Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Dangerous air of unreality surrounding today's statement. Both main parties again arguing amongst themselves how much working people and the poor should sacrifice to bail out Britain. Whilst simultaneously saying the wealthiest must be protected. It's politically unsustainable.
Apparently Labour are going to make deeper than planned benefits cuts (as in deeper than planned 5 days ago) because the OBR thinks they won't raise £5bn, it will raise a bit less.
On the one hand, I suppose it's good we have a system where this gets scored. But it is weird for Labour to be changing policy to hit a £5bn rather than £3.4bn forecast at the drop of a hat. No one knows how much money this will save!
False precision going on here. Sense of unreality about it all.
Apparently Labour are going to make deeper than planned benefits cuts (as in deeper than planned 5 days ago) because the OBR thinks they won't raise £5bn, it will raise a bit less.
On the one hand, I suppose it's good we have a system where this gets scored. But it is weird for Labour to be changing policy to hit a £5bn rather than £3.4bn forecast at the drop of a hat. No one knows how much money this will save!
Let's be honest, it's likely to end up costing loads of money. For every person this induces into work (very few, given it's a non-means tested benefit so the incentive is already there), there will be 5 people who find their financial position deteriorate to the extent they require support from some other source, or find their health condition worsen or lose their independence and end up in A&E and/or council social care.
This effect will materialise just in time for the Conservative minority government in 2029.
PIP is non-means tested, but changes to PIP are not the only things going on with the Green Paper. Contributory ESA is being scrapped. This non-means tested if you have an up to date NI record before falling ill/disabled. Those in the Support group for ESA currently carry on into as long as they have the condition (assuming pass an subsquent reassessment). That is being scrapped. The replacement for the contributory ESA is called something like Unemployment Insurance and, crucially, will only be for twelve months for everyone.
They are also changing aspects of UC including the rates paid to the sick and non-sick to try and rebalance.
That looks like a couple of steps towards a more continental model.
Apparently Labour are going to make deeper than planned benefits cuts (as in deeper than planned 5 days ago) because the OBR thinks they won't raise £5bn, it will raise a bit less.
On the one hand, I suppose it's good we have a system where this gets scored. But it is weird for Labour to be changing policy to hit a £5bn rather than £3.4bn forecast at the drop of a hat. No one knows how much money this will save!
Let's be honest, it's likely to end up costing loads of money. For every person this induces into work (very few, given it's a non-means tested benefit so the incentive is already there), there will be 5 people who find their financial position deteriorate to the extent they require support from some other source, or find their health condition worsen or lose their independence and end up in A&E and/or council social care.
This effect will materialise just in time for the Conservative minority government in 2029.
PIP is non-means tested, but changes to PIP are not the only things going on with the Green Paper. Contributory ESA is being scrapped. This non-means tested if you have an up to date NI record before falling ill/disabled. Those in the Support group for ESA currently carry on into as long as they have the condition (assuming pass an subsquent reassessment). That is being scrapped. The replacement for the contributory ESA is called something like Unemployment Insurance and, crucially, will only be for twelve months for everyone.
They are also changing aspects of UC including the rates paid to the sick and non-sick to try and rebalance.
That looks like a couple of steps towards a more continental model.
Where would our PB Lefties be without Trump to take the heat off the shitshow that is Rachel Reeves ?
It's The Star wot does it!
I don't know why your man Farage doesn't snap their editor up.
I saw Farage earlier defending funding for free school meals. In a world of blue Tories and red Tories we seem to have found a genuine working class hero.
A provocative comparison I had not considered specifically - how similar is the House of Congress in Washington DC to the Duma in Moscow, in being a pair of rubber stamps?
From the latest Fiona Hill interview I have listened to from a few days ago.
00:00 Introduction 01:18 What’s the current state of play between Russia and Ukraine, what do each side want, and what’s the likely outcome? 05:26 Can Putin and Trump’s talks be effective without Europe and Ukraine’s input? 08:30 Can Europe stand up to Russia in the Ukraine conflict without relying on U.S. support? 12:19 Should Europe seize Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s fight? 15:25 Can you describe China’s support for Russia in its conflict with Ukraine? 20:26 Is India leaning towards Russia in this conflict? 25:25 Can you explain Trump’s strategy on the Ukraine conflict? 33:37 What are the most likely scenarios for the Ukraine conflict through 2025 and 2026? 40:01 How do you compare higher education in the U.K. vs. the U.S.? 45:40 Are UK universities seen more as a public good, with less emphasis on alumni donations than in the U.S.?
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Not convinced. I think they just have good voter retention (like Reform), so their vote share looks good while Labour and Tory voters tick the "will not vote" and "don't know" boxes.
Apparently Labour are going to make deeper than planned benefits cuts (as in deeper than planned 5 days ago) because the OBR thinks they won't raise £5bn, it will raise a bit less.
On the one hand, I suppose it's good we have a system where this gets scored. But it is weird for Labour to be changing policy to hit a £5bn rather than £3.4bn forecast at the drop of a hat. No one knows how much money this will save!
Let's be honest, it's likely to end up costing loads of money. For every person this induces into work (very few, given it's a non-means tested benefit so the incentive is already there), there will be 5 people who find their financial position deteriorate to the extent they require support from some other source, or find their health condition worsen or lose their independence and end up in A&E and/or council social care.
This effect will materialise just in time for the Conservative minority government in 2029.
Detecting lately some real anger at Labour from friends.."To think, I used to vote for them...."
Gawd knows what that is going to turn to as they embrace austerity.
Apparently Labour are going to make deeper than planned benefits cuts (as in deeper than planned 5 days ago) because the OBR thinks they won't raise £5bn, it will raise a bit less.
On the one hand, I suppose it's good we have a system where this gets scored. But it is weird for Labour to be changing policy to hit a £5bn rather than £3.4bn forecast at the drop of a hat. No one knows how much money this will save!
Let's be honest, it's likely to end up costing loads of money. For every person this induces into work (very few, given it's a non-means tested benefit so the incentive is already there), there will be 5 people who find their financial position deteriorate to the extent they require support from some other source, or find their health condition worsen or lose their independence and end up in A&E and/or council social care.
This effect will materialise just in time for the Conservative minority government in 2029.
Detecting lately some real anger at Labour from friends.."To think, I used to vote for them...."
Gawd knows what that is going to turn to as they embrace austerity.
Has there been a single major decision that isn't just pushing them more and more towards being one term?
The US represents 25% of global GDP and falling. It represents 60% of global market cap, and that premium reflects the belief in superior technology and more efficient capital allocation. If neither are true, long term, then the US in general, not just tech, is a clear SELL:
That doesn't necessarily follow from the statistic you quote. Other countries use bank finance much more than America does.
However, I agree that the US stock market is probably wildly overvalued because of a combination of the Fed's serial bubble blowing and a very American misguided obsession with second rate technology just because it's shiny and new.
Also, at least as far as the magnificent 7 is concerned, the US has moved from competition to an oligarchic system which has allowed super profits to be extracted at the cost of competitiveness for everyone else. In the medium term that will be damaging to the US.
The rise of Chinese competitors who accept far lower margins is going to limit that, fairly soon.
The US is walking into a trap.
It is not just the incoherent incompetence of the Trump regime. It also rests on fundamentals going back at least since the GFC. The reshoring that has been going on in the United States at least since then has led to the recovery of its industrial base, but it is not particularly efficient compared to the global low cost producers that European (and Chinese) competitors still use. The Fed is already forecasting lower US growth and higher inflation and is preparing to slow the easing stance that they signalled last autumn. Tariffs will increase that problem and reduce US exports further, as will a small but significant consumer boycott of US goods and brands, the Fed concedes that a weaker Dollar is all but certain and in normal circumstances this would not be a specific problem.
These are not normal circumstances.
The unplugging of the US from the global trade network that is accelerating under Trump leaves the US less efficient. The oligopolists in tech as in energy and other sectors are indeed getting super normal profits more at the expense of the US consumer than overseas consumers. The US is losing competitiveness versus EU and especially Chinese rivals. This makes the USD structurally less attractive, so the Fed will need to switch to a more hawkish interest rates policy for any given exchange rate. The problem then turns into a vicious circle of relatively higher rates joining to greater inefficiency adding to reducing competitiveness leading to a need to use interest rates policy to stabilise the Dollar. Worse the investment cycle in the US needs relatively lower rates, and higher rates hurt companies like Boeing that need major league investment to catch up with Airbus, also Tesla versus its rivals. They, like others, have to curtail long term investment plans and sell less in the short term (and Boeing´s civil and military sales are already below forecasts).
The US equity markets adjust to significantly lower profit expectations. The problems is speed, with a real risk of a dollar rout.
The Euro is becoming a safe haven, and with some structural reform the EU/UK can improve its own capital markets, with increased stability a new feature. The US ends being permanently marked down: what 15%? 20%? It could even overcorrect a whole lot more.
These are not definite forecasts, but they are fundamental, not trading, risks and the markets are hunting around trying to find a settlement point. For investors, volatility is rising and the US bond and equity markets are set to fall. So reinforces the SELL at these levels
The Council Tax system has to be reformed so that the wealthy (& usually older generation) pay more.
Why is this all so difficult for Labour?
Reforming the Council Tax system and thereby strengthening local Government finance and accountability is a no-brainer. We all have to accept the world has moved on from the 1991 revaluations and we now have to pay something more commensurate with the value of the property.
As for the Triple Lock, the problem Labour has isn't with the 65+ vote - they got just over 20% among over 65s last year and are (according to recent polls) down to 10% (Reform and Conservatives tied at 31% with LDs at 16% among that cohort) but with the aspiring pensioners in the 50-64 age group.
Nonetheless, I agree - the Triple Lock has to go. It's only lasted so long because of the dependency the Conservatives had on the older vote.
To take a homely instance, it is obvious that the BBC (of all outfits!) is already tempering its coverage to ensure if possible it isn't kicked out when the media purge gets more serious.
I had noticed that, and didn't quite understand it. I was wondering why the BBC would either not report or very much temper down the reporting ("It is understood some possible minor security breaches may have happened, but the White House Press Secretary said they didn't so that's good enough for us, so lets move onto this ridiculous story about Stacey Solomon and Joe Swash")
The BBC has decided of the three options (Fight, flight or bend the knee) that they'll bend the knee. I doubt it'll save them when the purge comes (the name 'British' will guarantee they'll be purged) but I suspect they're trying.
I don't use the BBC for any American news stories anymore. They mostly don't report the shitstorm happening there, and what little they do is very much 'both sides'ism, when it's very obvious there is no alternative position to take.
I don't think what you write is a good summary of the BBC's coverage. Here's the beginning of the latest BBC article:
US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has taken responsibility for a group chat in which high-ranking officials planned military strikes in Yemen in the company of a journalist who was inadvertently added.
"I take full responsibility. I built the group," Waltz told Fox News on Tuesday, adding it was "embarrassing".
President Donald Trump and US intelligence chiefs have downplayed the security risks and said no classified material was shared.
But Democrats and some Republicans have called for an investigation into what several lawmakers have described as a major breach.
Atlantic magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg reported that he was accidentally added to the Signal chat by a user named Mike Waltz.
In his article that broke the story, external he says he saw classified military plans for US strikes in Yemen, including weapons packages, targets and timing, two hours before the bombs struck. That content was held back from the piece.
To take a homely instance, it is obvious that the BBC (of all outfits!) is already tempering its coverage to ensure if possible it isn't kicked out when the media purge gets more serious.
I had noticed that, and didn't quite understand it. I was wondering why the BBC would either not report or very much temper down the reporting ("It is understood some possible minor security breaches may have happened, but the White House Press Secretary said they didn't so that's good enough for us, so lets move onto this ridiculous story about Stacey Solomon and Joe Swash")
The BBC has decided of the three options (Fight, flight or bend the knee) that they'll bend the knee. I doubt it'll save them when the purge comes (the name 'British' will guarantee they'll be purged) but I suspect they're trying.
I don't use the BBC for any American news stories anymore. They mostly don't report the shitstorm happening there, and what little they do is very much 'both sides'ism, when it's very obvious there is no alternative position to take.
I was always pro BBC and licence fee and public broadcaster, but I feel now what's the point? The news and comment programmes have ceased to be balanced and all encompassing, ie farage on all the time yet question time stopped being balanced years ago. I feel that the entertainment shows can be adequately provided by netflix/prime or ITV. It's a great shame, but theyve ceased to play to their original motto.
And they are losing serious heavyweight journos every few weeks it seems. Sakur recently gone/thrown out. This week it was Jo Coburg.
He’s got the CV. And some ability. Which gets you as far as Vice President. But des he have the star quality?
The Democrats tried the CV approach with Harris. The problem was that she was a B- performer - not a disaster, but simply not in the Obama/Bill Clinton league.
What they need for next time is the star quality. The very best.
Normally, I might agree. But, whatever happens from here, 2028 will not be a normal election. Either any old donkey will win, or no Democrat has a chance.
What I don't know is which of those conditions will apply.
That’s the kind of thinking that Bernie and AOC are setting fire to.
“They will just hand it to us”
I think it is pretty clear that the leadership of the Democrats is thinking like that (partly). It’s also clear that there’s a wrecking ball coming their way. The grass roots aren’t interested in whose turn it is. They want a winner.
That's what political parties do when they get tired of losing and want to win - see Thatcher, Cameron, Blair and even Starmer if you want examples of that.
If you pick a Corbyn or a Duncan-Smith, you just want to go on losing.
American parties are different and yet the same - between Presidential elections they are much more diffuse as there is less central leadership.
The other thing that united parties and quells divisions is the desire to win - arguments are quickly buried behind the common goal (that doesn't mean they can't and won't re-emerge either in Government or in the wake of another defeat).
That's partly true but sometimes parties get into a funk and need to pick someone who will shake it up. Thatcher was far from a safe choice but the Tories had allowed Heath to run in four elections and he lost three of them. They needed to roll the dice on someone new and it worked for them. She wasn't a unity choice and many senior figures in the party were aghast that she won. The Democrats united behind Harris and it didn't work so they may well need to roll the dice on someone like AOC.
Certain interest groups would do their utmost to ensure that AOC never becomes the Democratic POTUS nominee.
The Council Tax system has to be reformed so that the wealthy (& usually older generation) pay more.
Why is this all so difficult for Labour?
Could anyone tell me why this wouldn’t of worked -
1) merge personal NI and Income tax. Get rid of the personal allowance withdrawals etc. put the rates up a bit, in the process. 2) state pension = personal allowance lock. Upgrade both, but paid for with higher rates. 3) old age benefits into a blender, replaced with means tested/taxable benefits.
Sell it as “we are all in it together.” - together with some clear graphs of who is paying more.
Can’t see how Reeves would have ended up with worse polling with that.
Apparently Labour are going to make deeper than planned benefits cuts (as in deeper than planned 5 days ago) because the OBR thinks they won't raise £5bn, it will raise a bit less.
On the one hand, I suppose it's good we have a system where this gets scored. But it is weird for Labour to be changing policy to hit a £5bn rather than £3.4bn forecast at the drop of a hat. No one knows how much money this will save!
Let's be honest, it's likely to end up costing loads of money. For every person this induces into work (very few, given it's a non-means tested benefit so the incentive is already there), there will be 5 people who find their financial position deteriorate to the extent they require support from some other source, or find their health condition worsen or lose their independence and end up in A&E and/or council social care.
This effect will materialise just in time for the Conservative minority government in 2029.
Detecting lately some real anger at Labour from friends.."To think, I used to vote for them...."
Gawd knows what that is going to turn to as they embrace austerity.
Has there been a single major decision that isn't just pushing them more and more towards being one term?
They certainly seem to be paying the price for not having a plan for governing. And Reeves being left to implement the financial side of that non-plan.
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
He’s got the CV. And some ability. Which gets you as far as Vice President. But des he have the star quality?
The Democrats tried the CV approach with Harris. The problem was that she was a B- performer - not a disaster, but simply not in the Obama/Bill Clinton league.
What they need for next time is the star quality. The very best.
Normally, I might agree. But, whatever happens from here, 2028 will not be a normal election. Either any old donkey will win, or no Democrat has a chance.
What I don't know is which of those conditions will apply.
That’s the kind of thinking that Bernie and AOC are setting fire to.
“They will just hand it to us”
I think it is pretty clear that the leadership of the Democrats is thinking like that (partly). It’s also clear that there’s a wrecking ball coming their way. The grass roots aren’t interested in whose turn it is. They want a winner.
That's what political parties do when they get tired of losing and want to win - see Thatcher, Cameron, Blair and even Starmer if you want examples of that.
If you pick a Corbyn or a Duncan-Smith, you just want to go on losing.
American parties are different and yet the same - between Presidential elections they are much more diffuse as there is less central leadership.
The other thing that united parties and quells divisions is the desire to win - arguments are quickly buried behind the common goal (that doesn't mean they can't and won't re-emerge either in Government or in the wake of another defeat).
That's partly true but sometimes parties get into a funk and need to pick someone who will shake it up. Thatcher was far from a safe choice but the Tories had allowed Heath to run in four elections and he lost three of them. They needed to roll the dice on someone new and it worked for them. She wasn't a unity choice and many senior figures in the party were aghast that she won. The Democrats united behind Harris and it didn't work so they may well need to roll the dice on someone like AOC.
Certain interest groups would do their utmost to ensure that AOC never becomes the Democratic POTUS nominee.
The interest group being those who would like the Democrats to win elections?
Coming to the very first sentence in the header, 'on the assumption of free and fair elections' I really don't think 2028 will be, if it's even run (I think it will be, but it'll be Putin's elections).
I don't bet, so I'm no good at this but I assume that any money placed down should only be used as a trading bet (if I understand rightly) with the implication you will cash out well before the event in question.
My personal belief is to watch the betting markets. I wonder how long before bookies cease offering odds on the 2028 US election, similar to how they probably don't bother with Russian ones.
It's been said before on this site, but we're all suffering from continuity bias. There has been a free and fair election for the last 250 years, so there must be one in 2028. We're wrong. There won't be. I wonder what the cycle of elections in the state(s) occupying central north America will look like when they do return to free and fair elections...........?
Another computer issue raised its head a few days ago. Relative lost her partner a couple of years ago. His email address was the one used for almost all family contact. She continued after he had passed as it was the main means of keeping in touch with family and friends. Everyone had it in their address books.
The (Sky) account was hacked a day or so ago. Everyone on the list got an urgent email saying they needed to send some money but not to phone as the sender had laryngitis - standard scam. She tried to recover the account but found the password had been changed and Sky couldn't release the account unless the (deceased) owner agreed.
Wonder how many wills cover common digital assets.
A provocative comparison I had not considered specifically - how similar is the House of Congress in Washington DC to the Duma in Moscow, in being a pair of rubber stamps?
From the latest Fiona Hill interview I have listened to from a few days ago.
00:00 Introduction 01:18 What’s the current state of play between Russia and Ukraine, what do each side want, and what’s the likely outcome? 05:26 Can Putin and Trump’s talks be effective without Europe and Ukraine’s input? 08:30 Can Europe stand up to Russia in the Ukraine conflict without relying on U.S. support? 12:19 Should Europe seize Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s fight? 15:25 Can you describe China’s support for Russia in its conflict with Ukraine? 20:26 Is India leaning towards Russia in this conflict? 25:25 Can you explain Trump’s strategy on the Ukraine conflict? 33:37 What are the most likely scenarios for the Ukraine conflict through 2025 and 2026? 40:01 How do you compare higher education in the U.K. vs. the U.S.? 45:40 Are UK universities seen more as a public good, with less emphasis on alumni donations than in the U.S.?
Another computer issue raised its head a few days ago. Relative lost her partner a couple of years ago. His email address was the one used for almost all family contact. She continued after he had passed as it was the main means of keeping in touch with family and friends. Everyone had it in their address books.
The (Sky) account was hacked a day or so ago. Everyone on the list got an urgent email saying they needed to send some money but not to phone as the sender had laryngitis - standard scam. She tried to recover the account but found the password had been changed and Sky couldn't release the account unless the (deceased) owner agreed.
Wonder how many wills cover common digital assets.
That should be enforceable as Executor / Personal Representative, I would think.
Our experience was that we could do most things, but certain institutions insisted on probate having been done.
The US represents 25% of global GDP and falling. It represents 60% of global market cap, and that premium reflects the belief in superior technology and more efficient capital allocation. If neither are true, long term, then the US in general, not just tech, is a clear SELL:
That doesn't necessarily follow from the statistic you quote. Other countries use bank finance much more than America does.
However, I agree that the US stock market is probably wildly overvalued because of a combination of the Fed's serial bubble blowing and a very American misguided obsession with second rate technology just because it's shiny and new.
Also, at least as far as the magnificent 7 is concerned, the US has moved from competition to an oligarchic system which has allowed super profits to be extracted at the cost of competitiveness for everyone else. In the medium term that will be damaging to the US.
The rise of Chinese competitors who accept far lower margins is going to limit that, fairly soon.
The US is walking into a trap.
It is not just the incoherent incompetence of the Trump regime. It also rests on fundamentals going back at least since the GFC. The reshoring that has been going on in the United States at least since then has led to the recovery of its industrial base, but it is not particularly efficient compared to the global low cost producers that European (and Chinese) competitors still use. The Fed is already forecasting lower US growth and higher inflation and is preparing to slow the easing stance that they signalled last autumn. Tariffs will increase that problem and reduce US exports further, as will a small but significant consumer boycott of US goods and brands, the Fed concedes that a weaker Dollar is all but certain and in normal circumstances this would not be a specific problem.
These are not normal circumstances.
The unplugging of the US from the global trade network that is accelerating under Trump leaves the US less efficient. The oligopolists in tech as in energy and other sectors are indeed getting super normal profits more at the expense of the US consumer than overseas consumers. The US is losing competitiveness versus EU and especially Chinese rivals. This makes the USD structurally less attractive, so the Fed will need to switch to a more hawkish interest rates policy for any given exchange rate. The problem then turns into a vicious circle of relatively higher rates joining to greater inefficiency adding to reducing competitiveness leading to a need to use interest rates policy to stabilise the Dollar. Worse the investment cycle in the US needs relatively lower rates, and higher rates hurt companies like Boeing that need major league investment to catch up with Airbus, also Tesla versus its rivals. They, like others, have to curtail long term investment plans and sell less in the short term (and Boeing´s civil and military sales are already below forecasts).
The US equity markets adjust to significantly lower profit expectations. The problems is speed, with a real risk of a dollar rout.
The Euro is becoming a safe haven, and with some structural reform the EU/UK can improve its own capital markets, with increased stability a new feature. The US ends being permanently marked down: what 15%? 20%? It could even overcorrect a whole lot more.
These are not definite forecasts, but they are fundamental, not trading, risks and the markets are hunting around trying to find a settlement point. For investors, volatility is rising and the US bond and equity markets are set to fall. So reinforces the SELL at these levels
Also, far more in the USA are exposed to equity markets through their pension planning.
Another computer issue raised its head a few days ago. Relative lost her partner a couple of years ago. His email address was the one used for almost all family contact. She continued after he had passed as it was the main means of keeping in touch with family and friends. Everyone had it in their address books.
The (Sky) account was hacked a day or so ago. Everyone on the list got an urgent email saying they needed to send some money but not to phone as the sender had laryngitis - standard scam. She tried to recover the account but found the password had been changed and Sky couldn't release the account unless the (deceased) owner agreed.
Wonder how many wills cover common digital assets.
I was not alone in having to choose a new username when PB did something-or-other, because the old name was linked to a defunct email address.
Coming to the very first sentence in the header, 'on the assumption of free and fair elections' I really don't think 2028 will be, if it's even run (I think it will be, but it'll be Putin's elections).
I don't bet, so I'm no good at this but I assume that any money placed down should only be used as a trading bet (if I understand rightly) with the implication you will cash out well before the event in question.
My personal belief is to watch the betting markets. I wonder how long before bookies cease offering odds on the 2028 US election, similar to how they probably don't bother with Russian ones.
It's been said before on this site, but we're all suffering from continuity bias. There has been a free and fair election for the last 250 years, so there must be one in 2028. We're wrong. There won't be. I wonder what the cycle of elections in the state(s) occupying central north America will look like when they do return to free and fair elections...........?
Indeed. Given everything the Trump administration has done so far, why on Earth would we assume that they will respect democratic norms?
Coming to the very first sentence in the header, 'on the assumption of free and fair elections' I really don't think 2028 will be, if it's even run (I think it will be, but it'll be Putin's elections).
I don't bet, so I'm no good at this but I assume that any money placed down should only be used as a trading bet (if I understand rightly) with the implication you will cash out well before the event in question.
My personal belief is to watch the betting markets. I wonder how long before bookies cease offering odds on the 2028 US election, similar to how they probably don't bother with Russian ones.
It's been said before on this site, but we're all suffering from continuity bias. There has been a free and fair election for the last 250 years, so there must be one in 2028. We're wrong. There won't be. I wonder what the cycle of elections in the state(s) occupying central north America will look like when they do return to free and fair elections...........?
Quite a few of us have already said that we're far from certain there will be genuine elections in 2028. I don't think it's yet settled either way, though.
The Council Tax system has to be reformed so that the wealthy (& usually older generation) pay more.
Why is this all so difficult for Labour?
To put some numbers on this, council tax could be replaced a flat 0.5% property value tax. For 1%, you could abolish IHT, CGT and Stamp Duty too.
Okay - I'll play. We'll get everywhere valued - do we do banding again or try to be more precise?
At 1%, our property tax (if you treat Council Tax as such) would be more than doubled. At 0.5% not far off what we're paying now.
There would have to be an amended redistributive process because of where the expensive properties are - East Ham is NOT St George's Hill but Newham needs the money more than Elmbridge (allegedly).
If you went down the 1% route would the councils get all the money or would the Government, assuming said funds were replacing CGT, IHT and Stamp Duty, want their cut?
What about the funding of social care for vulnerable adults and children and SEN provision and the costs of providing temporary accommodation for the homeless?
Dangerous air of unreality surrounding today's statement. Both main parties again arguing amongst themselves how much working people and the poor should sacrifice to bail out Britain. Whilst simultaneously saying the wealthiest must be protected. It's politically unsustainable.
At some point the UK state will wake up to the reality that the oldies are the only ones left relatively untaxed & they have to be made to pay their share as the main beneficiary of the state’s largesse. That means income tax rises combined with national insurance cuts, or NI being imposed on the retired.
Coming to the very first sentence in the header, 'on the assumption of free and fair elections' I really don't think 2028 will be, if it's even run (I think it will be, but it'll be Putin's elections).
I don't bet, so I'm no good at this but I assume that any money placed down should only be used as a trading bet (if I understand rightly) with the implication you will cash out well before the event in question.
My personal belief is to watch the betting markets. I wonder how long before bookies cease offering odds on the 2028 US election, similar to how they probably don't bother with Russian ones.
It's been said before on this site, but we're all suffering from continuity bias. There has been a free and fair election for the last 250 years, so there must be one in 2028. We're wrong. There won't be. I wonder what the cycle of elections in the state(s) occupying central north America will look like when they do return to free and fair elections...........?
In fact, elections in the USA have often been far from free and fair, at least at State and municipal level.
The Redeemers used widespread violence, and voter fraud, and voter suppression, to regain and maintain control, in much of the South, following Reconstruction. Many Southern elections were as farcical as anything in Russia, up till the 1960's.
That's what the MAGA's would be looking to, as a precedent.
Nuclear warheads in #Ukraine were ex-Soviet, not Russian.
Warheads in storage were in sole Ukrainian custody.
ICBMs and bombers were eliminated in Ukraine except small number sent to #Russia for debt relief.
#Ukraine chose to send nuclear warheads to #Russia for elimination in large part because Russia committed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and not to use force against Ukraine.
The Democrats have a serious problem which is that they're no longer able to articulate the concerns of ordinary working-class Americans.
I'm not sure that's true apart from being a cheap jibe.
There will inevitably be issues with Trump's administration and the Democrats are the obvious repostiory for those who don't think the promised land has materialised. After two months and less than six from a bruising defeat, the Democrats are still picking themselves up and dusting themselves down.
They do need to get on the front foot again but the midterms are 18 months and more away.
Dangerous air of unreality surrounding today's statement. Both main parties again arguing amongst themselves how much working people and the poor should sacrifice to bail out Britain. Whilst simultaneously saying the wealthiest must be protected. It's politically unsustainable.
At some point the UK state will wake up to the reality that the oldies are the only ones left relatively untaxed & they have to be made to pay their share as the main beneficiary of the state’s largesse. That means income tax rises combined with national insurance cuts, or NI being imposed on the retired.
Current trends are simply unsustainable.
How is it possible we can live in a country where so much money is spent on welfare bills yet many people feel resentful that the government isn't giving them enough?
To take a homely instance, it is obvious that the BBC (of all outfits!) is already tempering its coverage to ensure if possible it isn't kicked out when the media purge gets more serious.
I had noticed that, and didn't quite understand it. I was wondering why the BBC would either not report or very much temper down the reporting ("It is understood some possible minor security breaches may have happened, but the White House Press Secretary said they didn't so that's good enough for us, so lets move onto this ridiculous story about Stacey Solomon and Joe Swash")
The BBC has decided of the three options (Fight, flight or bend the knee) that they'll bend the knee. I doubt it'll save them when the purge comes (the name 'British' will guarantee they'll be purged) but I suspect they're trying.
I don't use the BBC for any American news stories anymore. They mostly don't report the shitstorm happening there, and what little they do is very much 'both sides'ism, when it's very obvious there is no alternative position to take.
I would be interested to know what others use for USA news. Mine include MSNBC, CNN, LBC, Economist and a couple of bloggers including Marc Elias and Brian Tyler Cohen.
These all display massive bias in the conventional sense, but I am not sure that conventional ('on the one hand this and on the other hand that' and 'here are two sane voices in discussion from opposite sides of the discussion') reporting is possible.
The Council Tax system has to be reformed so that the wealthy (& usually older generation) pay more.
Why is this all so difficult for Labour?
To put some numbers on this, council tax could be replaced a flat 0.5% property value tax. For 1%, you could abolish IHT, CGT and Stamp Duty too.
Okay - I'll play. We'll get everywhere valued - do we do banding again or try to be more precise?
At 1%, our property tax (if you treat Council Tax as such) would be more than doubled. At 0.5% not far off what we're paying now.
There would have to be an amended redistributive process because of where the expensive properties are - East Ham is NOT St George's Hill but Newham needs the money more than Elmbridge (allegedly).
If you went down the 1% route would the councils get all the money or would the Government, assuming said funds were replacing CGT, IHT and Stamp Duty, want their cut?
What about the funding of social care for vulnerable adults and children and SEN provision and the costs of providing temporary accommodation for the homeless?
I think the link between council tax and council funding is largely academic. The legal obligations imposed by central government mean they don't have much discretion in how to spend their cash.
As such, the allocation (and value) of council funding is a different question. A really punchy change would be to allocate it based on the number of children aged under 18, incentivising councils to provide good services for families (and even build houses). But there are lots of other considerations, as you note.
Dangerous air of unreality surrounding today's statement. Both main parties again arguing amongst themselves how much working people and the poor should sacrifice to bail out Britain. Whilst simultaneously saying the wealthiest must be protected. It's politically unsustainable.
At some point the UK state will wake up to the reality that the oldies are the only ones left relatively untaxed & they have to be made to pay their share as the main beneficiary of the state’s largesse. That means income tax rises combined with national insurance cuts, or NI being imposed on the retired.
Current trends are simply unsustainable.
How is it possible we can live in a country where so much money is spent on welfare bills yet many people feel resentful that the government isn't giving them enough?
I blame Attlee.
If only we had benefitted from 50 years of Conservative Governments in the last seventy five.
The US represents 25% of global GDP and falling. It represents 60% of global market cap, and that premium reflects the belief in superior technology and more efficient capital allocation. If neither are true, long term, then the US in general, not just tech, is a clear SELL:
That doesn't necessarily follow from the statistic you quote. Other countries use bank finance much more than America does.
However, I agree that the US stock market is probably wildly overvalued because of a combination of the Fed's serial bubble blowing and a very American misguided obsession with second rate technology just because it's shiny and new.
Also, at least as far as the magnificent 7 is concerned, the US has moved from competition to an oligarchic system which has allowed super profits to be extracted at the cost of competitiveness for everyone else. In the medium term that will be damaging to the US.
The rise of Chinese competitors who accept far lower margins is going to limit that, fairly soon.
The US is walking into a trap.
It is not just the incoherent incompetence of the Trump regime. It also rests on fundamentals going back at least since the GFC. The reshoring that has been going on in the United States at least since then has led to the recovery of its industrial base, but it is not particularly efficient compared to the global low cost producers that European (and Chinese) competitors still use. The Fed is already forecasting lower US growth and higher inflation and is preparing to slow the easing stance that they signalled last autumn. Tariffs will increase that problem and reduce US exports further, as will a small but significant consumer boycott of US goods and brands, the Fed concedes that a weaker Dollar is all but certain and in normal circumstances this would not be a specific problem.
These are not normal circumstances.
The unplugging of the US from the global trade network that is accelerating under Trump leaves the US less efficient. The oligopolists in tech as in energy and other sectors are indeed getting super normal profits more at the expense of the US consumer than overseas consumers. The US is losing competitiveness versus EU and especially Chinese rivals. This makes the USD structurally less attractive, so the Fed will need to switch to a more hawkish interest rates policy for any given exchange rate. The problem then turns into a vicious circle of relatively higher rates joining to greater inefficiency adding to reducing competitiveness leading to a need to use interest rates policy to stabilise the Dollar. Worse the investment cycle in the US needs relatively lower rates, and higher rates hurt companies like Boeing that need major league investment to catch up with Airbus, also Tesla versus its rivals. They, like others, have to curtail long term investment plans and sell less in the short term (and Boeing´s civil and military sales are already below forecasts).
The US equity markets adjust to significantly lower profit expectations. The problems is speed, with a real risk of a dollar rout.
The Euro is becoming a safe haven, and with some structural reform the EU/UK can improve its own capital markets, with increased stability a new feature. The US ends being permanently marked down: what 15%? 20%? It could even overcorrect a whole lot more.
These are not definite forecasts, but they are fundamental, not trading, risks and the markets are hunting around trying to find a settlement point. For investors, volatility is rising and the US bond and equity markets are set to fall. So reinforces the SELL at these levels
Reshoring makes sense from a strategic point of view, even if it's not as cheap to manufacture in the USA as in other markets.
Reshoring will be a part of the UK and EU rebuilding their military capacity.
However, the Trump administration is strategically incompetent. If they truly fear the rise of China (and they right to do so), then that is the point at which one should be cultivating allies, not alienating them,
The Council Tax system has to be reformed so that the wealthy (& usually older generation) pay more.
Why is this all so difficult for Labour?
To put some numbers on this, council tax could be replaced a flat 0.5% property value tax. For 1%, you could abolish IHT, CGT and Stamp Duty too.
Okay - I'll play. We'll get everywhere valued - do we do banding again or try to be more precise?
At 1%, our property tax (if you treat Council Tax as such) would be more than doubled. At 0.5% not far off what we're paying now.
There would have to be an amended redistributive process because of where the expensive properties are - East Ham is NOT St George's Hill but Newham needs the money more than Elmbridge (allegedly).
If you went down the 1% route would the councils get all the money or would the Government, assuming said funds were replacing CGT, IHT and Stamp Duty, want their cut?
What about the funding of social care for vulnerable adults and children and SEN provision and the costs of providing temporary accommodation for the homeless?
I think the link between council tax and council funding is largely academic. The legal obligations imposed by central government mean they don't have much discretion in how to spend their cash.
As such, the allocation (and value) of council funding is a different question. A really punchy change would be to allocate it based on the number of children aged under 18, incentivising councils to provide good services for families (and even build houses). But there are lots of other considerations, as you note.
The other option would be to wind back the requirements from central government and allow the local electorate to decide on what services they wish to provide and fund.
All those PB faithful who castigated Reeves for seeing a rise in inflation to a whopping 3% must be shaking her by the hand now it has fallen to a tiny 2.8%. Don't worry lads it's going up again in April.
F1: only rumours but increasingly looking like Lawson will be replaced by Tsunoda in Japan.
Punishment for both, it seems.
I called this on Sunday, he is the new Luca Badoer.
Serves him right for being so rude about Checo Perez.
Lawson's a good driver, but you're right that he was a dick to Perez. Apparently Tsunoda's driving style is closer to Verstappen's, but if the rumours are true we'll soon find out if that's true and helps.
I don’t the “win” is big as they held the Rep seat anyway.
In the Senate the swing on on the undeclared seat is about 8% which is massive even if they lose (currently about 500 votes - less than 1%) ahead before outstanding provisionals
The US represents 25% of global GDP and falling. It represents 60% of global market cap, and that premium reflects the belief in superior technology and more efficient capital allocation. If neither are true, long term, then the US in general, not just tech, is a clear SELL:
That doesn't necessarily follow from the statistic you quote. Other countries use bank finance much more than America does.
However, I agree that the US stock market is probably wildly overvalued because of a combination of the Fed's serial bubble blowing and a very American misguided obsession with second rate technology just because it's shiny and new.
Also, at least as far as the magnificent 7 is concerned, the US has moved from competition to an oligarchic system which has allowed super profits to be extracted at the cost of competitiveness for everyone else. In the medium term that will be damaging to the US.
The rise of Chinese competitors who accept far lower margins is going to limit that, fairly soon.
The US is walking into a trap.
It is not just the incoherent incompetence of the Trump regime. It also rests on fundamentals going back at least since the GFC. The reshoring that has been going on in the United States at least since then has led to the recovery of its industrial base, but it is not particularly efficient compared to the global low cost producers that European (and Chinese) competitors still use. The Fed is already forecasting lower US growth and higher inflation and is preparing to slow the easing stance that they signalled last autumn. Tariffs will increase that problem and reduce US exports further, as will a small but significant consumer boycott of US goods and brands, the Fed concedes that a weaker Dollar is all but certain and in normal circumstances this would not be a specific problem.
These are not normal circumstances.
The unplugging of the US from the global trade network that is accelerating under Trump leaves the US less efficient. The oligopolists in tech as in energy and other sectors are indeed getting super normal profits more at the expense of the US consumer than overseas consumers. The US is losing competitiveness versus EU and especially Chinese rivals. This makes the USD structurally less attractive, so the Fed will need to switch to a more hawkish interest rates policy for any given exchange rate. The problem then turns into a vicious circle of relatively higher rates joining to greater inefficiency adding to reducing competitiveness leading to a need to use interest rates policy to stabilise the Dollar. Worse the investment cycle in the US needs relatively lower rates, and higher rates hurt companies like Boeing that need major league investment to catch up with Airbus, also Tesla versus its rivals. They, like others, have to curtail long term investment plans and sell less in the short term (and Boeing´s civil and military sales are already below forecasts).
The US equity markets adjust to significantly lower profit expectations. The problems is speed, with a real risk of a dollar rout.
The Euro is becoming a safe haven, and with some structural reform the EU/UK can improve its own capital markets, with increased stability a new feature. The US ends being permanently marked down: what 15%? 20%? It could even overcorrect a whole lot more.
These are not definite forecasts, but they are fundamental, not trading, risks and the markets are hunting around trying to find a settlement point. For investors, volatility is rising and the US bond and equity markets are set to fall. So reinforces the SELL at these levels
What the US is attempting is a variant of the import substitution policies that were tried and largely failed in the developing world in the postwar period. Efficiency comes from competitive free markets not from tariff walls.
Dangerous air of unreality surrounding today's statement. Both main parties again arguing amongst themselves how much working people and the poor should sacrifice to bail out Britain. Whilst simultaneously saying the wealthiest must be protected. It's politically unsustainable.
At some point the UK state will wake up to the reality that the oldies are the only ones left relatively untaxed & they have to be made to pay their share as the main beneficiary of the state’s largesse. That means income tax rises combined with national insurance cuts, or NI being imposed on the retired.
Current trends are simply unsustainable.
Once you exempt a lobby group it is virtually impossible to claw it back.
You saw the fuss caused by withdrawing a pointless perk from a few thousand farmers over the summer.
Now imagine the same with millions of pensioners with nothing else to do all day.
That's why we have one of the most complex and loophole-ridden tax systems in the world and it gets worse every year.
Coming to the very first sentence in the header, 'on the assumption of free and fair elections' I really don't think 2028 will be, if it's even run (I think it will be, but it'll be Putin's elections).
I don't bet, so I'm no good at this but I assume that any money placed down should only be used as a trading bet (if I understand rightly) with the implication you will cash out well before the event in question.
My personal belief is to watch the betting markets. I wonder how long before bookies cease offering odds on the 2028 US election, similar to how they probably don't bother with Russian ones.
It's been said before on this site, but we're all suffering from continuity bias. There has been a free and fair election for the last 250 years, so there must be one in 2028. We're wrong. There won't be. I wonder what the cycle of elections in the state(s) occupying central north America will look like when they do return to free and fair elections...........?
In fact, elections in the USA have often been far from free and fair, at least at State and municipal level.
The Redeemers used widespread violence, and voter fraud, and voter suppression, to regain and maintain control, in much of the South, following Reconstruction. Many Southern elections were as farcical as anything in Russia, up till the 1960's.
That's what the MAGA's would be looking to, as a precedent.
Oh, indeed. The history is important. When Trump first voted, the US did not have free and fair elections in a lot of the South. It probably won't be "elections are cancelled". It will be ramping up all this stuff.
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You say this on the day a poll shows the conservatives in the lead and Lib Dems on 12%
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
Dangerous air of unreality surrounding today's statement. Both main parties again arguing amongst themselves how much working people and the poor should sacrifice to bail out Britain. Whilst simultaneously saying the wealthiest must be protected. It's politically unsustainable.
At some point the UK state will wake up to the reality that the oldies are the only ones left relatively untaxed & they have to be made to pay their share as the main beneficiary of the state’s largesse. That means income tax rises combined with national insurance cuts, or NI being imposed on the retired.
Current trends are simply unsustainable.
Once you exempt a lobby group it is virtually impossible to claw it back.
You saw the fuss caused by withdrawing a pointless perk from a few thousand farmers over the summer.
Now imagine the same with millions of pensioners with nothing else to do all day.
That's why we have one of the most complex and loophole-ridden tax systems in the world and it gets worse every year.
Doesn't the farmers example show that it is possible to claw things back?
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You say this on the day a poll shows the conservatives in the lead and Lib Dems on 12%
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You say this on the day a poll shows the conservatives in the lead and Lib Dems on 12%
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You say this on the day a poll shows the conservatives in the lead and Lib Dems on 12%
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
You mean it could be Orange in the unpleasant Orange book way we've already partially experienced?
A provocative comparison I had not considered specifically - how similar is the House of Congress in Washington DC to the Duma in Moscow, in being a pair of rubber stamps?
From the latest Fiona Hill interview I have listened to from a few days ago.
00:00 Introduction 01:18 What’s the current state of play between Russia and Ukraine, what do each side want, and what’s the likely outcome? 05:26 Can Putin and Trump’s talks be effective without Europe and Ukraine’s input? 08:30 Can Europe stand up to Russia in the Ukraine conflict without relying on U.S. support? 12:19 Should Europe seize Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s fight? 15:25 Can you describe China’s support for Russia in its conflict with Ukraine? 20:26 Is India leaning towards Russia in this conflict? 25:25 Can you explain Trump’s strategy on the Ukraine conflict? 33:37 What are the most likely scenarios for the Ukraine conflict through 2025 and 2026? 40:01 How do you compare higher education in the U.K. vs. the U.S.? 45:40 Are UK universities seen more as a public good, with less emphasis on alumni donations than in the U.S.?
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
Have you seen the latest poll?🤣🤣🤣
Don't worry Scampi we were told during the last Government not to worry about the 20 point polling deficit. We could always rely on swingback.
God PMQs is a waste of time. Haven’t watched it in ages. Tame questions and now the Lib Dem droning on about Adolescence and digital services tax. Oddly no MP ever demanded the drama 3 Girls was screened in schools.
To be fair, PMQ's before a budget is always an odd one. It's basically like the starer before the main course...
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
I think some pollsters are more reliable than others. One claims to get a poll out in 10 minutes. Very impressive if your respondents are all sitting at home watching todays equivalent of Jeremy Kyle.
God PMQs is a waste of time. Haven’t watched it in ages. Tame questions and now the Lib Dem droning on about Adolescence and digital services tax. Oddly no MP ever demanded the drama 3 Girls was screened in schools.
To be fair, PMQ's before a budget is always an odd one. It's basically like the starer before the main course...
So are we having the prawn cocktail before the breaded plaice with peas and chips in a Berni Inn ?
Or are we getting a more substantive meal 🤔
Starmer is not a great performer but he runs rings round the opposition MPs.
To take a homely instance, it is obvious that the BBC (of all outfits!) is already tempering its coverage to ensure if possible it isn't kicked out when the media purge gets more serious.
I had noticed that, and didn't quite understand it. I was wondering why the BBC would either not report or very much temper down the reporting ("It is understood some possible minor security breaches may have happened, but the White House Press Secretary said they didn't so that's good enough for us, so lets move onto this ridiculous story about Stacey Solomon and Joe Swash")
The BBC has decided of the three options (Fight, flight or bend the knee) that they'll bend the knee. I doubt it'll save them when the purge comes (the name 'British' will guarantee they'll be purged) but I suspect they're trying.
I don't use the BBC for any American news stories anymore. They mostly don't report the shitstorm happening there, and what little they do is very much 'both sides'ism, when it's very obvious there is no alternative position to take.
I don't think what you write is a good summary of the BBC's coverage. Here's the beginning of the latest BBC article:
US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has taken responsibility for a group chat in which high-ranking officials planned military strikes in Yemen in the company of a journalist who was inadvertently added.
"I take full responsibility. I built the group," Waltz told Fox News on Tuesday, adding it was "embarrassing"...
Before going on to blame the journalist he invited on, and describe him as "scum".
And deny that it was a serious mistake. Or that secrets were leaked.
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
I think some pollsters are more reliable than others. One claims to get a poll out in 10 minutes. Very impressive if your respondents are all sitting at home watching todays equivalent of Jeremy Kyle.
When you use a poll another one is likely to come along with a different result as we saw between yougov and more in common
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You say this on the day a poll shows the conservatives in the lead and Lib Dems on 12%
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Is there any evidence that Matt Goodwin's polling company isn't "serious" other than your personal dislike for his politics?
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You’d have a point if the Lib Dem’s were a serious party and a national party rather than being a recipient of protest votes in the South.
The Lib Dem’s are the party of the NIMBY and I cannot take their position on issues like the WASPI women seriously. The Lib Dem’s are more about preserving current levels of wealth and privilege than any other party.
They say what they want to be elected and that’s fine. But as they found with tuition fees it can come back to bite them.
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You say this on the day a poll shows the conservatives in the lead and Lib Dems on 12%
Do you know where it's possible to find their figures? That is to say a detailed analysis as you can with Yougov. Are they the pollsters who can pull one out in 10 minutes?
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You say this on the day a poll shows the conservatives in the lead and Lib Dems on 12%
Do you know where it's possible to find their figures? That is to say a detailed analysis as you can with Yougov. Are they the pollsters who can pull one out in 10 minutes?
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You say this on the day a poll shows the conservatives in the lead and Lib Dems on 12%
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You say this on the day a poll shows the conservatives in the lead and Lib Dems on 12%
Do you know where it's possible to find their figures? That is to say a detailed analysis as you can with Yougov. Are they the pollsters who can pull one out in 10 minutes?
Here you go, it's for March 17 not February 17 as the file name suggests:
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
What has changed is that a space has opened up in the market and the Libs look reasonably well placed to fill it.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
You say this on the day a poll shows the conservatives in the lead and Lib Dems on 12%
Do you know where it's possible to find their figures? That is to say a detailed analysis as you can with Yougov. Are they the pollsters who can pull one out in 10 minutes?
They're British Polling Council members. They're obliged to put out tables as part of the terms of their membership. And they actually took longer to put out results for their last round of polling than YouGov.
Dangerous air of unreality surrounding today's statement. Both main parties again arguing amongst themselves how much working people and the poor should sacrifice to bail out Britain. Whilst simultaneously saying the wealthiest must be protected. It's politically unsustainable.
At some point the UK state will wake up to the reality that the oldies are the only ones left relatively untaxed & they have to be made to pay their share as the main beneficiary of the state’s largesse. That means income tax rises combined with national insurance cuts, or NI being imposed on the retired.
Current trends are simply unsustainable.
Once you exempt a lobby group it is virtually impossible to claw it back.
You saw the fuss caused by withdrawing a pointless perk from a few thousand farmers over the summer.
Now imagine the same with millions of pensioners with nothing else to do all day.
That's why we have one of the most complex and loophole-ridden tax systems in the world and it gets worse every year.
Doesn't the farmers example show that it is possible to claw things back?
Yes it is. Hence the "virtually" in my post.
But as I imply, doing it from a few thousand farmers vs millions of pensioners is an entirely different order of political difficulty.
Also in the summer the government had a bit of political capital, which they have since squandered.
There was an even bigger fuss about the withdrawal of the WFA, from which the government has yet to recover.
After all, Labour rarely sees a benefit it doesn't like and the Conservatives and Reform can't possibly win without the grey vote.
I'm afraid the elderly will get favourable treatment for a long while yet.
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
Has your book told you when the SNP are going to be ‘obliterated’? I’m on tenterhooks..
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Is there any evidence that Matt Goodwin's polling company isn't "serious" other than your personal dislike for his politics?
Yes, I’ve seen his questions, plus he finished bottom of the polling companies’ league table at the last general election.
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
Has your book told you when the SNP are going to be ‘obliterated’? I’m on tenterhooks..
They were obliterated at the last general election, so it has already happened.
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Isn’t a lot of this just because they’re not in Government right now and they weren’t in Government as recently as the Tories?
I mean what do the Lib Dems actually stand for currently? They’re more pro-EU perhaps but not avowedly so anymore - because they don’t want to lose seats they won in 2024 in Leave voting areas.
Beyond that they stand for…NIMBYism?
They have more of a USP if the Tories and Reform end up doing a proper merger.
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Is there any evidence that Matt Goodwin's polling company isn't "serious" other than your personal dislike for his politics?
I think it's a bannable offense to question the veracity of a pollster which makes sense. However some publish their raw figures and then their workings out including relevant demographics. Others don't One pollster uniquely finds Reform with leads of 5%. Would it be unreasonable to ask for better and further particulars?
Interesting poll out yesterday by a serious pollster showing the Libs on 16%.
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
Ahem... While I know people will assume I am simply talking my book, I have been suggesting this since at least the Tory leadership election.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
Has your book told you when the SNP are going to be ‘obliterated’? I’m on tenterhooks..
They were obliterated at the last general election, so it has already happened.
I thought this place was about future casting? Though the lads that predicted 37 of the last 1 SNP electoral setbacks aren’t to be taken seriously obvs.
Comments
They've started to look seriously impressive. Labout and the Tories are following the same old game plan which is looking jaded now the Americans have lost their marbles and Reform will eventually be seen as the joke thery've always been.
This could be the Lib Dems time. The zeitgeist feels like it's with them and though unorthodox they have an impressive if understated leader.
Maybe the future could be Orange and not in the unpleasant way we were expecting.
@DPJHodges
Dangerous air of unreality surrounding today's statement. Both main parties again arguing amongst themselves how much working people and the poor should sacrifice to bail out Britain. Whilst simultaneously saying the wealthiest must be protected. It's politically unsustainable.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1904839412296413248
The Council Tax system has to be reformed so that the wealthy (& usually older generation) pay more.
Why is this all so difficult for Labour?
@STVColin
The Alba leadership candidates have been told the Kenny MacAskill has won, but Ash Regan’s campaign team say they haven’t been given any figures
From the latest Fiona Hill interview I have listened to from a few days ago.
Dr. Fiona Hill - What's Next for the Russia-Ukraine War | Prof G Conversations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdgvrK3zyWU
The nice people publish chapters:
00:00 Introduction
01:18 What’s the current state of play between Russia and Ukraine, what do each side want, and what’s the likely outcome?
05:26 Can Putin and Trump’s talks be effective without Europe and Ukraine’s input?
08:30 Can Europe stand up to Russia in the Ukraine conflict without relying on U.S. support?
12:19 Should Europe seize Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s fight?
15:25 Can you describe China’s support for Russia in its conflict with Ukraine?
20:26 Is India leaning towards Russia in this conflict?
25:25 Can you explain Trump’s strategy on the Ukraine conflict?
33:37 What are the most likely scenarios for the Ukraine conflict through 2025 and 2026?
40:01 How do you compare higher education in the U.K. vs. the U.S.?
45:40 Are UK universities seen more as a public good, with less emphasis on alumni donations than in the U.S.?
@Taz
Gawd knows what that is going to turn to as they embrace austerity.
It is not just the incoherent incompetence of the Trump regime. It also rests on fundamentals going back at least since the GFC. The reshoring that has been going on in the United States at least since then has led to the recovery of its industrial base, but it is not particularly efficient compared to the global low cost producers that European (and Chinese) competitors still use. The Fed is already forecasting lower US growth and higher inflation and is preparing to slow the easing stance that they signalled last autumn. Tariffs will increase that problem and reduce US exports further, as will a small but significant consumer boycott of US goods and brands, the Fed concedes that a weaker Dollar is all but certain and in normal circumstances this would not be a specific problem.
These are not normal circumstances.
The unplugging of the US from the global trade network that is accelerating under Trump leaves the US less efficient. The oligopolists in tech as in energy and other sectors are indeed getting super normal profits more at the expense of the US consumer than overseas consumers. The US is losing competitiveness versus EU and especially Chinese rivals. This makes the USD structurally less attractive, so the Fed will need to switch to a more hawkish interest rates policy for any given exchange rate. The problem then turns into a vicious circle of relatively higher rates joining to greater inefficiency adding to reducing competitiveness leading to a need to use interest rates policy to stabilise the Dollar. Worse the investment cycle in the US needs relatively lower rates, and higher rates hurt companies like Boeing that need major league investment to catch up with Airbus, also Tesla versus its rivals. They, like others, have to curtail long term investment plans and sell less in the short term (and Boeing´s civil and military sales are already below forecasts).
The US equity markets adjust to significantly lower profit expectations. The problems is speed, with a real risk of a dollar rout.
The Euro is becoming a safe haven, and with some structural reform the EU/UK can improve its own capital markets, with increased stability a new feature. The US ends being permanently marked down: what 15%? 20%? It could even overcorrect a whole lot more.
These are not definite forecasts, but they are fundamental, not trading, risks and the markets are hunting around trying to find a settlement point. For investors, volatility is rising and the US bond and equity markets are set to fall. So reinforces the SELL at these levels
Kenny MacAskill has been named the new leader of the Alba Party, following the death last year of Alex Salmond.
@euanmccolm
Kenny MacAskill, the man who announced the release of the Lockerbie bomber in the style of a child reading a poem out in front of class.
As for the Triple Lock, the problem Labour has isn't with the 65+ vote - they got just over 20% among over 65s last year and are (according to recent polls) down to 10% (Reform and Conservatives tied at 31% with LDs at 16% among that cohort) but with the aspiring pensioners in the 50-64 age group.
Nonetheless, I agree - the Triple Lock has to go. It's only lasted so long because of the dependency the Conservatives had on the older vote.
US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has taken responsibility for a group chat in which high-ranking officials planned military strikes in Yemen in the company of a journalist who was inadvertently added.
"I take full responsibility. I built the group," Waltz told Fox News on Tuesday, adding it was "embarrassing".
President Donald Trump and US intelligence chiefs have downplayed the security risks and said no classified material was shared.
But Democrats and some Republicans have called for an investigation into what several lawmakers have described as a major breach.
Atlantic magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg reported that he was accidentally added to the Signal chat by a user named Mike Waltz.
In his article that broke the story, external he says he saw classified military plans for US strikes in Yemen, including weapons packages, targets and timing, two hours before the bombs struck. That content was held back from the piece.
1) merge personal NI and Income tax. Get rid of the personal allowance withdrawals etc. put the rates up a bit, in the process.
2) state pension = personal allowance lock. Upgrade both, but paid for with higher rates.
3) old age benefits into a blender, replaced with means tested/taxable benefits.
Sell it as “we are all in it together.” - together with some clear graphs of who is paying more.
Can’t see how Reeves would have ended up with worse polling with that.
A one election Ming-vase strategy.
I was speaking to senior Lib Dems recently and the view was that something quite fundamental has changed for the better. Many people have been asking to meet and talk with Ed Davey and the leadership team. Donations appear sharply up- ahead of other parties. 72 MPs is really sharing the load, and not just in Parliament. Everything, from campaigns to media is now easier for the party to manage, and although there a few malcontents, such problems are very limited and morale across the party is extremely high, as is activity and not just in held seats, but across the board.
The only question is whether this shows up in the May results. I think it will.
I don't bet, so I'm no good at this but I assume that any money placed down should only be used as a trading bet (if I understand rightly) with the implication you will cash out well before the event in question.
My personal belief is to watch the betting markets. I wonder how long before bookies cease offering odds on the 2028 US election, similar to how they probably don't bother with Russian ones.
It's been said before on this site, but we're all suffering from continuity bias. There has been a free and fair election for the last 250 years, so there must be one in 2028. We're wrong. There won't be.
I wonder what the cycle of elections in the state(s) occupying central north America will look like when they do return to free and fair elections...........?
The (Sky) account was hacked a day or so ago. Everyone on the list got an urgent email saying they needed to send some money but not to phone as the sender had laryngitis - standard scam. She tried to recover the account but found the password had been changed and Sky couldn't release the account unless the (deceased) owner agreed.
Wonder how many wills cover common digital assets.
https://youtu.be/MdgvrK3zyWU?t=2390
Our experience was that we could do most things, but certain institutions insisted on probate having been done.
If they're already running scared, they might as well give up.
I don't think it's yet settled either way, though.
At 1%, our property tax (if you treat Council Tax as such) would be more than doubled. At 0.5% not far off what we're paying now.
There would have to be an amended redistributive process because of where the expensive properties are - East Ham is NOT St George's Hill but Newham needs the money more than Elmbridge (allegedly).
If you went down the 1% route would the councils get all the money or would the Government, assuming said funds were replacing CGT, IHT and Stamp Duty, want their cut?
What about the funding of social care for vulnerable adults and children and SEN provision and the costs of providing temporary accommodation for the homeless?
Look, we are talking about a dipshit who almost killed someone with axe on live TV.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1904496875824099690
Current trends are simply unsustainable.
The Redeemers used widespread violence, and voter fraud, and voter suppression, to regain and maintain control, in much of the South, following Reconstruction. Many Southern elections were as farcical as anything in Russia, up till the 1960's.
That's what the MAGA's would be looking to, as a precedent.
F1: only rumours but increasingly looking like Lawson will be replaced by Tsunoda in Japan.
Punishment for both, it seems.
https://x.com/steven_pifer/status/1904610096774340688
I helped negotiate Budapest Memorandum.
Grenell is flat wrong.
Nuclear warheads in #Ukraine were ex-Soviet, not Russian.
Warheads in storage were in sole Ukrainian custody.
ICBMs and bombers were eliminated in Ukraine except small number sent to #Russia for debt relief.
#Ukraine chose to send nuclear warheads to #Russia for elimination in large part because Russia committed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and not to use force against Ukraine.
There will inevitably be issues with Trump's administration and the Democrats are the obvious repostiory for those who don't think the promised land has materialised. After two months and less than six from a bruising defeat, the Democrats are still picking themselves up and dusting themselves down.
They do need to get on the front foot again but the midterms are 18 months and more away.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1yp2n8xqo.amp
Has the cleansing started?
These all display massive bias in the conventional sense, but I am not sure that conventional ('on the one hand this and on the other hand that' and 'here are two sane voices in discussion from opposite sides of the discussion') reporting is possible.
As such, the allocation (and value) of council funding is a different question. A really punchy change would be to allocate it based on the number of children aged under 18, incentivising councils to provide good services for families (and even build houses). But there are lots of other considerations, as you note.
If only we had benefitted from 50 years of Conservative Governments in the last seventy five.
Reshoring will be a part of the UK and EU rebuilding their military capacity.
However, the Trump administration is strategically incompetent. If they truly fear the rise of China (and they right to do so), then that is the point at which one should be cultivating allies, not alienating them,
Serves him right for being so rude about Checo Perez.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1904826996116386243?t=cLlc3GOgEXlUxA4YrjVWFQ&s=19
In the Senate the swing on on the undeclared seat is about 8% which is massive even if they lose (currently about 500 votes - less than 1%) ahead before outstanding provisionals
You saw the fuss caused by withdrawing a pointless perk from a few thousand farmers over the summer.
Now imagine the same with millions of pensioners with nothing else to do all day.
That's why we have one of the most complex and loophole-ridden tax systems in the world and it gets worse every year.
The Tories by a combination of the last six years and Brexit's failure look like they've hit the buffers possibly terminally.
And Labour bizarrely have decided to follow them down every rabbit hole they fell through including Brexit which they could easily have disavowed and now they look like a mirror image of Rishi's mob.
.......In some ways worse. At least no one minded Rishi's head up Bidens backside whereas Starmer's up Trumps is making us all feel queasy.
Meanwhile Davey looks like a human being and there's never been a better time to have that as your USP
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1904826996116386243?t=Fweuvi1iy3nLkLFRSeEIKg&s=19
Or are we getting a more substantive meal 🤔
Starmer is not a great performer but he runs rings round the opposition MPs.
And deny that it was a serious mistake.
Or that secrets were leaked.
Apart from that, full responsibility.
1st May will give some indication on the trend
Lab 25.1%
Ref 24.7%
Con 22.5%
LD 13.4%
Lab and Con have stabilised.
Ref is coming back a bit and LD is gaining a bit.
The Lib Dem’s are the party of the NIMBY and I cannot take their position on issues like the WASPI women seriously. The Lib Dem’s are more about preserving current levels of wealth and privilege than any other party.
They say what they want to be elected and that’s fine. But as they found with tuition fees it can come back to bite them.
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/polling-services/
Still around 8% ?
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/0lmnkyoc/feb17-votingintention.xlsx
But as I imply, doing it from a few thousand farmers vs millions of pensioners is an entirely different order of political difficulty.
Also in the summer the government had a bit of political capital, which they have since squandered.
There was an even bigger fuss about the withdrawal of the WFA, from which the government has yet to recover.
After all, Labour rarely sees a benefit it doesn't like and the Conservatives and Reform can't possibly win without the grey vote.
I'm afraid the elderly will get favourable treatment for a long while yet.
I mean what do the Lib Dems actually stand for currently? They’re more pro-EU perhaps but not avowedly so anymore - because they don’t want to lose seats they won in 2024 in Leave voting areas.
Beyond that they stand for…NIMBYism?
They have more of a USP if the Tories and Reform end up doing a proper merger.
But otherwise they need to pick a lane
(PS Which is Goodwin's poll?)