Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.
It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.
I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.
From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.
Defence of the India NI thingy is easy intellectually; but not if you don't understand the motto of St Trinian's:
"Get your blow in first"(Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo).
If you don't do this the 24 hour a day news, distortion and lies cycle has chewed you up and moved on to other trivia.
Trump, Blair, Campbell all got this and get this. Why can't this government?
Did Blair/Campbell face as much distortion and as many lies? Social media and a populist right (like Trump) who care nothing about truth have made the situation worse.
Alistair Campbell complaining about “lies and distortion” is like Fred West complaining about “antisocial neighbours”
Nobody ever complained about Fred West’s building work.
Actually I believe his patios had a tendency to subside. He was notorious for it
Wasting time on the coast when the Cuillin (even the Red ones) are clear? Madness.
In these over-touristed times, the knack of having somewhere to yourself is also worth a lot. My car is the only one at the end of the track and so far me and the dog haven't seen another soul, on one of the most scenic hikes of my lifetime in perfect conditions.
Skye is actually pretty busy, with a lot of French visitors, the usual Americans in the expensive hotel, a sprinkling of Italians, Dutch in their campervans, German motorcyclists, plus a fair few Chinese/Koreans struggling with their over-sized hire cars on the single track lanes, even the odd Indian family. Plus Scots exploring their own country. The accent I hardly ever hear is English.
I expect most of them have followed your advice and are all now processing up the mountain.
It was a joke of course, although I doubt you'll find many tourists traversing Sgùrr a' Ghreadaidh.
Ah, Sweaty Greaty as we called it. Part of my best day ever on the Scottish hills, from Banachdich to Mhadaidh then down to the Fairy Pools. Not the longest but the most glorious. It was about 28c when we got down to the pools, and because this was 1990 they weren't overrun with TikTokers.
Will the Lib Dems be targeting enough seats to win most seats? Bearing in mind that they'd have to come from third in a lot of them?
Anti-Farage tactical voting will be incredibly difficult because the changes in support are so large. It won't be obvious to voters where Faragists could realistically win, and who will be best placed to defeat them. Do you vote for the red or blue incumbents, even though they are losing more votes, or do you switch to the yellows in the hope that red/blue voters will cop on that the yellows have the best chance, even when starting from third or fourth?
I think the Faragists are set to win lots of seats on record low shares of the vote.
Woke is still a thing in Canada. A police press conference about missing children in Nova Scotia begins with a land acknowledgment and statement that “African Nova Scotias are a distinct people”:
Will the Lib Dems be targeting enough seats to win most seats? Bearing in mind that they'd have to come from third in a lot of them?
Anti-Farage tactical voting will be incredibly difficult because the changes in support are so large. It won't be obvious to voters where Faragists could realistically win, and who will be best placed to defeat them. Do you vote for the red or blue incumbents, even though they are losing more votes, or do you switch to the yellows in the hope that red/blue voters will cop on that the yellows have the best chance, even when starting from third or fourth?
I think the Faragists are set to win lots of seats on record low shares of the vote.
Labour are likely to be down at the next election. Will the Tories, with or without Kemi, improve much on where they are now. I read that 2 Reform councillors are out already, could some scandals be due before the GE? I suspect that there may be anti-Reform tactical voting. The Lib Dems could be well placed to improve on 72 MPs. FPTP will be even more of a lottery than usual. So, what are the odds on No Overall Majority with a 2 or 3 party coalition needed?
I see the jury has retired in the Sycamore Gap case.The judge has said she wants a unanimous verdict. If ever there was a time to be a fly on the wall......
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
This is partly true, but WFA is not a great place to start. Only a small proportion of WFA goes to fund the drink and drugs bills of the recipients. Starting at that place would be both more popular and save rather more money for the taxpayer.
The great majority of WFA recipients are either fairly hard up and have worked throughout their lives, or are taxpayers themselves.
The benefits/welfare savings really need to be directed at those who are able bodied, younger and won't work and don't pay tax.
Defence of the India NI thingy is easy intellectually; but not if you don't understand the motto of St Trinian's:
"Get your blow in first"(Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo).
If you don't do this the 24 hour a day news, distortion and lies cycle has chewed you up and moved on to other trivia.
Trump, Blair, Campbell all got this and get this. Why can't this government?
Did Blair/Campbell face as much distortion and as many lies? Social media and a populist right (like Trump) who care nothing about truth have made the situation worse.
It really doesn't matter. The zeitgeist finds it's way through and people judge what they see and what they sense. Only the deranged read and post tweets from six years ago and expect to change the weather
Woke is still a thing in Canada. A police press conference about missing children in Nova Scotia begins with a land acknowledgment and statement that “African Nova Scotias are a distinct people”:
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
This is partly true, but WFA is not a great place to start. Only a small proportion of WFA goes to fund the drink and drugs bills of the recipients. Starting at that place would be both more popular and save rather more money for the taxpayer.
The great majority of WFA recipients are either fairly hard up and have worked throughout their lives, or are taxpayers themselves.
The benefits/welfare savings really need to be directed at those who are able bodied, younger and won't work and don't pay tax.
WFA ought to have been scrapped in entirely. Everybody on this board knows that.
This UK-US trade deal seems to have come out of the blue. I wonder if the Sir Keir has put in NI exemptions. That would be amusing.
It's not an FTA. It will be something between a simple lower-tariffs sticking plaster, and the same but with some stuff plucked from the proto-FTA we were trying to negotiate back in 2017.
Defence of the India NI thingy is easy intellectually; but not if you don't understand the motto of St Trinian's:
"Get your blow in first"(Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo).
If you don't do this the 24 hour a day news, distortion and lies cycle has chewed you up and moved on to other trivia.
Trump, Blair, Campbell all got this and get this. Why can't this government?
Did Blair/Campbell face as much distortion and as many lies? Social media and a populist right (like Trump) who care nothing about truth have made the situation worse.
I have read Robin Cook's memoir - Point of Departure. In it, he points out that in the 1970s, which were pretty tumultuous political times, there were 4 negative headlines in the newspapers for every positive one. At the time of writing, about 1999/2000, when times were much more benign, there were 18 negative headlines in the newspapers for every positive one. So yes the Blair government did face lies and distortion.
If bad headlines for the government are “lies and distortion” then 1979-1997 was an apocalyptic time.
I think there is a belief, on the Left, that they deserve good press, as their due.
Will the Lib Dems be targeting enough seats to win most seats? Bearing in mind that they'd have to come from third in a lot of them?
Anti-Farage tactical voting will be incredibly difficult because the changes in support are so large. It won't be obvious to voters where Faragists could realistically win, and who will be best placed to defeat them. Do you vote for the red or blue incumbents, even though they are losing more votes, or do you switch to the yellows in the hope that red/blue voters will cop on that the yellows have the best chance, even when starting from third or fourth?
I think the Faragists are set to win lots of seats on record low shares of the vote.
Indeed. Having read TSE's outlandish tip I did a Baxter to see how the LDs might get most seats. I tried 28 for them, 22 for Reform, 18 for each of the two "major" parties. Surprisingly Reform beats LD on seats on their model. I suppose on anything like that we get PR and another election in a couple of years.
Woke is still a thing in Canada. A police press conference about missing children in Nova Scotia begins with a land acknowledgment and statement that “African Nova Scotias are a distinct people”:
On topic: I think I agree with the consensus on here that Lib Dem path to most seats is fairly narrow one.
If Con hold up, you could in theory get 4 parties on around 100-160 seats each, but Con holding up implies far fewer LD opportunities.
If Con don't hold up that implies LDs doing well, but also a lot of Reform gains both from Labour (as much in their blue wall seats) and the Cons. In that circumstance it implies 3 parties around 200 seats for LD to edge it, and LD gains to keep pace sufficiently with Reform gains.
Both look like very narrow windows.
I feel there is going to be a lot of "only we can beat" shouting if Reform look competitive - a lot of possible 3 way contests. Even in boring old Huddersfield, where Reform could move through from third, I expect a lot of claims between Labour and the Greens at the next GE that they are the ones to hold Reform off (my thinking: Labour will have to be in a VERY bad way for me to decide Green is the best defensive vote).
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
This is partly true, but WFA is not a great place to start. Only a small proportion of WFA goes to fund the drink and drugs bills of the recipients. Starting at that place would be both more popular and save rather more money for the taxpayer.
The great majority of WFA recipients are either fairly hard up and have worked throughout their lives, or are taxpayers themselves.
The benefits/welfare savings really need to be directed at those who are able bodied, younger and won't work and don't pay tax.
WFA ought to have been scrapped in entirely. Everybody on this board knows that.
Yes with a corresponding increase in pension credit. I wonder if that might have had less political impact over the long run?
As it is every year there will be a debate on whether to change the WFA qualifying thresholds and a reminder that some are getting it and others aren't.
Defence of the India NI thingy is easy intellectually; but not if you don't understand the motto of St Trinian's:
"Get your blow in first"(Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo).
If you don't do this the 24 hour a day news, distortion and lies cycle has chewed you up and moved on to other trivia.
Trump, Blair, Campbell all got this and get this. Why can't this government?
Did Blair/Campbell face as much distortion and as many lies? Social media and a populist right (like Trump) who care nothing about truth have made the situation worse.
Blair and Campbell had more influence over the media to get their points across I think. Fewer channels, more concentrated viewers. Trump, by being outrageous, can get his vibe across successfully through social media.
Labour haven't got the knack of it yet. Starmer needs to be out there doing a hottest curry challenge or drinking Scottish whiskey with Sachin Tendulkar or something. To be fair I've no idea either but does feel like Labour are stuck in a 90s/00s playbook that isn't going to cut through.
Perhaps their just isn't a "knack" in the social media age.
With the India NI issue, Badenoch was able to sew the seed with a few comments/tweets, and then not even mention it at PMQs, where she knows she'll face pushback.
Farage can "just ask a question" as cover for any old bollocks, then any criticism bounces of him, because "of course the Establishment don't like me asking these questions".
For Reform, it's the perfect environment. Labour are in power, so can't get away without scrutiny. The Tories are stuck between the two, floundering.
And brought about by the people the magazine has whole-heartedly supported over the past 14 years. Labour's challenge is to show that they are making enough of an improvement in 4 years' time; so far they are continuing in the same vein so it doesn't look hopeful.
I wouldn’t dispute this. The Tories 2010-2014 were an embarrassing clownshow. They only won because Labour were even worse in prospect - Ed Miliband as PM? Look what he’s doing now and imagine the damage he could have done as premier
Jeremy Corbyn??! Nuff said
This is why I despise both main parties, I want them both to die, and I will happily vote Reform, as things stand
The Tories had some good ideas over the period of 2010-2012 with welfare, education and pensions reforms, and then lost their way and preferred to go into a "Quad" bubble with the Lib Dems from which they never came back.
Strategically, Cameron and Osborne thought the sweet-spot was Blairism with lower taxes: social liberalism (by which they meant proto-Wokey) and economic liberalism, and triangulating culturally against their own base - except stuffing pensioners mouths with gold to keep them quiet
Boy, did they get that wrong. It was out of date by 2007, and yet they persisted with it.
Will the Lib Dems be targeting enough seats to win most seats? Bearing in mind that they'd have to come from third in a lot of them?
Anti-Farage tactical voting will be incredibly difficult because the changes in support are so large. It won't be obvious to voters where Faragists could realistically win, and who will be best placed to defeat them. Do you vote for the red or blue incumbents, even though they are losing more votes, or do you switch to the yellows in the hope that red/blue voters will cop on that the yellows have the best chance, even when starting from third or fourth?
I think the Faragists are set to win lots of seats on record low shares of the vote.
Labour are likely to be down at the next election. Will the Tories, with or without Kemi, improve much on where they are now. I read that 2 Reform councillors are out already, could some scandals be due before the GE? I suspect that there may be anti-Reform tactical voting. The Lib Dems could be well placed to improve on 72 MPs. FPTP will be even more of a lottery than usual. So, what are the odds on No Overall Majority with a 2 or 3 party coalition needed?
Kenilworth & Southam is the 28th seat on the Lib Dems target list, which they'd need to win to reach 100 seats. Its vote in 2024 was: CON 36% LAB 24% LDM 20% RFM 13% GRN 6% Reform voters are not tactical voters. They won't be fazed by the party coming 4th last time. Who do anti-Farage tactical voters vote for?
This is one of many seats that Farage's lot have a better chance of winning from fourth than the Lib Dems do of winning from third.
Lib Dem targeting in 2024 was so efficient that it puts a cap on their potential for further progress at the next election. They raced very fast down a cul-de-sac.
Will the Lib Dems be targeting enough seats to win most seats? Bearing in mind that they'd have to come from third in a lot of them?
Anti-Farage tactical voting will be incredibly difficult because the changes in support are so large. It won't be obvious to voters where Faragists could realistically win, and who will be best placed to defeat them. Do you vote for the red or blue incumbents, even though they are losing more votes, or do you switch to the yellows in the hope that red/blue voters will cop on that the yellows have the best chance, even when starting from third or fourth?
I think the Faragists are set to win lots of seats on record low shares of the vote.
Labour are likely to be down at the next election. Will the Tories, with or without Kemi, improve much on where they are now. I read that 2 Reform councillors are out already, could some scandals be due before the GE? I suspect that there may be anti-Reform tactical voting. The Lib Dems could be well placed to improve on 72 MPs. FPTP will be even more of a lottery than usual. So, what are the odds on No Overall Majority with a 2 or 3 party coalition needed?
Kenilworth & Southam is the 28th seat on the Lib Dems target list, which they'd need to win to reach 100 seats. Its vote in 2024 was: CON 36% LAB 24% LDM 20% RFM 13% GRN 6% Reform voters are not tactical voters. They won't be fazed by the party coming 4th last time. Who do anti-Farage tactical voters vote for?
This is one of many seats that Farage's lot have a better chance of winning from fourth than the Lib Dems do of winning from third.
Lib Dem targeting in 2024 was so efficient that it puts a cap on their potential for further progress at the next election. They raced very fast down a cul-de-sac.
Reform / Lib Dem marginal I think.
The Conservatives could hold on if they mount some sort of comeback from their current moribund position. But as it stands now Reform favourites, Lib Dem 2nd I think.
Kenilworth/Southam isn't really natural Labour territory if you've ever been there.
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
This is partly true, but WFA is not a great place to start. Only a small proportion of WFA goes to fund the drink and drugs bills of the recipients. Starting at that place would be both more popular and save rather more money for the taxpayer.
The great majority of WFA recipients are either fairly hard up and have worked throughout their lives, or are taxpayers themselves.
The benefits/welfare savings really need to be directed at those who are able bodied, younger and won't work and don't pay tax.
WFA ought to have been scrapped in entirely. Everybody on this board knows that.
In four years it will be seen as a patronising anachronism
Woke is still a thing in Canada. A police press conference about missing children in Nova Scotia begins with a land acknowledgment and statement that “African Nova Scotias are a distinct people”:
They are descended from freed slaves that fought on the British side in the American war of independence, and were settled in Nova Scotia afterwards. It is a community that goes back centuries, with its own Canadian subculture.
On topic: I think I agree with the consensus on here that Lib Dem path to most seats is fairly narrow one.
If Con hold up, you could in theory get 4 parties on around 100-160 seats each, but Con holding up implies far fewer LD opportunities.
If Con don't hold up that implies LDs doing well, but also a lot of Reform gains both from Labour (as much in their blue wall seats) and the Cons. In that circumstance it implies 3 parties around 200 seats for LD to edge it, and LD gains to keep pace sufficiently with Reform gains.
Both look like very narrow windows.
I feel there is going to be a lot of "only we can beat" shouting if Reform look competitive - a lot of possible 3 way contests. Even in boring old Huddersfield, where Reform could move through from third, I expect a lot of claims between Labour and the Greens at the next GE that they are the ones to hold Reform off (my thinking: Labour will have to be in a VERY bad way for me to decide Green is the best defensive vote).
On the last comment.... the one in brackets ...... it depends where you are. As others have pointed out that's the trouble with FPTP and four or five competing parties. I've not looked at last years results in Scotland or Wales in any detail but I get the impression that 'winning' a seat with more than 40% is unusual.
And brought about by the people the magazine has whole-heartedly supported over the past 14 years. Labour's challenge is to show that they are making enough of an improvement in 4 years' time; so far they are continuing in the same vein so it doesn't look hopeful.
I wouldn’t dispute this. The Tories 2010-2014 were an embarrassing clownshow. They only won because Labour were even worse in prospect - Ed Miliband as PM? Look what he’s doing now and imagine the damage he could have done as premier
Jeremy Corbyn??! Nuff said
This is why I despise both main parties, I want them both to die, and I will happily vote Reform, as things stand
The Tories had some good ideas over the period of 2010-2012 with welfare, education and pensions reforms, and then lost their way and preferred to go into a "Quad" bubble with the Lib Dems from which they never came back.
Strategically, Cameron and Osborne thought the sweet-spot was Blairism with lower taxes: social liberalism (by which they meant proto-Wokey) and economic liberalism, and triangulating culturally against their own base - except stuffing pensioners mouths with gold to keep them quiet
Boy, did they get that wrong. It was out of date by 2007, and yet they persisted with it.
Yes, Cameron and Osborne deserve much more blame and contumely than they get. A lot of our problems stem from their arrogant mediocrity. Teresa May was even worse
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
This is partly true, but WFA is not a great place to start. Only a small proportion of WFA goes to fund the drink and drugs bills of the recipients. Starting at that place would be both more popular and save rather more money for the taxpayer.
The great majority of WFA recipients are either fairly hard up and have worked throughout their lives, or are taxpayers themselves.
The benefits/welfare savings really need to be directed at those who are able bodied, younger and won't work and don't pay tax.
WFA ought to have been scrapped in entirely. Everybody on this board knows that.
In four years it will be seen as a patronising anachronism
Yup. Like free TV licenses for pensioners. But Labour squealed when that was removed, so they can hardly complain now.
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
This is partly true, but WFA is not a great place to start. Only a small proportion of WFA goes to fund the drink and drugs bills of the recipients. Starting at that place would be both more popular and save rather more money for the taxpayer.
The great majority of WFA recipients are either fairly hard up and have worked throughout their lives, or are taxpayers themselves.
The benefits/welfare savings really need to be directed at those who are able bodied, younger and won't work and don't pay tax.
WFA ought to have been scrapped in entirely. Everybody on this board knows that.
Yes with a corresponding increase in pension credit. I wonder if that might have had less political impact over the long run?
As it is every year there will be a debate on whether to change the WFA qualifying thresholds and a reminder that some are getting it and others aren't.
I've modified the Merge NI and Tax plan -
1) WFA gets added to the pension/personal allowance 2) The tax rates for pensioners would be - basic rate as before NI is added. The higher rate(s) would be the new rate (including NI).
this would mean that only pensioners on £50K would pay more tax....
After VE Day and VJ Day, can we please have PJ Day, where we have street parties in our jim jams? No need to dress up, go straight from bed to party...
Surely the logical sequence would require a V something? I’m sure an IQ test expert like Leon could explain that.
Woke is still a thing in Canada. A police press conference about missing children in Nova Scotia begins with a land acknowledgment and statement that “African Nova Scotias are a distinct people”:
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
This is partly true, but WFA is not a great place to start. Only a small proportion of WFA goes to fund the drink and drugs bills of the recipients. Starting at that place would be both more popular and save rather more money for the taxpayer.
The great majority of WFA recipients are either fairly hard up and have worked throughout their lives, or are taxpayers themselves.
The benefits/welfare savings really need to be directed at those who are able bodied, younger and won't work and don't pay tax.
You've mixed up PIP and WFP I think.
(Doesn't help that people keep on calling it WFA, when it's either WFP or PAWHP).
I don't think Labour would re-introduce something like this now. It's a measure of simply how much money was sloshing around in the public finances then which isn't now. Halcyon days...
Will the Lib Dems be targeting enough seats to win most seats? Bearing in mind that they'd have to come from third in a lot of them?
Anti-Farage tactical voting will be incredibly difficult because the changes in support are so large. It won't be obvious to voters where Faragists could realistically win, and who will be best placed to defeat them. Do you vote for the red or blue incumbents, even though they are losing more votes, or do you switch to the yellows in the hope that red/blue voters will cop on that the yellows have the best chance, even when starting from third or fourth?
I think the Faragists are set to win lots of seats on record low shares of the vote.
Labour are likely to be down at the next election. Will the Tories, with or without Kemi, improve much on where they are now. I read that 2 Reform councillors are out already, could some scandals be due before the GE? I suspect that there may be anti-Reform tactical voting. The Lib Dems could be well placed to improve on 72 MPs. FPTP will be even more of a lottery than usual. So, what are the odds on No Overall Majority with a 2 or 3 party coalition needed?
Kenilworth & Southam is the 28th seat on the Lib Dems target list, which they'd need to win to reach 100 seats. Its vote in 2024 was: CON 36% LAB 24% LDM 20% RFM 13% GRN 6% Reform voters are not tactical voters. They won't be fazed by the party coming 4th last time. Who do anti-Farage tactical voters vote for?
This is one of many seats that Farage's lot have a better chance of winning from fourth than the Lib Dems do of winning from third.
Lib Dem targeting in 2024 was so efficient that it puts a cap on their potential for further progress at the next election. They raced very fast down a cul-de-sac.
Reform / Lib Dem marginal I think.
The Conservatives could hold on if they mount some sort of comeback from their current moribund position. But as it stands now Reform favourites, Lib Dem 2nd I think.
Kenilworth/Southam isn't really natural Labour territory if you've ever been there.
It’s my parents’ constituency, and the Tory vote in the area collapsed in last week’s locals. Certainly judging by those elections abc the general vibe it has Lib Dem / Reform marginal written all over it.
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
This is partly true, but WFA is not a great place to start. Only a small proportion of WFA goes to fund the drink and drugs bills of the recipients. Starting at that place would be both more popular and save rather more money for the taxpayer.
The great majority of WFA recipients are either fairly hard up and have worked throughout their lives, or are taxpayers themselves.
The benefits/welfare savings really need to be directed at those who are able bodied, younger and won't work and don't pay tax.
WFA ought to have been scrapped in entirely. Everybody on this board knows that.
Yes with a corresponding increase in pension credit. I wonder if that might have had less political impact over the long run?
As it is every year there will be a debate on whether to change the WFA qualifying thresholds and a reminder that some are getting it and others aren't.
I've modified the Merge NI and Tax plan -
1) WFA gets added to the pension/personal allowance 2) The tax rates for pensioners would be - basic rate as before NI is added. The higher rate(s) would be the new rate (including NI).
this would mean that only pensioners on £50K would pay more tax....
Yes.
And if the license fee was scrapped and its income added to the digital tax (although that look like a victim of this supposed trade deal), then we could effectively get rid of the license fee rebate too.
Woke is still a thing in Canada. A police press conference about missing children in Nova Scotia begins with a land acknowledgment and statement that “African Nova Scotias are a distinct people”:
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.
It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.
I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.
From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.
Right; the reason that doing something about the WFA was perpetually on the Treasury's list of suggestions they put to new CofEs and why successive CofEs ignored the suggestion (according to Osborne) is that it makes sense in economic terms but is a hard sell politically. There was I think a case that the government could have made for the WFA changes, but it would have required them to do it and sell it as part of a wider range of changes, so voters could see both the "this is what it's going to cost and overall where we're increasing the burden" and the "and this is what it will allow us to do that you voted us in to improve" side. As it was, the WFA change appeared as a standalone single thing that was easy for opponents to paint as a heartless removal of a benefit from vulnerable older people.
Will the Lib Dems be targeting enough seats to win most seats? Bearing in mind that they'd have to come from third in a lot of them?
Anti-Farage tactical voting will be incredibly difficult because the changes in support are so large. It won't be obvious to voters where Faragists could realistically win, and who will be best placed to defeat them. Do you vote for the red or blue incumbents, even though they are losing more votes, or do you switch to the yellows in the hope that red/blue voters will cop on that the yellows have the best chance, even when starting from third or fourth?
I think the Faragists are set to win lots of seats on record low shares of the vote.
Labour are likely to be down at the next election. Will the Tories, with or without Kemi, improve much on where they are now. I read that 2 Reform councillors are out already, could some scandals be due before the GE? I suspect that there may be anti-Reform tactical voting. The Lib Dems could be well placed to improve on 72 MPs. FPTP will be even more of a lottery than usual. So, what are the odds on No Overall Majority with a 2 or 3 party coalition needed?
Kenilworth & Southam is the 28th seat on the Lib Dems target list, which they'd need to win to reach 100 seats. Its vote in 2024 was: CON 36% LAB 24% LDM 20% RFM 13% GRN 6% Reform voters are not tactical voters. They won't be fazed by the party coming 4th last time. Who do anti-Farage tactical voters vote for?
This is one of many seats that Farage's lot have a better chance of winning from fourth than the Lib Dems do of winning from third.
Lib Dem targeting in 2024 was so efficient that it puts a cap on their potential for further progress at the next election. They raced very fast down a cul-de-sac.
Reform / Lib Dem marginal I think.
The Conservatives could hold on if they mount some sort of comeback from their current moribund position. But as it stands now Reform favourites, Lib Dem 2nd I think.
Kenilworth/Southam isn't really natural Labour territory if you've ever been there.
I lived in Kenilworth for a while. It’s certainly where Labour is going, it’s more Labour what Labour is now than the old coalfields and red wall.a
The agreement with the United Kingdom is a full and comprehensive one that will cement the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom for many years to come. Because of our long time history and allegiance together, it is a great honor to have the United Kingdom as our FIRST announcement. Many other deals, which are in serious stages of negotiation, to follow!
And will it still have the 100% tariff on British movies?
That's literally not going to happen, the executive doesn't have the power to put tariffs up on the movie industry, there is a very specific named reservation of tariff power to Congress for the movie industry and there's no way Congress will agree to a 100% tariff plan. Every media company has recovered after the initial announcement and then back down once the Trump admin were told they don't have the power to do it and would need Congress to pass a law to either give him the power or enact the tariff. There's simply no mechanism for Trump to put up tariffs in this manner on that specific industry. You of all people should know this!
Cute that you think this lickspittle Congress would ever say no to Trump.
It probably won't happen because it's not something that can be just shoved through with an executive order and this manic insane government of their will probably move on to their next batshit crazy idea leaving this one behind.
But if he insists Congress approves it, Congress is not going to grow a spine.
Based on my first 24 hours in Britain, from Gatwick into Central London, this country is clean, prosperous, and much more relaxed than New York.
There’s a palpable lack of everyday narcissism, which is refreshing. The tube talks to you in polite, cut-glass RP. The coffee is good, the pastries even better. Taxi drivers appear to know how to get about. Things work.
I am experiencing the UK through the lens of a U.S. tourist, and it feels fantastic. Even Vauxhall, which I was forced to go to due to an appointment at the U.S. embassy, seems pleasant - instead of the car-ridden, jerry-built, ersatz shanghai I remembered it as.
I’m sure it will get worse as I venture outside my bubble of chi-chi.
Yes I generally feel very happy to come home. This is a lovely country full of broadly sane people. I'd also add that it usually takes about two minutes to clear UK immigration at Heathrow T5 compared to an hour minimum at US immigration at JFK or Dulles. Another reason to feel cheerful on arrival.
Living in America, you don’t experience the state like you do in the UK, because there is simply less of it.
Assuming you are blessed enough to be in the top 50% of income, that can actually make US life more pleasant in subtle little ways. No absurd battles with GP receptionists to get an appointment, for example; no menacing letters about tv licenses etc.
However the bits that *are* run by the state, like inbound immigration, are disastrous and seem to be getting more disastrous.
Tbf, if you're lucky enough to have private healthcare in the UK you can also sidestep a lot of the hassle with the NHS and it does make life a lot less hassle as you don't interact with the state anywhere near as much.
The big change is adding private GPs to the corporate private healthcare plans. Previously (a few years back) you had to get referral by an NHS GP before doing anything.
Now all the plans seem to offer 24/7 GP coverage.
It's often not appreciated that GP's, like pharmacies and dentists are contractors to the NHS, NOT employees. There's a good deal of control of operations admittedly but all three professions often own their own premises, or rent them like other people. There are premises which are owned by one or other of the health authorities and rented out, but one of the features of the NHS is that in the vast majority of cases GP's (etc) are self-employed,
An arrangement made because GPs were sceptical of the NHS at its creation.
I see the jury has retired in the Sycamore Gap case.The judge has said she wants a unanimous verdict. If ever there was a time to be a fly on the wall......
Will the jury be able to see the wood for the tree? Or will they splinter into different branches?
Over the next couple of years the Lib Dems will be running a large number of local councils. This will be hard given the financial and structural problems of local government, However unlike Reform they have a cohort of experienced and well-connected councillors. A good example is Heather Kidd who has just been elected as leader of Shropshire County Council. She was previously leader of South Shropshire District Council and served on a number of LGA boards. She also has a claim to be the most popular councillor in the country. On May 1st she was re-elected in Chirbury and Worthen with 70.96% of the vote compared to 18.4% Reform, 7.7% Con, 1.47% Green, and 1.4% Lab.
Defence of the India NI thingy is easy intellectually; but not if you don't understand the motto of St Trinian's:
"Get your blow in first"(Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo).
If you don't do this the 24 hour a day news, distortion and lies cycle has chewed you up and moved on to other trivia.
Trump, Blair, Campbell all got this and get this. Why can't this government?
Did Blair/Campbell face as much distortion and as many lies? Social media and a populist right (like Trump) who care nothing about truth have made the situation worse.
Blair and Campbell had more influence over the media to get their points across I think. Fewer channels, more concentrated viewers. Trump, by being outrageous, can get his vibe across successfully through social media.
Labour haven't got the knack of it yet. Starmer needs to be out there doing a hottest curry challenge or drinking Scottish whiskey with Sachin Tendulkar or something. To be fair I've no idea either but does feel like Labour are stuck in a 90s/00s playbook that isn't going to cut through.
Perhaps their just isn't a "knack" in the social media age.
With the India NI issue, Badenoch was able to sew the seed with a few comments/tweets, and then not even mention it at PMQs, where she knows she'll face pushback.
Farage can "just ask a question" as cover for any old bollocks, then any criticism bounces of him, because "of course the Establishment don't like me asking these questions".
For Reform, it's the perfect environment. Labour are in power, so can't get away without scrutiny. The Tories are stuck between the two, floundering.
The knack is clearly to fund your own mouthpieces spewing your propaganda all over social media, rather than playing nicely within the old rules. Doesn't lead to a v pleasant place unfortunately.
I see the jury has retired in the Sycamore Gap case.The judge has said she wants a unanimous verdict. If ever there was a time to be a fly on the wall......
Will the jury be able to see the wood for the tree? Or will they splinter into different branches?
Will they be able to get to the root of the issues, or get tangled up in knots?
I see the jury has retired in the Sycamore Gap case.The judge has said she wants a unanimous verdict. If ever there was a time to be a fly on the wall......
Will the jury be able to see the wood for the tree? Or will they splinter into different branches?
On most juries there is always one old sap so unanimity may be tricky.
I see the jury has retired in the Sycamore Gap case.The judge has said she wants a unanimous verdict. If ever there was a time to be a fly on the wall......
Will the jury be able to see the wood for the tree? Or will they splinter into different branches?
Will they be able to get to the root of the issues, or get tangled up in knots?
They can probably find some seeds of doubt on intent.
Woke is still a thing in Canada. A police press conference about missing children in Nova Scotia begins with a land acknowledgment and statement that “African Nova Scotias are a distinct people”:
After VE Day and VJ Day, can we please have PJ Day, where we have street parties in our jim jams? No need to dress up, go straight from bed to party...
That's what it's like living on a council estate in rural Scotland.
East coast perhaps, we are more sophisticated in the West.
I see the jury has retired in the Sycamore Gap case.The judge has said she wants a unanimous verdict. If ever there was a time to be a fly on the wall......
Will the jury be able to see the wood for the tree? Or will they splinter into different branches?
Will they be able to get to the root of the issues, or get tangled up in knots?
They can probably find some seeds of doubt on intent.
You would like to think that the evidence leaves little room for doubt.
Property. It turns out that lots of GPs own the properties they use, outright. Very often old buildings, lots of spare space (car parks) etc.
So buy the GP practise(s), knock them down, build flats on the site. With a GP practise at the bottom, if the locals are lucky. More commonly, merge multiple practises onto one site, with the other sites becoming "redundant"....
It's always stripping the assets in part or in full.
IIRC the current Govt came in proposing some reform of taxation on Private Equity.
Put this way, you can understand how Trump managed to go bust running casinos.
So you’re telling me we got the rest of the world to do the lowest value, lowest profit margin, most capital intensive, and most cyclical parts of economic activity.
And in exchange, they gave our companies the cheapest priced goods in the world to resell and thrive off of. Which then gave our companies the time to pursue the actual high value parts of economic activity (you know, like Silicon Valley, Wall Street, military R&D, etc).
And all we had to do was give them IOU’s for an imaginary currency unit that we would only ever pay them back in worthless real terms in, if we ever repaid them at all.
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.
It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.
I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.
From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.
Right; the reason that doing something about the WFA was perpetually on the Treasury's list of suggestions they put to new CofEs and why successive CofEs ignored the suggestion (according to Osborne) is that it makes sense in economic terms but is a hard sell politically. There was I think a case that the government could have made for the WFA changes, but it would have required them to do it and sell it as part of a wider range of changes, so voters could see both the "this is what it's going to cost and overall where we're increasing the burden" and the "and this is what it will allow us to do that you voted us in to improve" side. As it was, the WFA change appeared as a standalone single thing that was easy for opponents to paint as a heartless removal of a benefit from vulnerable older people.
There's that mental image of an elderly person huddled up in a cold house not able to put the heating on. If you're a right wing national populist, it's an open goal for spurious emotive comparisons:
"Our own people who've worked hard all their lives can't keep warm because we're spending all the money on putting big strapping migrants, young men of fighting age, into luxury hotels."
The core message being Britain is "broken" and only when it's "fixed" can we spare any thought or resource for outsiders. Charity begins at home. I think that sentiment is common (both meanings) and is a powerful driver of RUK and Farage support.
On a cheerier note there’s a really gorgeous spell of weather approaching
Pure sunshine over London. 21-24C for day after day. Nice
Undoubtedly contributing to my benevolent image of London in 2025. I have been looking very hard for signs of the Boriswave but haven’t seen any yet.
It's not good at all. Most of northern Europe is on a drought warning.
Yes.
Despite the wet January, in the Flatlands we are now well below normal rainfall, and the evaporation exceeds it. We've had less that 20mm since the 1st March.
Not good for bogs in a marginal environment. Fire risk will be extreme.
It's interesting that the polling for a Cen/ Ref coalition is considerably less than the sum of its parts. Once again it is clear to those listening that the Con and Ref voters are not interchangeable.
On a cheerier note there’s a really gorgeous spell of weather approaching
Pure sunshine over London. 21-24C for day after day. Nice
Undoubtedly contributing to my benevolent image of London in 2025. I have been looking very hard for signs of the Boriswave but haven’t seen any yet.
It's not good at all. Most of northern Europe is on a drought warning.
Yes.
Despite the wet January, in the Flatlands we are now well below normal rainfall, and the evaporation exceeds it. We've had less that 20mm since the 1st March.
Not good for bogs in a marginal environment. Fire risk will be extreme.
We've had a refreshing few days not discussing toilet arrangements thanks.
Put this way, you can understand how Trump managed to go bust running casinos.
So you’re telling me we got the rest of the world to do the lowest value, lowest profit margin, most capital intensive, and most cyclical parts of economic activity.
And in exchange, they gave our companies the cheapest priced goods in the world to resell and thrive off of. Which then gave our companies the time to pursue the actual high value parts of economic activity (you know, like Silicon Valley, Wall Street, military R&D, etc).
And all we had to do was give them IOU’s for an imaginary currency unit that we would only ever pay them back in worthless real terms in, if we ever repaid them at all.
Put this way, you can understand how Trump managed to go bust running casinos.
So you’re telling me we got the rest of the world to do the lowest value, lowest profit margin, most capital intensive, and most cyclical parts of economic activity.
And in exchange, they gave our companies the cheapest priced goods in the world to resell and thrive off of. Which then gave our companies the time to pursue the actual high value parts of economic activity (you know, like Silicon Valley, Wall Street, military R&D, etc).
And all we had to do was give them IOU’s for an imaginary currency unit that we would only ever pay them back in worthless real terms in, if we ever repaid them at all.
American celebrity scientist Michio Kaku (1m20s-video) on similar lines:- America became great by embracing foreign-born geniuses from around the world. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/m2r8CyeBL3k
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.
It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.
I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.
From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.
Right; the reason that doing something about the WFA was perpetually on the Treasury's list of suggestions they put to new CofEs and why successive CofEs ignored the suggestion (according to Osborne) is that it makes sense in economic terms but is a hard sell politically. There was I think a case that the government could have made for the WFA changes, but it would have required them to do it and sell it as part of a wider range of changes, so voters could see both the "this is what it's going to cost and overall where we're increasing the burden" and the "and this is what it will allow us to do that you voted us in to improve" side. As it was, the WFA change appeared as a standalone single thing that was easy for opponents to paint as a heartless removal of a benefit from vulnerable older people.
There's that mental image of an elderly person huddled up in a cold house not able to put the heating on. If you're a right wing national populist, it's an open goal for spurious emotive comparisons:
"Our own people who've worked hard all their lives can't keep warm because we're spending all the money on putting big strapping migrants, young men of fighting age, into luxury hotels."
The core message being Britain is "broken" and only when it's "fixed" can we spare any thought or resource for outsiders. Charity begins at home. I think that sentiment is common (both meanings) and is a powerful driver of RUK and Farage support.
Presumably you agree with Starmer that "charity begins abroad", and Britons should come last in every deal and instance where the British government can manage it
On a cheerier note there’s a really gorgeous spell of weather approaching
Pure sunshine over London. 21-24C for day after day. Nice
Undoubtedly contributing to my benevolent image of London in 2025. I have been looking very hard for signs of the Boriswave but haven’t seen any yet.
It's not good at all. Most of northern Europe is on a drought warning.
Yes.
Despite the wet January, in the Flatlands we are now well below normal rainfall, and the evaporation exceeds it. We've had less that 20mm since the 1st March.
Not good for bogs in a marginal environment. Fire risk will be extreme.
We've had a refreshing few days not discussing toilet arrangements thanks.
The Humberhead Levels have gender neutral arrangements although the vegetation isn't terribly good cover.
Defence of the India NI thingy is easy intellectually; but not if you don't understand the motto of St Trinian's:
"Get your blow in first"(Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo).
If you don't do this the 24 hour a day news, distortion and lies cycle has chewed you up and moved on to other trivia.
Trump, Blair, Campbell all got this and get this. Why can't this government?
Did Blair/Campbell face as much distortion and as many lies? Social media and a populist right (like Trump) who care nothing about truth have made the situation worse.
I have read Robin Cook's memoir - Point of Departure. In it, he points out that in the 1970s, which were pretty tumultuous political times, there were 4 negative headlines in the newspapers for every positive one. At the time of writing, about 1999/2000, when times were much more benign, there were 18 negative headlines in the newspapers for every positive one. So yes the Blair government did face lies and distortion.
Social media was also around, in at least the form of forums, email groups and blogs.
Property. It turns out that lots of GPs own the properties they use, outright. Very often old buildings, lots of spare space (car parks) etc.
So buy the GP practise(s), knock them down, build flats on the site. With a GP practise at the bottom, if the locals are lucky. More commonly, merge multiple practises onto one site, with the other sites becoming "redundant"....
It's always stripping the assets in part or in full.
IIRC the current Govt came in proposing some reform of taxation on Private Equity.
I wonder what happened to it?
The other Private Equity scam is to load the organisation with debt then sell it on, taking the profit, and letting the business fold a few years later. See Thames Water etc.
General Practice has changed, and fewer and fewer GPs work in traditional subcontracting roles in small partnerships owning their own premises. Increasingly they are salaried employees in mega practices with multiple sites.
Bit of a poor piece. Firstly, he spells 'whisky' with an 'e'.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, he neglects to explore whether employers will save on employers' NI, making Indian candidates more attractive to hire than their British counterparts. That's not good at all.
I am not wholly opposed to the deal yet. Yes, we will sell a little more Scotch and gin at the high end (though it will not be able to compete with cheap Indian fakes in the mass market), but I don't think the gains will be vast.
The visa thing is bad, but hopefully can be mitigated a bit in the event.
I can't see it being repudiated fully by an incoming Government, even a Reform one, though they may wish to revisit it.
It's interesting that the polling for a Cen/ Ref coalition is considerably less than the sum of its parts. Once again it is clear to those listening that the Con and Ref voters are not interchangeable.
Very interesting, Foxy.
I wonder what the Lab/LD figure would be if the LDs were the larger partner.
On a cheerier note there’s a really gorgeous spell of weather approaching
Pure sunshine over London. 21-24C for day after day. Nice
Undoubtedly contributing to my benevolent image of London in 2025. I have been looking very hard for signs of the Boriswave but haven’t seen any yet.
It's not good at all. Most of northern Europe is on a drought warning.
Yes.
Despite the wet January, in the Flatlands we are now well below normal rainfall, and the evaporation exceeds it. We've had less that 20mm since the 1st March.
Not good for bogs in a marginal environment. Fire risk will be extreme.
Looking at the graphs, 1976 was just insane. A huge outlier.
This could be the next big difficulty for Labour. Large increases in water bills and impending hosepipe bans.
Trump: We had a very good outcome with the Houthis, and we honor their word.. They took tremendous punishment. You could say there’s a lot of bravery there. But we honor their commitment and their word. They gave us their word that they wouldn't be shooting ships anymore and we honor that. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1920176510734094414
Will the Lib Dems be targeting enough seats to win most seats? Bearing in mind that they'd have to come from third in a lot of them?
Anti-Farage tactical voting will be incredibly difficult because the changes in support are so large. It won't be obvious to voters where Faragists could realistically win, and who will be best placed to defeat them. Do you vote for the red or blue incumbents, even though they are losing more votes, or do you switch to the yellows in the hope that red/blue voters will cop on that the yellows have the best chance, even when starting from third or fourth?
I think the Faragists are set to win lots of seats on record low shares of the vote.
Labour are likely to be down at the next election. Will the Tories, with or without Kemi, improve much on where they are now. I read that 2 Reform councillors are out already, could some scandals be due before the GE? I suspect that there may be anti-Reform tactical voting. The Lib Dems could be well placed to improve on 72 MPs. FPTP will be even more of a lottery than usual. So, what are the odds on No Overall Majority with a 2 or 3 party coalition needed?
Kenilworth & Southam is the 28th seat on the Lib Dems target list, which they'd need to win to reach 100 seats. Its vote in 2024 was: CON 36% LAB 24% LDM 20% RFM 13% GRN 6% Reform voters are not tactical voters. They won't be fazed by the party coming 4th last time. Who do anti-Farage tactical voters vote for?
This is one of many seats that Farage's lot have a better chance of winning from fourth than the Lib Dems do of winning from third.
Lib Dem targeting in 2024 was so efficient that it puts a cap on their potential for further progress at the next election. They raced very fast down a cul-de-sac.
Lib Dem targetting was based on the assumption that they would gain about 20 seats, and line the next 30 up for next time. Nobody expected the Tory collapse to be so complete that they would win the lot.
Next time out will be very different but also bear in mind that in many seats 35% will be a winning score. It's much easier to get to 35% from 10% (see Inverness, Skey and West Ross) when you can gain votes from multiple parties than to 50% from 30% when you need a direct transfer from a single party, as was usually the case in the traditional C-LD marginal.
For the LDs to get most seats it probably does need quite a large lead over everyone else, but not impossible if Labour don't deliver, the Tories stay out of contention but don't collapse entirely, and Reform decline under scrutiny and lose some of the NOTA/anti-Labour vote.
In reality, who knows what will happen in the next 4 years? There have been massive shifts over the last 4-5, no reason to assume they won't continue.
The agreement with the United Kingdom is a full and comprehensive one that will cement the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom for many years to come. Because of our long time history and allegiance together, it is a great honor to have the United Kingdom as our FIRST announcement. Many other deals, which are in serious stages of negotiation, to follow!
And will it still have the 100% tariff on British movies?
That's literally not going to happen, the executive doesn't have the power to put tariffs up on the movie industry, there is a very specific named reservation of tariff power to Congress for the movie industry and there's no way Congress will agree to a 100% tariff plan. Every media company has recovered after the initial announcement and then back down once the Trump admin were told they don't have the power to do it and would need Congress to pass a law to either give him the power or enact the tariff. There's simply no mechanism for Trump to put up tariffs in this manner on that specific industry. You of all people should know this!
I'm not so convinced of that.
Much of what Trump has done has been entirely outside his legal powers, a lot of it bring required to be done by Congress as the holder of the power of the purse. He has just ignored the law, and Congress are either mushrooms or intimated.
Trump has declared an emergency aiui, just as he declared that the USA is under invasion by the whatever gang to allow him to abuse the Alien Enemies Act unlawfully for his illegal deportations.
It's interesting that the polling for a Cen/ Ref coalition is considerably less than the sum of its parts. Once again it is clear to those listening that the Con and Ref voters are not interchangeable.
Very interesting, Foxy.
I wonder what the Lab/LD figure would be if the LDs were the larger partner.
I don't think the size of the groupings was part of the question.
I think that a government formed with its major component losing half its seats wouldn't be very credible.
In practice, like in 2010, we need to see the numbers to see what coalitions are viable.
Defence of the India NI thingy is easy intellectually; but not if you don't understand the motto of St Trinian's:
"Get your blow in first"(Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo).
If you don't do this the 24 hour a day news, distortion and lies cycle has chewed you up and moved on to other trivia.
Trump, Blair, Campbell all got this and get this. Why can't this government?
Did Blair/Campbell face as much distortion and as many lies? Social media and a populist right (like Trump) who care nothing about truth have made the situation worse.
Blair and Campbell had more influence over the media to get their points across I think. Fewer channels, more concentrated viewers. Trump, by being outrageous, can get his vibe across successfully through social media.
Labour haven't got the knack of it yet. Starmer needs to be out there doing a hottest curry challenge or drinking Scottish whiskey with Sachin Tendulkar or something. To be fair I've no idea either but does feel like Labour are stuck in a 90s/00s playbook that isn't going to cut through.
It's interesting that the polling for a Cen/ Ref coalition is considerably less than the sum of its parts. Once again it is clear to those listening that the Con and Ref voters are not interchangeable.
Coalitions are a very good example of all politics being relative. Apparently no-one wants a Con/Lab coalition, which standing alone makes sense; but what if the only mathematical alternative was a Reform minority government, with support from a handful of Tory ultras and DUP?
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.
It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.
I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.
From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.
Right; the reason that doing something about the WFA was perpetually on the Treasury's list of suggestions they put to new CofEs and why successive CofEs ignored the suggestion (according to Osborne) is that it makes sense in economic terms but is a hard sell politically. There was I think a case that the government could have made for the WFA changes, but it would have required them to do it and sell it as part of a wider range of changes, so voters could see both the "this is what it's going to cost and overall where we're increasing the burden" and the "and this is what it will allow us to do that you voted us in to improve" side. As it was, the WFA change appeared as a standalone single thing that was easy for opponents to paint as a heartless removal of a benefit from vulnerable older people.
There's that mental image of an elderly person huddled up in a cold house not able to put the heating on. If you're a right wing national populist, it's an open goal for spurious emotive comparisons:
"Our own people who've worked hard all their lives can't keep warm because we're spending all the money on putting big strapping migrants, young men of fighting age, into luxury hotels."
The core message being Britain is "broken" and only when it's "fixed" can we spare any thought or resource for outsiders. Charity begins at home. I think that sentiment is common (both meanings) and is a powerful driver of RUK and Farage support.
Presumably you agree with Starmer that "charity begins abroad", and Britons should come last in every deal and instance where the British government can manage it
I agree with him trying to grow the economy and improve public services without being reckless on the public finances.
And I think, given average luck, this will prevail at the next election over the sort of noddy caricature that you are peddling here.
Property. It turns out that lots of GPs own the properties they use, outright. Very often old buildings, lots of spare space (car parks) etc.
So buy the GP practise(s), knock them down, build flats on the site. With a GP practise at the bottom, if the locals are lucky. More commonly, merge multiple practises onto one site, with the other sites becoming "redundant"....
It's always stripping the assets in part or in full.
IIRC the current Govt came in proposing some reform of taxation on Private Equity.
I wonder what happened to it?
The other Private Equity scam is to load the organisation with debt then sell it on, taking the profit, and letting the business fold a few years later. See Thames Water etc.
General Practice has changed, and fewer and fewer GPs work in traditional subcontracting roles in small partnerships owning their own premises. Increasingly they are salaried employees in mega practices with multiple sites.
From the Independent piece:
Assura owns more than 600 buildings, including doctors’ surgeries, with a portfolio valued at more than £3.1 billion. It has just 79 members of staff.
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.
It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.
I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.
From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.
Right; the reason that doing something about the WFA was perpetually on the Treasury's list of suggestions they put to new CofEs and why successive CofEs ignored the suggestion (according to Osborne) is that it makes sense in economic terms but is a hard sell politically. There was I think a case that the government could have made for the WFA changes, but it would have required them to do it and sell it as part of a wider range of changes, so voters could see both the "this is what it's going to cost and overall where we're increasing the burden" and the "and this is what it will allow us to do that you voted us in to improve" side. As it was, the WFA change appeared as a standalone single thing that was easy for opponents to paint as a heartless removal of a benefit from vulnerable older people.
There's that mental image of an elderly person huddled up in a cold house not able to put the heating on. If you're a right wing national populist, it's an open goal for spurious emotive comparisons:
"Our own people who've worked hard all their lives can't keep warm because we're spending all the money on putting big strapping migrants, young men of fighting age, into luxury hotels."
The core message being Britain is "broken" and only when it's "fixed" can we spare any thought or resource for outsiders. Charity begins at home. I think that sentiment is common (both meanings) and is a powerful driver of RUK and Farage support.
Presumably you agree with Starmer that "charity begins abroad", and Britons should come last in every deal and instance where the British government can manage it
Labour cut the overseas aid budget. It's now less than half what it was under the Conservatives.
I'm feeling cheery now my cold has abated, my sense of smell has returned, sunshine is coming, and I've been invited to the fourth best hotel in Luxembourg, so I'm gonna give Labour a helping hand with some serious advice
I know, radical
THIS is how they see off Reform, and win the next election
1. Slash immigration. It needs to be under 300,000 by 2028
2. Stop the boats. It doesn't have to be all of them, but there needs to be so few you have to wait weeks for the next. So, down by 80% at least (and FFS get all the asylum seekers out of hotels, fly most of them home)
3. Do something about "Scuzz Nation". The litter, the graffiti, the grot, the fake candy shops, the shoplifting. DO IT, don't talk about it. And do it so that Britons can see the visible difference on their streets
4. Make it clear that most of the Boriswave is going home
5. Shorten NHS waiting times. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be obviously positive by 2028
6. Make Britons richer. As with the NHS, it doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be positive. Household incomes need to be higher, even if only by a few quid, in 2028 than they were in 2024
Six points. Do those and Labour can recover, see off Reform, and win
People will forgive everything else, foreign policy stupidity, Chagos, homelessness, train times, house prices, bad weather, even WFA, if Labour can just do the above
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.
It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.
I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.
From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.
Right; the reason that doing something about the WFA was perpetually on the Treasury's list of suggestions they put to new CofEs and why successive CofEs ignored the suggestion (according to Osborne) is that it makes sense in economic terms but is a hard sell politically. There was I think a case that the government could have made for the WFA changes, but it would have required them to do it and sell it as part of a wider range of changes, so voters could see both the "this is what it's going to cost and overall where we're increasing the burden" and the "and this is what it will allow us to do that you voted us in to improve" side. As it was, the WFA change appeared as a standalone single thing that was easy for opponents to paint as a heartless removal of a benefit from vulnerable older people.
There's that mental image of an elderly person huddled up in a cold house not able to put the heating on. If you're a right wing national populist, it's an open goal for spurious emotive comparisons:
"Our own people who've worked hard all their lives can't keep warm because we're spending all the money on putting big strapping migrants, young men of fighting age, into luxury hotels."
The core message being Britain is "broken" and only when it's "fixed" can we spare any thought or resource for outsiders. Charity begins at home. I think that sentiment is common (both meanings) and is a powerful driver of RUK and Farage support.
Presumably you agree with Starmer that "charity begins abroad", and Britons should come last in every deal and instance where the British government can manage it
I agree with him trying to grow the economy and improve public services without being reckless on the public finances.
And I think, given average luck, this will prevail at the next election over the sort of noddy caricature that you are peddling here.
I think lower mortgage rates could make a difference. It's that cohort which is important and more likely to swing.
I'm feeling cheery now my cold has abated, my sense of smell has returned, sunshine is coming, and I've been invited to the fourth best hotel in Luxembourg, so I'm gonna give Labour a helping hand with some serious advice
I know, radical
THIS is how they see off Reform, and win the next election
1. Slash immigration. It needs to be under 300,000 by 2028
2. Stop the boats. It doesn't have to be all of them, but there needs to be so few you have to wait weeks for the next. So, down by 80% at least (and FFS get all the asylum seekers out of hotels, fly most of them home)
3. Do something about "Scuzz Nation". The litter, the graffiti, the grot, the fake candy shops, the shoplifting. DO IT, don't talk about it. And do it so that Britons can see the visible difference on their streets
4. Make it clear that most of the Boriswave is going home
5. Shorten NHS waiting times. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be obviously positive by 2028
6. Make Britons richer. As with the NHS, it doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be positive. Household incomes need to be higher, even if only by a few quid, in 2028 than they were in 2024
Six points. Do those and Labour can recover, see off Reform, and win
People will forgive everything else, foreign policy stupidity, Chagos, homelessness, train times, house prices, bad weather, even WFA, if Labour can just do the above
I could agree with most of that.
But as I was remarking the other day, it could peel off the new Reform (last week) voters, but less likely to win over the 2024 Reform voters.
Politically, [axing winter fuel allowance] was a supreme act of self-harm which may yet end up costing Rachel Reeves her job. Campaigners say the issue was brought up time and again on the doorstep during recent local elections, and it is widely thought to be a major cause of Labour’s drubbing on polling day.
Of all the things Rachel Reeves could have cut, this was possibly the worst target she might have chosen.
Axing the winter fuel allowance was precisely the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish measure that Treasury officials like to sneak through while the Chancellor’s guard is down and the hunt is on for quick, emblematic fixes.
Telegraph
Cutting WFA was precisely the right thing to do, the only right thing she did in an otherwise awful budget.
The self-entitled moaning prats who are whinging need to get over it, or there can be no sensible governance if we keep kowtowing and blowing money on unearned entitlements.
I think the WFA is totemic of the government's inability to win the political debate.
It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.
I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.
From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.
Right; the reason that doing something about the WFA was perpetually on the Treasury's list of suggestions they put to new CofEs and why successive CofEs ignored the suggestion (according to Osborne) is that it makes sense in economic terms but is a hard sell politically. There was I think a case that the government could have made for the WFA changes, but it would have required them to do it and sell it as part of a wider range of changes, so voters could see both the "this is what it's going to cost and overall where we're increasing the burden" and the "and this is what it will allow us to do that you voted us in to improve" side. As it was, the WFA change appeared as a standalone single thing that was easy for opponents to paint as a heartless removal of a benefit from vulnerable older people.
There's that mental image of an elderly person huddled up in a cold house not able to put the heating on. If you're a right wing national populist, it's an open goal for spurious emotive comparisons:
"Our own people who've worked hard all their lives can't keep warm because we're spending all the money on putting big strapping migrants, young men of fighting age, into luxury hotels."
The core message being Britain is "broken" and only when it's "fixed" can we spare any thought or resource for outsiders. Charity begins at home. I think that sentiment is common (both meanings) and is a powerful driver of RUK and Farage support.
Presumably you agree with Starmer that "charity begins abroad", and Britons should come last in every deal and instance where the British government can manage it
Labour cut the overseas aid budget. It's now less than half what it was under the Conservatives.
Doesn't most of it now go on housing asylum seekers anyway? I believe the Tories rather deviously categorised that as "overseas aid"
On a cheerier note there’s a really gorgeous spell of weather approaching
Pure sunshine over London. 21-24C for day after day. Nice
Undoubtedly contributing to my benevolent image of London in 2025. I have been looking very hard for signs of the Boriswave but haven’t seen any yet.
It's not good at all. Most of northern Europe is on a drought warning.
Yes.
Despite the wet January, in the Flatlands we are now well below normal rainfall, and the evaporation exceeds it. We've had less that 20mm since the 1st March.
Not good for bogs in a marginal environment. Fire risk will be extreme.
Yorkshire's reservoirs are ten percentage points lower than last year.
I'm feeling cheery now my cold has abated, my sense of smell has returned, sunshine is coming, and I've been invited to the fourth best hotel in Luxembourg, so I'm gonna give Labour a helping hand with some serious advice
I know, radical
THIS is how they see off Reform, and win the next election
1. Slash immigration. It needs to be under 300,000 by 2028
2. Stop the boats. It doesn't have to be all of them, but there needs to be so few you have to wait weeks for the next. So, down by 80% at least (and FFS get all the asylum seekers out of hotels, fly most of them home)
3. Do something about "Scuzz Nation". The litter, the graffiti, the grot, the fake candy shops, the shoplifting. DO IT, don't talk about it. And do it so that Britons can see the visible difference on their streets
4. Make it clear that most of the Boriswave is going home
5. Shorten NHS waiting times. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be obviously positive by 2028
6. Make Britons richer. As with the NHS, it doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be positive. Household incomes need to be higher, even if only by a few quid, in 2028 than they were in 2024
Six points. Do those and Labour can recover, see off Reform, and win
People will forgive everything else, foreign policy stupidity, Chagos, homelessness, train times, house prices, bad weather, even WFA, if Labour can just do the above
Good list. But there is a problem. Each of them is, on examination in a similar category to bright ideas like
7. Make house prices higher for sellers and lower for buyers 8. Build more houses in nice places except in all nice places 9. Smash the small boats gangs when you can't control real gang members who are prison
I'm feeling cheery now my cold has abated, my sense of smell has returned, sunshine is coming, and I've been invited to the fourth best hotel in Luxembourg, so I'm gonna give Labour a helping hand with some serious advice
I know, radical
THIS is how they see off Reform, and win the next election
1. Slash immigration. It needs to be under 300,000 by 2028
2. Stop the boats. It doesn't have to be all of them, but there needs to be so few you have to wait weeks for the next. So, down by 80% at least (and FFS get all the asylum seekers out of hotels, fly most of them home)
3. Do something about "Scuzz Nation". The litter, the graffiti, the grot, the fake candy shops, the shoplifting. DO IT, don't talk about it. And do it so that Britons can see the visible difference on their streets
4. Make it clear that most of the Boriswave is going home
5. Shorten NHS waiting times. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be obviously positive by 2028
6. Make Britons richer. As with the NHS, it doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be positive. Household incomes need to be higher, even if only by a few quid, in 2028 than they were in 2024
Six points. Do those and Labour can recover, see off Reform, and win
People will forgive everything else, foreign policy stupidity, Chagos, homelessness, train times, house prices, bad weather, even WFA, if Labour can just do the above
I could agree with most of that.
But as I was remarking the other day, it could peel off the new Reform (last week) voters, but less likely to win over the 2024 Reform voters.
Even as someone who - for now - supports Reform, I fully accept that they are Marmite. A lof of people don't WANT to vote for Farage, or Reform, and will do it with distaste. But they see no choice. The Tories abjectly failed and Labour are failing even harder and quicker. Scuzz Nation is real
So Labout can win back these people with actual practical improvements in these key areas
What's more, they have a massive majority, lots and lots of MPs who are desperate to hold on to their seats. Starmer has limitless political power, if he has the will. It's up to him
Maybe he can find some inner super-strength, and do it. He's got four years max
I'm feeling cheery now my cold has abated, my sense of smell has returned, sunshine is coming, and I've been invited to the fourth best hotel in Luxembourg, so I'm gonna give Labour a helping hand with some serious advice
I know, radical
THIS is how they see off Reform, and win the next election
1. Slash immigration. It needs to be under 300,000 by 2028
2. Stop the boats. It doesn't have to be all of them, but there needs to be so few you have to wait weeks for the next. So, down by 80% at least (and FFS get all the asylum seekers out of hotels, fly most of them home)
3. Do something about "Scuzz Nation". The litter, the graffiti, the grot, the fake candy shops, the shoplifting. DO IT, don't talk about it. And do it so that Britons can see the visible difference on their streets
4. Make it clear that most of the Boriswave is going home
5. Shorten NHS waiting times. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be obviously positive by 2028
6. Make Britons richer. As with the NHS, it doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be positive. Household incomes need to be higher, even if only by a few quid, in 2028 than they were in 2024
Six points. Do those and Labour can recover, see off Reform, and win
People will forgive everything else, foreign policy stupidity, Chagos, homelessness, train times, house prices, bad weather, even WFA, if Labour can just do the above
I could agree with most of that.
But as I was remarking the other day, it could peel off the new Reform (last week) voters, but less likely to win over the 2024 Reform voters.
Even as someone who - for now - supports Reform, I fully accept that they are Marmite. A lof of people don't WANT to vote for Farage, or Reform, and will do it with distaste. But they see no choice. The Tories abjectly failed and Labour are failing even harder and quicker. Scuzz Nation is real
So Labout can win back these people with actual pratical improvements in these key areas
What's more, they have a massive majority, lots and lots of MPs who are desperate to hold on to their seats. Starmer has limitless political power, if he has the will. It's up to him
Maybe he can find some inner super-strength, and do it. He's got four years max
Is copying Sunak’s “Adidas Trainers with a suit” look a positive or negative?
I'm feeling cheery now my cold has abated, my sense of smell has returned, sunshine is coming, and I've been invited to the fourth best hotel in Luxembourg, so I'm gonna give Labour a helping hand with some serious advice
I know, radical
THIS is how they see off Reform, and win the next election
1. Slash immigration. It needs to be under 300,000 by 2028
2. Stop the boats. It doesn't have to be all of them, but there needs to be so few you have to wait weeks for the next. So, down by 80% at least (and FFS get all the asylum seekers out of hotels, fly most of them home)
3. Do something about "Scuzz Nation". The litter, the graffiti, the grot, the fake candy shops, the shoplifting. DO IT, don't talk about it. And do it so that Britons can see the visible difference on their streets
4. Make it clear that most of the Boriswave is going home
5. Shorten NHS waiting times. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be obviously positive by 2028
6. Make Britons richer. As with the NHS, it doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be positive. Household incomes need to be higher, even if only by a few quid, in 2028 than they were in 2024
Six points. Do those and Labour can recover, see off Reform, and win
People will forgive everything else, foreign policy stupidity, Chagos, homelessness, train times, house prices, bad weather, even WFA, if Labour can just do the above
I think Labour would probably claim that they're trying to do most of those things. The devil is in the detail I guess. I 100% agree with point three though. Declining high streets have a terrible effect on community morale and cohesion yet every level of government just shrugs it's shoulders and mutters about 'changing consumer habits'.
Will the Lib Dems be targeting enough seats to win most seats? Bearing in mind that they'd have to come from third in a lot of them?
Anti-Farage tactical voting will be incredibly difficult because the changes in support are so large. It won't be obvious to voters where Faragists could realistically win, and who will be best placed to defeat them. Do you vote for the red or blue incumbents, even though they are losing more votes, or do you switch to the yellows in the hope that red/blue voters will cop on that the yellows have the best chance, even when starting from third or fourth?
I think the Faragists are set to win lots of seats on record low shares of the vote.
Labour are likely to be down at the next election. Will the Tories, with or without Kemi, improve much on where they are now. I read that 2 Reform councillors are out already, could some scandals be due before the GE? I suspect that there may be anti-Reform tactical voting. The Lib Dems could be well placed to improve on 72 MPs. FPTP will be even more of a lottery than usual. So, what are the odds on No Overall Majority with a 2 or 3 party coalition needed?
Kenilworth & Southam is the 28th seat on the Lib Dems target list, which they'd need to win to reach 100 seats. Its vote in 2024 was: CON 36% LAB 24% LDM 20% RFM 13% GRN 6% Reform voters are not tactical voters. They won't be fazed by the party coming 4th last time. Who do anti-Farage tactical voters vote for?
This is one of many seats that Farage's lot have a better chance of winning from fourth than the Lib Dems do of winning from third.
Lib Dem targeting in 2024 was so efficient that it puts a cap on their potential for further progress at the next election. They raced very fast down a cul-de-sac.
Lib Dem targetting was based on the assumption that they would gain about 20 seats, and line the next 30 up for next time. Nobody expected the Tory collapse to be so complete that they would win the lot.
Next time out will be very different but also bear in mind that in many seats 35% will be a winning score. It's much easier to get to 35% from 10% (see Inverness, Skey and West Ross) when you can gain votes from multiple parties than to 50% from 30% when you need a direct transfer from a single party, as was usually the case in the traditional C-LD marginal.
For the LDs to get most seats it probably does need quite a large lead over everyone else, but not impossible if Labour don't deliver, the Tories stay out of contention but don't collapse entirely, and Reform decline under scrutiny and lose some of the NOTA/anti-Labour vote.
In reality, who knows what will happen in the next 4 years? There have been massive shifts over the last 4-5, no reason to assume they won't continue.
Kenilworth and Southam so far as I can tell broadly aligns with the following LE wards
Dunsmore & Learne Valley Southam, Stockton & Napton Feldon Kiveton & Red Horse Wellesbourne - includes some rurals presumably better for Reform/Con than Wellesbourne proper - LD stronghold ? Budbrooke & Bishop's tachbrook - Note Bishop's Tachbrook part of Warwick & Leamington Cubbington & Leek Wooton Lapworth and West Kenilworth Kenilworth Park Hill Kenilworth St John's
Local election results.
Con 10897 Ref 7180 LD 7288 Lab 2622 Green 4983 Ind 47
Who knows - the Tories might just be able to hang on. Lib Dems surely would target it though with activists from nearby Stratford Upon Avon.
Warks North & Bedworth and Nuneaton look nailed on for Reform, not sure about Rugby.
I'm feeling cheery now my cold has abated, my sense of smell has returned, sunshine is coming, and I've been invited to the fourth best hotel in Luxembourg, so I'm gonna give Labour a helping hand with some serious advice
I know, radical
THIS is how they see off Reform, and win the next election
1. Slash immigration. It needs to be under 300,000 by 2028
2. Stop the boats. It doesn't have to be all of them, but there needs to be so few you have to wait weeks for the next. So, down by 80% at least (and FFS get all the asylum seekers out of hotels, fly most of them home)
3. Do something about "Scuzz Nation". The litter, the graffiti, the grot, the fake candy shops, the shoplifting. DO IT, don't talk about it. And do it so that Britons can see the visible difference on their streets
4. Make it clear that most of the Boriswave is going home
5. Shorten NHS waiting times. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be obviously positive by 2028
6. Make Britons richer. As with the NHS, it doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be positive. Household incomes need to be higher, even if only by a few quid, in 2028 than they were in 2024
Six points. Do those and Labour can recover, see off Reform, and win
People will forgive everything else, foreign policy stupidity, Chagos, homelessness, train times, house prices, bad weather, even WFA, if Labour can just do the above
I could agree with most of that.
But as I was remarking the other day, it could peel off the new Reform (last week) voters, but less likely to win over the 2024 Reform voters.
Even as someone who - for now - supports Reform, I fully accept that they are Marmite. A lof of people don't WANT to vote for Farage, or Reform, and will do it with distaste. But they see no choice. The Tories abjectly failed and Labour are failing even harder and quicker. Scuzz Nation is real
So Labout can win back these people with actual practical improvements in these key areas
What's more, they have a massive majority, lots and lots of MPs who are desperate to hold on to their seats. Starmer has limitless political power, if he has the will. It's up to him
Maybe he can find some inner super-strength, and do it. He's got four years max
Who do you like in the Reform line up?
Farage is a very good politician and fairly likeable character. So perhaps him, but is there anyone else?
Comments
It's not enough for the government to do something right, it also has to persuade the voters that they have done something right.
I think it's the defining feature of the Starmer government. Their skills of persuasion are sorely lacking. I don't suppose I've been following British politics as closely as I once would, but has the government won a single political argument in it's first ten months? I can't think of any.
From a distance there already seems to be a stench of doom emanating from this government's corpse. They're heading for a defeat that will make Sunak look like a political giant. Farage is a much more dangerous leader of the opposition than Starmer ever was. He has a lot of time to put the boot in - giving Britain yet another useless chancer as PM.
Two rate-setters voted for a 50 basis point cut and two voted to keep the rate at 4.5%.
https://x.com/thevivafrei/status/1920169394501529684
Will the Tories, with or without Kemi, improve much on where they are now.
I read that 2 Reform councillors are out already, could some scandals be due before the GE?
I suspect that there may be anti-Reform tactical voting.
The Lib Dems could be well placed to improve on 72 MPs.
FPTP will be even more of a lottery than usual.
So, what are the odds on No Overall Majority with a 2 or 3 party coalition needed?
If ever there was a time to be a fly on the wall......
The great majority of WFA recipients are either fairly hard up and have worked throughout their lives, or are taxpayers themselves.
The benefits/welfare savings really need to be directed at those who are able bodied, younger and won't work and don't pay tax.
It's amazing this activist nonsense has seeped so far into the mainstream.
It needs to be expunged.
https://x.com/ra_conrad/status/1920420733378830364
Everybody on this board knows that.
I think there is a belief, on the Left, that they deserve good press, as their due.
If Con hold up, you could in theory get 4 parties on around 100-160 seats each, but Con holding up implies far fewer LD opportunities.
If Con don't hold up that implies LDs doing well, but also a lot of Reform gains both from Labour (as much in their blue wall seats) and the Cons. In that circumstance it implies 3 parties around 200 seats for LD to edge it, and LD gains to keep pace sufficiently with Reform gains.
Both look like very narrow windows.
I feel there is going to be a lot of "only we can beat" shouting if Reform look competitive - a lot of possible 3 way contests. Even in boring old Huddersfield, where Reform could move through from third, I expect a lot of claims between Labour and the Greens at the next GE that they are the ones to hold Reform off (my thinking: Labour will have to be in a VERY bad way for me to decide Green is the best defensive vote).
As it is every year there will be a debate on whether to change the WFA qualifying thresholds and a reminder that some are getting it and others aren't.
With the India NI issue, Badenoch was able to sew the seed with a few comments/tweets, and then not even mention it at PMQs, where she knows she'll face pushback.
Farage can "just ask a question" as cover for any old bollocks, then any criticism bounces of him, because "of course the Establishment don't like me asking these questions".
For Reform, it's the perfect environment. Labour are in power, so can't get away without scrutiny. The Tories are stuck between the two, floundering.
Strategically, Cameron and Osborne thought the sweet-spot was Blairism with lower taxes: social liberalism (by which they meant proto-Wokey) and economic liberalism, and triangulating culturally against their own base - except stuffing pensioners mouths with gold to keep them quiet
Boy, did they get that wrong. It was out of date by 2007, and yet they persisted with it.
CON 36%
LAB 24%
LDM 20%
RFM 13%
GRN 6%
Reform voters are not tactical voters. They won't be fazed by the party coming 4th last time. Who do anti-Farage tactical voters vote for?
This is one of many seats that Farage's lot have a better chance of winning from fourth than the Lib Dems do of winning from third.
Lib Dem targeting in 2024 was so efficient that it puts a cap on their potential for further progress at the next election. They raced very fast down a cul-de-sac.
The Conservatives could hold on if they mount some sort of comeback from their current moribund position. But as it stands now Reform favourites, Lib Dem 2nd I think.
Kenilworth/Southam isn't really natural Labour territory if you've ever been there.
They are descended from freed slaves that fought on the British side in the American war of independence, and were settled in Nova Scotia afterwards. It is a community that goes back centuries, with its own Canadian subculture.
I've not looked at last years results in Scotland or Wales in any detail but I get the impression that 'winning' a seat with more than 40% is unusual.
1) WFA gets added to the pension/personal allowance
2) The tax rates for pensioners would be - basic rate as before NI is added. The higher rate(s) would be the new rate (including NI).
this would mean that only pensioners on £50K would pay more tax....
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/us/politics/trump-veterans-day-world-war-i.html&ved=2ahUKEwjpxOCy4pONAxXaXEEAHQ_PO2wQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw23ROywiWIPmG0qAgPrHKq1
(Doesn't help that people keep on calling it WFA, when it's either WFP or PAWHP).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Maintenance_Allowance
Governement pocket money for 16-18 year olds.
I don't think Labour would re-introduce something like this now. It's a measure of simply how much money was sloshing around in the public finances then which isn't now. Halcyon days...
Pure sunshine over London. 21-24C for day after day. Nice
And if the license fee was scrapped and its income added to the digital tax (although that look like a victim of this supposed trade deal), then we could effectively get rid of the license fee rebate too.
However I favour keeping the free bus access.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/07/salt-lake-city-boise-pride-flags?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
It probably won't happen because it's not something that can be just shoved through with an executive order and this manic insane government of their will probably move on to their next batshit crazy idea leaving this one behind.
But if he insists Congress approves it, Congress is not going to grow a spine.
Because london is already very multiracial the change is less stark. Go to some smaller towns and cities - even villages - elsewhere in the UK
IIRC the current Govt came in proposing some reform of taxation on Private Equity.
I wonder what happened to it?
So you’re telling me we got the rest of the world to do the lowest value, lowest profit margin, most capital intensive, and most cyclical parts of economic activity.
And in exchange, they gave our companies the cheapest priced goods in the world to resell and thrive off of. Which then gave our companies the time to pursue the actual high value parts of economic activity (you know, like Silicon Valley, Wall Street, military R&D, etc).
And all we had to do was give them IOU’s for an imaginary currency unit that we would only ever pay them back in worthless real terms in, if we ever repaid them at all.
And… we were the ones that demanded this system come to an end?
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1920298689509404679
"Our own people who've worked hard all their lives can't keep warm because we're spending all the money on putting big strapping migrants, young men of fighting age, into luxury hotels."
The core message being Britain is "broken" and only when it's "fixed" can we spare any thought or resource for outsiders. Charity begins at home. I think that sentiment is common (both meanings) and is a powerful driver of RUK and Farage support.
Despite the wet January, in the Flatlands we are now well below normal rainfall, and the evaporation exceeds it. We've had less that 20mm since the 1st March.
Not good for bogs in a marginal environment. Fire risk will be extreme.
Which potential coalitions have the most support from Britons?
Lab-LD: 38% support
Lab-LD-Grn: 38%
Lab-Grn: 37%
Con-Ref: 27%
Con-LD: 23%
Con-Grn: 20%
Lab-SNP: 20%
Con-Lab: 15%
LD-Ref: 15%
Lab-Ref: 10%
yougov.co.uk/politics/art...
https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lonplkvayk2v
The accompanying chart looks good @TSE
It's interesting that the polling for a Cen/ Ref coalition is considerably less than the sum of its parts. Once again it is clear to those listening that the Con and Ref voters are not interchangeable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg4180np8do
"Bargain Hunt expert charged with terror offences"
America became great by embracing foreign-born geniuses from around the world.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/m2r8CyeBL3k
General Practice has changed, and fewer and fewer GPs work in traditional subcontracting roles in small partnerships owning their own premises. Increasingly they are salaried employees in mega practices with multiple sites.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, he neglects to explore whether employers will save on employers' NI, making Indian candidates more attractive to hire than their British counterparts. That's not good at all.
I am not wholly opposed to the deal yet. Yes, we will sell a little more Scotch and gin at the high end (though it will not be able to compete with cheap Indian fakes in the mass market), but I don't think the gains will be vast.
The visa thing is bad, but hopefully can be mitigated a bit in the event.
I can't see it being repudiated fully by an incoming Government, even a Reform one, though they may wish to revisit it.
I wonder what the Lab/LD figure would be if the LDs were the larger partner.
This could be the next big difficulty for Labour. Large increases in water bills and impending hosepipe bans.
Trump: We had a very good outcome with the Houthis, and we honor their word.. They took tremendous punishment. You could say there’s a lot of bravery there. But we honor their commitment and their word. They gave us their word that they wouldn't be shooting ships anymore and we honor that.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1920176510734094414
Next time out will be very different but also bear in mind that in many seats 35% will be a winning score. It's much easier to get to 35% from 10% (see Inverness, Skey and West Ross) when you can gain votes from multiple parties than to 50% from 30% when you need a direct transfer from a single party, as was usually the case in the traditional C-LD marginal.
For the LDs to get most seats it probably does need quite a large lead over everyone else, but not impossible if Labour don't deliver, the Tories stay out of contention but don't collapse entirely, and Reform decline under scrutiny and lose some of the NOTA/anti-Labour vote.
In reality, who knows what will happen in the next 4 years? There have been massive shifts over the last 4-5, no reason to assume they won't continue.
Much of what Trump has done has been entirely outside his legal powers, a lot of it bring required to be done by Congress as the holder of the power of the purse. He has just ignored the law, and Congress are either mushrooms or intimated.
Trump has declared an emergency aiui, just as he declared that the USA is under invasion by the whatever gang to allow him to abuse the Alien Enemies Act unlawfully for his illegal deportations.
I think that a government formed with its major component losing half its seats wouldn't be very credible.
In practice, like in 2010, we need to see the numbers to see what coalitions are viable.
And I think, given average luck, this will prevail at the next election over the sort of noddy caricature that you are peddling here.
Assura owns more than 600 buildings, including doctors’ surgeries, with a portfolio valued at more than £3.1 billion. It has just 79 members of staff.
I know, radical
THIS is how they see off Reform, and win the next election
1. Slash immigration. It needs to be under 300,000 by 2028
2. Stop the boats. It doesn't have to be all of them, but there needs to be so few you have to wait weeks for the next. So, down by 80% at least (and FFS get all the asylum seekers out of hotels, fly most of them home)
3. Do something about "Scuzz Nation". The litter, the graffiti, the grot, the fake candy shops, the shoplifting. DO IT, don't talk about it. And do it so that Britons can see the visible difference on their streets
4. Make it clear that most of the Boriswave is going home
5. Shorten NHS waiting times. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be obviously positive by 2028
6. Make Britons richer. As with the NHS, it doesn't have to be dramatic, but the trajectory needs to be positive. Household incomes need to be higher, even if only by a few quid, in 2028 than they were in 2024
Six points. Do those and Labour can recover, see off Reform, and win
People will forgive everything else, foreign policy stupidity, Chagos, homelessness, train times, house prices, bad weather, even WFA, if Labour can just do the above
But as I was remarking the other day, it could peel off the new Reform (last week) voters, but less likely to win over the 2024 Reform voters.
“This is an incredible find. A genuine Strela-1 SAM prototype. Very rare and in great condition….”
7. Make house prices higher for sellers and lower for buyers
8. Build more houses in nice places except in all nice places
9. Smash the small boats gangs when you can't control real gang members who are prison
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/08/gangs-influence-jails-keeps-me-awake-james-timpson-prisons
So Labout can win back these people with actual practical improvements in these key areas
What's more, they have a massive majority, lots and lots of MPs who are desperate to hold on to their seats. Starmer has limitless political power, if he has the will. It's up to him
Maybe he can find some inner super-strength, and do it. He's got four years max
Conservatives now lead* Labour on the economy
*ignoring the 53% for neither"
https://x.com/BritainElects/status/1920440359575867836
Dunsmore & Learne Valley
Southam, Stockton & Napton
Feldon
Kiveton & Red Horse
Wellesbourne - includes some rurals presumably better for Reform/Con than Wellesbourne proper - LD stronghold ?
Budbrooke & Bishop's tachbrook - Note Bishop's Tachbrook part of Warwick & Leamington
Cubbington & Leek Wooton
Lapworth and West Kenilworth
Kenilworth Park Hill
Kenilworth St John's
Local election results.
Con 10897
Ref 7180
LD 7288
Lab 2622
Green 4983
Ind 47
Who knows - the Tories might just be able to hang on. Lib Dems surely would target it though with activists from nearby Stratford Upon Avon.
Warks North & Bedworth and Nuneaton look nailed on for Reform, not sure about Rugby.
Farage is a very good politician and fairly likeable character. So perhaps him, but is there anyone else?