wasting his entire life on PB (He says while enjoying a pint of Shere Drop in the local).

An imo bannable offence on PB is judging others' presence on PB with the implication that it is a lesser activity while commenting on PB.

Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what value should be ascribed to any particular activity.

Oh very touchy tonight aren't we? It should have been apparent by my subsequent sentence and my obvious presence that it was an obvious joke.

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

CharlieShark said:

Quick check on Prediction competition. Haven't blown it yet.

Westminster Voting Intention:

RFM: 29% (+2)
LAB: 25% (+2)
CON: 18% (-3)
LDM: 13% (+2)
GRN: 10% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)

Via
@FindoutnowUK
, 5 Feb.
Changes w/ 29 Jan.

‼️NEW | Reform projected to win 300+ seats

🟣 REF 29% (+2)
🔴 LAB 25% (+2)
🔵 CON 18% (-3)
🟠 LD 13% (+2)
🟢 GRN 10% (-)

Via FindoutnowUK, 5 Feb (+/- vs 27 Jan)



Source: https://bsky.app/profile/leftiestats.bsky.social/post/3lhjk7tfcbk2h

So even then Farage couldn't become PM without Tory confidence and supply.

Scott_xP said:

@davelevitan.bsky.social‬

NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.

The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

@davelevitan.bsky.social‬

NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.

The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.

Doesn't SpaceX need to retain its people?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

SAS 'not justified' in 1992 shooting of four IRA men

The use of lethal force by SAS soldiers was unjustified when they opened fire killing four IRA men in an ambush at Clonoe in County Tyrone, an inquest has ruled.

Kevin Barry O'Donnell, 21, Sean O'Farrell, 22, Peter Clancy, 21, and Patrick Vincent, 20, died in February 1992, minutes after they had carried out a gun attack on Coalisland police station.

The soldiers opened fire as the men arrived at St Patrick's Church car park in a hijacked lorry which had a heavy machine gun welded to its tailgate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8kpxgdyyvo

This will not help the narrative.

TimS said:

Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.

First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.

But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.

Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.

eek said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

@davelevitan.bsky.social‬

NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.

The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.

Doesn't SpaceX need to retain its people?

SpaceX needs to retain the good clever people - they may be a lot of second / third tier people who others would be happy to lose to the Government.

MattW said:

Nigelb said:

On the topic of DOGE’s attack on the NIH, anyone care to speculate about the ROI on these research projects ?

Since we're talking about funding of absurd research by NIH and other federal agencies, they funded scientists:

- watching flies fuck
- giving rats massages
- spending years digging into why jellyfish glow
- tracking penguin poop from space
- using horseshoe crab blood..
https://x.com/neubadah/status/1859095096396050637

Just in case anyone has not noticed yet, this was a very skilful Heffelump Trap to trip up, then maybe wake-up, some of the not-totally-programmed Trumpists, and neutrals.

Read the thread !

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

@davelevitan.bsky.social‬

NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.

The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.

Doesn't SpaceX need to retain its people?

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

CharlieShark said:

Quick check on Prediction competition. Haven't blown it yet.

Westminster Voting Intention:

RFM: 29% (+2)
LAB: 25% (+2)
CON: 18% (-3)
LDM: 13% (+2)
GRN: 10% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)

Via
@FindoutnowUK
, 5 Feb.
Changes w/ 29 Jan.

‼️NEW | Reform projected to win 300+ seats

🟣 REF 29% (+2)
🔴 LAB 25% (+2)
🔵 CON 18% (-3)
🟠 LD 13% (+2)
🟢 GRN 10% (-)

Via FindoutnowUK, 5 Feb (+/- vs 27 Jan)



Source: https://bsky.app/profile/leftiestats.bsky.social/post/3lhjk7tfcbk2h

So even then Farage couldn't become PM without Tory confidence and supply.

Though somewhat curious a poll comes out today with Reform ahead after the Tories were ahead in a poll yesterday

https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1887046213700104406

The Lib Dems might make him PM in exchange for a referendum on PR.

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

maxh said:

Leon said:

It’s ok PB @maxh has spoken

The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs

Then…. Invade America

So we can

<<<<< checks notes again >>>>

Impose force on a chaotic American state

Yes

Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.

Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.

Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.

Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.

But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."

rottenborough said:

Sunder Katwala (sundersays)‬ ‪@sundersays.bsky.social‬
·
27m

I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration

If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MJW said:

rottenborough said:

Sunder Katwala (sundersays)‬ ‪@sundersays.bsky.social‬
·
27m

I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration

If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier

It's basically the same old failed Tory policies isn't it? Fundamentally they know their supporter base want hardline immigration policies, but they also know that under our economic and social model they can't achieve that without lots of pain and change - which people also don't want.

So their solution is to be mean to foreigners in the hope that's a sufficient substitute and maybe some go away.

Yougov poll on this is out

https://x.com/YouGov/status/1887535577987166267?t=ctB1L6RktuagZFkqOhtAUg&s=19

MJW said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MJW said:

rottenborough said:

Sunder Katwala (sundersays)‬ ‪@sundersays.bsky.social‬
·
27m

I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration

If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier

It's basically the same old failed Tory policies isn't it? Fundamentally they know their supporter base want hardline immigration policies, but they also know that under our economic and social model they can't achieve that without lots of pain and change - which people also don't want.

So their solution is to be mean to foreigners in the hope that's a sufficient substitute and maybe some go away.

Yougov poll on this is out

https://x.com/YouGov/status/1887535577987166267?t=ctB1L6RktuagZFkqOhtAUg&s=19

Why does the question not include the current length of time and proposed length of time? Surely that's fairly important to the answer given - because most people tend to underestimate (as they overestimate spending) these things and I reckon will say it's shorter than 6 years.

TimS said:

Greetings from the dining car of the Caledonian Sleeper, where I seem to be sharing the train with several lairds dressed variously in check shirts and cloth caps, and 3-pieces and ties with bloodshot noses, the latter straight out of the House of Lords.

This leads me to coin a new German compound noun. Ortsspezifischer Getränkewunsch. Ok that’s 2 words but.

The desire to drink the beverage that is specific to the place you’re in. The only time I really fancy a Guinness is in Dublin. In Provence I always want Rose. In Spain I down lots of fino with my jamon. I would only ever touch ouzo or retsina in Greece. In Japan I have an Asahi before dinner then lots of sake. And on the Caledonian I’m wanting whisky, which I rarely ever fancy outside Burns night.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Ahhh

It’s coz I keep getting shit RIGHT

That’s it? Isn’t it? That’s what freaks you out?!

Ahahahahah

No.

You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹

Finally, I get it

😈

The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
 
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
 
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful.  In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
 
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
 
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you.  Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
 
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
 
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden.  When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.

And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️

You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.

Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.

I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.

It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.

"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.

So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.

He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.

TimS said:

Eabhal said:

TimS said:

Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.

First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.

But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.

Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.

The tables are quite something too. Given '24 was a low turnout election...

• 15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
  
• 1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
  
• Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
  

(I'm using the "Voting" tab)

The DNV number sounds a note of caution for them though. Will those people actually turn up.

This is the secret power of the Tories. Their voter base vote. Come hell or high water.

Eabhal said:

TimS said:

Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.

First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.

But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.

Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.

The tables are quite something too. Given '24 was a low turnout election...

• 15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
  
• 1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
  
• Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
  

(I'm using the "Voting" tab)

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Ahhh

It’s coz I keep getting shit RIGHT

That’s it? Isn’t it? That’s what freaks you out?!

Ahahahahah

No.

You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹

Finally, I get it

😈

The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
 
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
 
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful.  In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
 
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
 
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you.  Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
 
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
 
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden.  When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.

And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️

You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.

Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.

I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.

It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.

"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.

So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.

He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.

The USA is part of the ICJ. They have a judge sitting on the ICJ (who was president of the court from 2021-2024). They have made more representations to the ICJ than any other country - including in the Chagos Islands case ruled on in 2019.

No_Offence_Alan said:

Foxy said:

rottenborough said:

Sunder Katwala (sundersays)‬ ‪@sundersays.bsky.social‬
·
27m

I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration

If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier

I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?

Should we be classing Mo Farah's medals as Somalian now, not British?

pigeon said:

TimS said:

Eabhal said:

TimS said:

Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.

First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.

But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.

Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.

The tables are quite something too. Given '24 was a low turnout election...

• 15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
  
• 1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
  
• Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
  

(I'm using the "Voting" tab)

The DNV number sounds a note of caution for them though. Will those people actually turn up.

This is the secret power of the Tories. Their voter base vote. Come hell or high water.

What's left of it.

Who's still voting Conservative apart from the fraction of home owning pensioners who find Reform vulgar, angry farmers, a few rural Scottish Unionists, and Never Labour voters in straight Lab-Con contests? What use are they to anyone else?

The only thing that's surprising about Tory vote share is that it isn't even lower.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MJW said:

rottenborough said:

Sunder Katwala (sundersays)‬ ‪@sundersays.bsky.social‬
·
27m

I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration

If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier

It's basically the same old failed Tory policies isn't it? Fundamentally they know their supporter base want hardline immigration policies, but they also know that under our economic and social model they can't achieve that without lots of pain and change - which people also don't want.

So their solution is to be mean to foreigners in the hope that's a sufficient substitute and maybe some go away.

Yougov poll on this is out

https://x.com/YouGov/status/1887535577987166267?t=ctB1L6RktuagZFkqOhtAUg&s=19

stodge said:

Morning all from a drizzly Aotearoa

Trump has a view of America and America’s status and purpose in the world which we haven’t heard for decades. In a generous mood, I’d call it benevolent superiority. He and his kind genuinely believe they can make things better but only on their terms in their way in their time.

A form of imperialism from the great republic? Well, it happened to Rome so why not? I like the idea of American billions pouring into Gaza, rebuilding and restoring the land and the infrastructure- it should of course be Saudi, Kuwaiti, Abu Dhabi and Qatari billions - but capitalism is exploitative and while a few enterprising Palestinians might prosper, my sense is it would end up like the proposed Singapore-on-Thames.

People busy making money are usually too busy to make trouble in my experience and of course the great Gaza Reconstruction Project would mean a lot of work for a lot of people which, after decades of Hamas misrule, would be an improvement of sorts.

This all presupposes an inate benevolence or paternalism within Trump and his kind and that’s where I have a problem. The post war plans for Iraq suggested a country run ineffectively by American based corporations - that’s both the new imperialism and the old imperialism.

The Marshall Plan wasn’t created just for largesse - it had a hard edged political significance. Trump’s plan is the same - I know it and I bet he knows it.

Ethical foreign policies may make some feel warm and cuddly - capitalist foreign policies are often more effective. Money talks, men walk and whether it’s the frozen wastes of Greenland or the South West Pacific, modern foreign policy works on the age old principle you catch more flies with honey than with flypaper.

TimS said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Ahhh

It’s coz I keep getting shit RIGHT

That’s it? Isn’t it? That’s what freaks you out?!

Ahahahahah

No.

You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹

Finally, I get it

😈

The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
 
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
 
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful.  In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
 
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
 
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you.  Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
 
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
 
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden.  When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.

And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️

You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.

Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.

I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.

It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.

"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.

So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.

He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.

The USA is part of the ICJ. They have a judge sitting on the ICJ (who was president of the court from 2021-2024). They have made more representations to the ICJ than any other country - including in the Chagos Islands case ruled on in 2019.

I think he’s thinking of the ICC, which indeed the US didn’t opt into.

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MJW said:

Well that's one of Elon's DOGELER Youth gone so far for being a white supremacist.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/doge-staffer-resigns-over-racist-posts-d9f11a93

Thought that would be worth a promotion.

Only if it didn't get attention.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

MoonRabbit said:

Leon said:

Ahhh

It’s coz I keep getting shit RIGHT

That’s it? Isn’t it? That’s what freaks you out?!

Ahahahahah

No.

You have utterly embarrassed yourself on Chagos deal 🥹

Finally, I get it

😈

The Chagos island plan B. Let me explain it to you.
 
Plan A wa UK, at request of US, expelling inhabitants off Chagos - concluding “forced deportations” in 1973. Ethnic cleansing carried out by both Tory and Labour government, on orders from Vietnam era Washington.
 
government of Mauritius successfully argued. in UN's highest court, it was illegally forced to give Chago away, the court ruled the UK's administration of the territory unlawful.  In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued opinion UK did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, administration of the whole archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius. The UN General Assembly gave UK 6 month deadline to begin process of handing over the islands. In 2021, UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ruled Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos Islands.
 
If you want to be part of the institution settling international disputes, like UN, want others to abide by its decisions, and you lose a case in the courtroom, what would you do?
 
This question smokes out the daft populists amongst you.  Does it depend upon what you merely regard as arbitrary international law, we can simply ignore without suffering any damage? Have cake and eat it membership of the UN? Or a leadership role?
 
In my opinion, for UK and US role in UN, it now needs a Plan B. If you think it UK Labour government Plan B, think again. As the US Plan A from 1968 hit the rocks, US told UK to use a cheat code to get round the legal difficulties, avoid hit to reputational damage of both countries – the century lease and banging them lolly does this - don’t even need to negotiate lease renewal and extra lolly for 95 years, all the while fully legally compliant.
 
I will be proved right in my analysis. Because despite their cakeist approach to international relations, this latest order from US to us to do their bidding, is probably going to be little different from Trump and his administration, than the instruction we got from Biden.  When it’s all joined up together in the history books, it’s a clear example of USA - never a great friend of UK, definitely never a friend of UK colonialism - using UK as their bitch for the Cold War dirty work. To bastardise the UN rulings by bunging someone money in order to bypass the spirit of those rulings, is clearly underhand and morally wrong.

And When Trumps America enables “Starmer’s” Chagos deal to happen, it with prove everything in my analysis. Watch this space. ☺️

You really do believe that the world is led by nice people who do what the UN tells them.

Alas, Pollyanna is no guide to realpolitik.

I know you know this, but it isn't even a case of what "The UN" has told us. The verdict of the so called court is purely advisory. It's not even that they can't enforce it - it has no legal weight. Following it is a policy choice, pure and simple.

It has however afforded us the rich pleasure of seeing Moon Rabbit claim that everyone who disagrees with her is a daft populist only to have her post shat on by noted populist rabble rousers NigelB and Omnium.

"International law" is not a hard established concept but if everybody goes with the flow of the Trump "vibe shift" and decides to pay it no regard whatsoever, this imo isn't something to be celebrated. It would be a negative development.

So if Keir Starmer is to be mocked and lampooned for being "in thrall" to doing things by the book you can count me out. One thing much worse than being overly enamoured of rules is being contemptuous of them.

He isn't 'doing something by the book'; he is making a policy decision to attempt to accede, at a vast monetary and Western security cost, with the non-legally binding verdict of a court that the USA (as an example) isn't even signed up to.

The USA is part of the ICJ. They have a judge sitting on the ICJ (who was president of the court from 2021-2024). They have made more representations to the ICJ than any other country - including in the Chagos Islands case ruled on in 2019.

Meh.

The weasly word salad above sounds just like when someone tells us how passionate China is about climate change because they've installed some solar (as they open another 100 coalmines). True except it isn't.

The United States played a major role in setting up the PCIJ but never joined.[8] Presidents Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Roosevelt all supported membership, but did not get the two-thirds majority in the Senate required for a treaty.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

maxh said:

Leon said:

It’s ok PB @maxh has spoken

The UK just needs to get together with <<< checks notes >>> the mighty military forces of…. Er…. Ireland. And, I dunno, Portugal? Who? France no. Germany no. Maybe Peru? The Isle of Man? The guy down the chip shop who always eats eggs

Then…. Invade America

So we can

<<<<< checks notes again >>>>

Impose force on a chaotic American state

Yes

Be careful. Your impersonation of a simpleton might make people suspicious of your claims of superlative IQ scores.

Steady on. He reads books. Big challenging ones.

Is precisely what is wrong with the UK. We sneer at learning and education.

Oh I get it with you it's a defensive thing because it's one of several areas you are exposed and insecure and here you have an ally to criticise Leon.

But it is very sad that one of the most damning (damning of the UK) things people, people such as yourself say is "They're too clever by half."

The original phrase was “*trying to be*too clever by half”

Ie they were pretending to be more sophisticated than they are and were caught out

So as a description it fits Leon then?

I don't know where the phrase originates but the earliest usage I'm aware of is the Marquis of Salisbury disparaging RA Butler as 'too clever by half', paving the way for Supermac to No. 10. Poor RAB had to be content with the mastership of Trinity: a sad but all too predictable denouement for one who is too clever (but can't conceal it).

Be warned, all of you.

algarkirk said:

pigeon said:

TimS said:

Eabhal said:

TimS said:

Some interesting stats from that find out now poll.

First, for the right wing it’s mixed news. RefCon is on 47% vs 48% for LLG. That’s lower than most polls.

But it’s now getting a bit more consolidated. The ratio is 0.72. 0.66 is the point of no return. If it gets there then the Tories go the way of Les Republicains. Don’t disappear, but get relegated to a rural conservative heartland.

Second, the SPLORG is now on the march. This is 57% SPLORG. Would have been unheard of before the last election.

The tables are quite something too. Given '24 was a low turnout election...

• 15% of DNVs at GE '24 now say they would vote for Reform (compared with 8% for the Conservatives)
  
• 1/4 of the Conservative vote has gone to Reform
  
• Reform's overall voter retention is excellent, 86% compared with 54% for the Conservatives
  

(I'm using the "Voting" tab)

The DNV number sounds a note of caution for them though. Will those people actually turn up.

This is the secret power of the Tories. Their voter base vote. Come hell or high water.

What's left of it.

Who's still voting Conservative apart from the fraction of home owning pensioners who find Reform vulgar, angry farmers, a few rural Scottish Unionists, and Never Labour voters in straight Lab-Con contests? What use are they to anyone else?

The only thing that's surprising about Tory vote share is that it isn't even lower.

The Tories have had terrible times before, but I can't remember ever a time when politics watchers taking a long view might begin to wonder whether there is a way back. It's not the figures, though they are dire; it's the combination of calibre/quality and momentum of the parties who want to beat them seat by seat. In almost every seat - and they start with only a few - they are vulnerable to one of LD, Lab and Reform. If that combines, by the magic of voter momentum, to ensure only one of them is the real challenger in virtually every seat they hold, and most they don't, the Tories look finished.

No_Offence_Alan said:

Foxy said:

rottenborough said:

Sunder Katwala (sundersays)‬ ‪@sundersays.bsky.social‬
·
27m

I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration

If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier

I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?

Should we be classing Mo Farah's medals as Somalian now, not British?

Fairliered said:

Scott_xP said:

@davelevitan.bsky.social‬

NEW: Apparently the Dept of Energy has replaced its Chief Information Officer with a "network engineer from SpaceX" who has maybe run a service desk but has no other IT leadership experience, per a source with knowledge.

The DOE, among other things, oversees all nuclear security. So that's cool.

Sounds like a tech equivalent of Rachel Reeves.

Cookie said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Foxy said:

rottenborough said:

Sunder Katwala (sundersays)‬ ‪@sundersays.bsky.social‬
·
27m

I said on LBC it is curious that these Badenoch proposals are not an immigration policy. Its a "what happens after you have been here six years" policy about citizenship & integration

If want an impact on immigration numbers, take seriously the choices about which visas are issued 6 years earlier

I understood she was upset about lack of integration, so how does making migrants less integrated help?

Should we be classing Mo Farah's medals as Somalian now, not British?

I always felt a little ambivalent about Mo Farah. Nothing against him as a person, but, yes, it's clear his success owes far more to his East African genetics than any nurturing of his talent that the UK might have done. As can be seen that almost every single successful global long distance runner was born in East Africa and none were born in the UK.