This is a public forum - so I have to be careful what I say - but I've been shocked in the last week by looking at the set-up of two major government programmes.
On both there is a huge central overhead of checkers, assurers, reporters and monitors but it isn't actually clear why the client organisation exists or what risks they're supposed to be controlling. They have struggled to recruit for client roles (the Prime Minister salary cap is part of it, but they also don't really know what skills they need) so lots are backfilled with consultants. Meanwhile, they try and shunt all risk and liability - which they don't really understand - onto the supply chain which they either can't take, so refuse the work or do so out of desperation, because they need the work, and then go bankrupt the first time it's drawn upon. They jump straight to putting a spade in the ground without taking the time (it can take up to 2 years or more to set a major programme up for success) to design the organisation and the delivery model properly, and run straight into a brick wall.
A surprisingly large number of people are OK with that, and believe it's important. Hard truths are not welcomed and most people invest 90%+ of their time and energy in defending their turf and not doing what's necessary to get the job done well. Because it requires hard work, a bit of moral courage, and making some decisions.
It says everything about our process culture.
That is a not an unfamiliar story. I don't know, however, that I would call this "process culture". There's a post-Thatcherite model that government is bad at doing things, so you have a contracting model. Government contracts out work to the (supposedly) efficient private sector. That pushes the centre into being checkers and monitors, while hollowing out any in-house expertise and increasing reliance on consultants.
This is hilariously wide of the mark. But I suppose I should have guessed you'd just jump to "Fatch".
Government is confirming that the ILR 10 year rule will apply retrospectively.
Tony Blair set that precedence, it would be strange for Starmer not to follow it.
I would set tie the 10 year rule to HMRC-confirmed tax-paid income meeting the threshold required for a visa (£37k?) with no exceptions whatsoever.
Perfectly reasonable to have some exceptions to that rule for entry, eg students, but if within 10 years you're still not hitting the threshold then visa renewal/ILR should not be for you.
Any employer claiming "shortages" ought to be able to pay the threshold if the shortage is real.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
I myself took gross exception to “citizens of nowhere”, as it was uttered in the heat of an intense rise of xenophobia post-Brexit.
May’s intent was to criticise an ideology of rootless capitalism - “globalists” avant la letter - but she delivered it in an incredibly ham-fisted way.
There is a key difference between “citizens of nowhere” and “island of strangers”.
May sought to “other” and blame a sector of society.
Starmer’s speech only identifies the anxiety felt by existing resident in response to massive societal change.
It certainly resonates with me, but not so much as a result of immigration. It makes me think of:
the closure of pubs
people living hundreds of miles away from family
WFH
Not going to church
Lack of universal cultural events, like the finales to TV programmes or popular music
Car based society where you never interact with people on the pavements or in buses and trains
fewer young people having children, and higher rates of divorce
A man in my tenement died suddenly a few days ago, and we've had the police in the stairwell doing some sort of investigation. We're all going to the pub on Friday to have a drink in his memory. Feels weird and alien; my only interaction with him was to help retrieve his washing when the rain came in. But for the older people living here, a perfectly normal social occasion.
I guess this feeling of atomization varies depending on where you live or your stage of life. Despite living in supposedly anonymous and unfriendly inner London I have never felt so rooted in a community as I do now. We know so many of our neighbours and people in neighboring streets, through having children at school together but also through participating in various local groups and activities. It's hard for me to walk around the local park or visit the local Cafe without running into people I know. I'm even on first name terms with our local vicar. And these are people with roots from across the world. I know we are lucky to live in such a nice neighbourhood, but I have to say that Starmer’s Island of Strangers speech didn't resonate with me on every level. Perhaps everyone just needs to try being a bit more friendly instead of always thinking the worst of people.
Atomisation was the term that came to mind for me - strangers within our own society, but that has been a known trend for God knows how long - I guess since (eg job) mobility increased, which would be at least the 1940s, and could perhaps be traced far further.
We could look at household size, car ownership, the nuclear family, entertainment moving into the home with TV, the loss of the generation of community minded single women who had less chance to marry after WW1 when 3-4% of British men were killed (I make it 880k from 23 million), and the rest.
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
I myself took gross exception to “citizens of nowhere”, as it was uttered in the heat of an intense rise of xenophobia post-Brexit.
May’s intent was to criticise an ideology of rootless capitalism - “globalists” avant la letter - but she delivered it in an incredibly ham-fisted way.
There is a key difference between “citizens of nowhere” and “island of strangers”.
May sought to “other” and blame a sector of society.
Starmer’s speech only identifies the anxiety felt by existing resident in response to massive societal change.
It certainly resonates with me, but not so much as a result of immigration. It makes me think of:
the closure of pubs
people living hundreds of miles away from family
WFH
Not going to church
Lack of universal cultural events, like the finales to TV programmes or popular music
Car based society where you never interact with people on the pavements or in buses and trains
fewer young people having children, and higher rates of divorce
A man in my tenement died suddenly a few days ago, and we've had the police in the stairwell doing some sort of investigation. We're all going to the pub on Friday to have a drink in his memory. Feels weird and alien; my only interaction with him was to help retrieve his washing when the rain came in. But for the older people living here, a perfectly normal social occasion.
I guess this feeling of atomization varies depending on where you live or your stage of life. Despite living in supposedly anonymous and unfriendly inner London I have never felt so rooted in a community as I do now. We know so many of our neighbours and people in neighboring streets, through having children at school together but also through participating in various local groups and activities. It's hard for me to walk around the local park or visit the local Cafe without running into people I know. I'm even on first name terms with our local vicar. And these are people with roots from across the world. I know we are lucky to live in such a nice neighbourhood, but I have to say that Starmer’s Island of Strangers speech didn't resonate with me on every level. Perhaps everyone just needs to try being a bit more friendly instead of always thinking the worst of people.
That sounds like my idea of Hell. Like living in a village where everyone knows you and your doings
A friend of mine tells a story on this theme. He was on a bus and a neighbour recognised him and started chatting. My friend said
“Listen, mate, I moved to London so I wouldn’t have to talk to neighbours on buses”
"Aping" reform-style rhetoric even more, that should say , there, although "assing" actually works better with tye subject matter, as per the typos below.
This is a public forum - so I have to be careful what I say - but I've been shocked in the last week by looking at the set-up of two major government programmes.
On both there is a huge central overhead of checkers, assurers, reporters and monitors but it isn't actually clear why the client organisation exists or what risks they're supposed to be controlling. They have struggled to recruit for client roles (the Prime Minister salary cap is part of it, but they also don't really know what skills they need) so lots are backfilled with consultants. Meanwhile, they try and shunt all risk and liability - which they don't really understand - onto the supply chain which they either can't take, so refuse the work or do so out of desperation, because they need the work, and then go bankrupt the first time it's drawn upon. They jump straight to putting a spade in the ground without taking the time (it can take up to 2 years or more to set a major programme up for success) to design the organisation and the delivery model properly, and run straight into a brick wall.
A surprisingly large number of people are OK with that, and believe it's important. Hard truths are not welcomed and most people invest 90%+ of their time and energy in defending their turf and not doing what's necessary to get the job done well. Because it requires hard work, a bit of moral courage, and making some decisions.
It says everything about our process culture.
That is a not an unfamiliar story. I don't know, however, that I would call this "process culture". There's a post-Thatcherite model that government is bad at doing things, so you have a contracting model. Government contracts out work to the (supposedly) efficient private sector. That pushes the centre into being checkers and monitors, while hollowing out any in-house expertise and increasing reliance on consultants.
This is hilariously wide of the mark. But I suppose I should have guessed you'd just jump to "Fatch".
I blame Blair and Brown as much as Thatcher, if that makes you feel any better.
I recommend “ A Government that Worked Better and Cost Less?: Evaluating Three Decades of Reform and Change in UK Central Government” by Christopher Hood & Ruth Dixon.
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Survey after survey has shown that Scots are no more "progressive" in their attitudes than anyone else in the UK. The reason for the "progressive" majority at Holyrood is that many "unpleasant righties" vote SNP as they are wedded to Indy and are prepared to overlook the SNP's, by-and-large, social progressivism.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
Haven’t backed a Tory government for 60+ years, loathed Maggie & Boris, resoundingly voted against Brexit, considers Farage & co an annoying weeping sore on the body politic, but APART from that…
I do love the Yoon ‘we’re all as awful as each other’ meme though.
Just to pick that apart a bit.
Lack of Tory backing, due to being perceived as the "English" party, not because Scots have a long-lasting affection for the Summer of Love. Maggie and Boris quintessentially offensive to many of a Scottish sensibility.
Brexit, fair enough, although some parts did vote in favour, or very close, Moray and Buchan coast, for instance.
As for Farage, we'll find out soon enough.
Scotland, with its large industrial belt, will always be more left-wing than median England, but not more socially progressive.
Indeed, Scotland legalised homosexuality after England and Yougov has 68% of Scots thinking immigration too high ie near identical to the 70% UK wide.
London by contrast has only 58% saying immigration too high
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Didn't you see me post this yesterday? I wasn't sure whether they're a member of the polling council or not.
You can never post a great Reform poll too many times on PB.
Quite so. More ten point leads, please
What happens if Starmer’s “we must have Lebensraum” speech doesn’t do the trick? What happens if voters don’t budge and Reform remain ascendant and migration/boats don’t dramatically improve?
I can’t see the next move for Labour. Suddenly go back to the Left?
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Survey after survey has shown that Scots are no more "progressive" in their attitudes than anyone else in the UK. The reason for the "progressive" majority at Holyrood is that many "unpleasant righties" vote SNP as they are wedded to Indy and are prepared to overlook the SNP's, by-and-large, social progressivism.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
Haven’t backed a Tory government for 60+ years, loathed Maggie & Boris, resoundingly voted against Brexit, considers Farage & co an annoying weeping sore on the body politic, but APART from that…
I do love the Yoon ‘we’re all as awful as each other’ meme though.
Just to pick that apart a bit.
Lack of Tory backing, due to being perceived as the "English" party, not because Scots have a long-lasting affection for the Summer of Love. Maggie and Boris quintessentially offensive to many of a Scottish sensibility.
Brexit, fair enough, although some parts did vote in favour, or very close, Moray and Buchan coast, for instance.
As for Farage, we'll find out soon enough.
Scotland, with its large industrial belt, will always be more left-wing than median England, but not more socially progressive.
Indeed, Scotland legalised homosexuality after England and Yougov has 68% of Scots thinking immigration too high ie near identical to the 70% UK wide.
London by contrast has only 58% saying immigration too high
If Reform look likely to win, I could see a situation where some Tories vote tactically for Labour on economic grounds.
Economic policy and fiscal policy is Reform's real weak point. OTOH, if they clear that up, then the opposite could be true.
Note: at no point in this analysis do I credit the Tories with having any chance of surviving as the main opposition party next time. They don't.
After Labour's farms and employers tax and snatching WFA no chance.
Of course ironically Starmer now needs the Tories to recover almost as much as Badenoch, for if Tory voters shift en masse to Reform that likely means a Farage landslide under FPTP whereas a split right as last July saves Labour seats. Otherwise Starmer would just have to hope for a collapse in the LD and Green vote in Labour held seats to keep Farage out as Carney got a collapse in the NDP vote to help the Liberals keep out Polievre earlier this month
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
BPC registered?
Not yet afaics.
Freshwater Strategy is a Company Partner of the Market Research Society (MRS), is currently applying to be a member of the British Polling Council (BPC) and abides by their rules.
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
Because all the nations you’ve just named as undesirable are Islamic. So you’re basically saying “we don’t want any more Muslims”
I believe (I haven’t checked recently) polls show this is quite a widely held opinion but it’s a brave and maybe foolish politician who would come right out and say it. And absolutely impossible for a Labour leader
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
BPC registered?
Nope they are not, they Aussie pollsters who had a ‘mare with the Aussie election by overestimating the Liberals by 5% and underestimating the Labor Party.
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Never heard of Freshwater Strategies. That's quite a salty poll they've come up with.
Aussies I believe.
Yes, they are an Australian pollster.
They were actually the in-house pollsters for the Aussie Liberals & have been subjected to heavy criticism for providing an unrealistically rosy picture of the election to the Liberal Party leadership. The Liberals have said that they're going to terminate their contract with Freshwater.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that their British polls are also biased towards right-wing parties.
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
It seems odd to say we have only very weak links with Afghanistan given it was long partly under the British Empire and British troops were stationed there in recent years. Sudan, Iraq and Bangladesh were part of the empire too. The UK has particularly close links with Bangladesh.
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Never heard of Freshwater Strategies. That's quite a salty poll they've come up with.
Aussies I believe.
Yes, they are an Australian pollster.
They were actually the in-house pollsters for the Aussie Liberals & have been subjected to heavy criticism for providing an unrealistically rosy picture of the election to the Liberal Party leadership. The Liberals have said that they're going to terminate their contract with Freshwater.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that their British polls are also biased towards right-wing parties.
Nor are they alone in this polling. Find Out Now get similar results and Find Out Now did pretty well with the local elections
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Never heard of Freshwater Strategies. That's quite a salty poll they've come up with.
Aussies I believe.
Yes, they are an Australian pollster.
They were actually the in-house pollsters for the Aussie Liberals & have been subjected to heavy criticism for providing an unrealistically rosy picture of the election to the Liberal Party leadership. The Liberals have said that they're going to terminate their contract with Freshwater.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that their British polls are also biased towards right-wing parties.
If the bias is pulling to the right in the southern hemisphere, wouldn't that suggest it would be to the left in the northern one?
This is a public forum - so I have to be careful what I say - but I've been shocked in the last week by looking at the set-up of two major government programmes.
On both there is a huge central overhead of checkers, assurers, reporters and monitors but it isn't actually clear why the client organisation exists or what risks they're supposed to be controlling. They have struggled to recruit for client roles (the Prime Minister salary cap is part of it, but they also don't really know what skills they need) so lots are backfilled with consultants. Meanwhile, they try and shunt all risk and liability - which they don't really understand - onto the supply chain which they either can't take, so refuse the work or do so out of desperation, because they need the work, and then go bankrupt the first time it's drawn upon. They jump straight to putting a spade in the ground without taking the time (it can take up to 2 years or more to set a major programme up for success) to design the organisation and the delivery model properly, and run straight into a brick wall.
A surprisingly large number of people are OK with that, and believe it's important. Hard truths are not welcomed and most people invest 90%+ of their time and energy in defending their turf and not doing what's necessary to get the job done well. Because it requires hard work, a bit of moral courage, and making some decisions.
It says everything about our process culture.
That is a not an unfamiliar story. I don't know, however, that I would call this "process culture". There's a post-Thatcherite model that government is bad at doing things, so you have a contracting model. Government contracts out work to the (supposedly) efficient private sector. That pushes the centre into being checkers and monitors, while hollowing out any in-house expertise and increasing reliance on consultants.
This is hilariously wide of the mark. But I suppose I should have guessed you'd just jump to "Fatch".
I blame Blair and Brown as much as Thatcher, if that makes you feel any better.
I recommend “ A Government that Worked Better and Cost Less?: Evaluating Three Decades of Reform and Change in UK Central Government” by Christopher Hood & Ruth Dixon.
It wasn't a comment on premiers, and nor am I looking for a political debate. It's a comment on our atavistic risk culture and sheer nihilism of the process state we've built up and the paucity of recognising the value of leadership.
It's now much easier to earn a good living by slavishly following policy - indeed, you can build a career on it - than it is to innovate or take any sort of initiative to create or deliver anything.
If you do, it's harder work with higher personal risk - and you're a real target for punishment for any failing. If you don't, it's an easy life, the "system" is blamed for any failing, and you can just carry on as before - drawing your salary.
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Survey after survey has shown that Scots are no more "progressive" in their attitudes than anyone else in the UK. The reason for the "progressive" majority at Holyrood is that many "unpleasant righties" vote SNP as they are wedded to Indy and are prepared to overlook the SNP's, by-and-large, social progressivism.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
Haven’t backed a Tory government for 60+ years, loathed Maggie & Boris, resoundingly voted against Brexit, considers Farage & co an annoying weeping sore on the body politic, but APART from that…
I do love the Yoon ‘we’re all as awful as each other’ meme though.
Just to pick that apart a bit.
Lack of Tory backing, due to being perceived as the "English" party, not because Scots have a long-lasting affection for the Summer of Love. Maggie and Boris quintessentially offensive to many of a Scottish sensibility.
Brexit, fair enough, although some parts did vote in favour, or very close, Moray and Buchan coast, for instance.
As for Farage, we'll find out soon enough.
Scotland, with its large industrial belt, will always be more left-wing than median England, but not more socially progressive.
Indeed, Scotland legalised homosexuality after England and Yougov has 68% of Scots thinking immigration too high ie near identical to the 70% UK wide.
London by contrast has only 58% saying immigration too high
If Reform look likely to win, I could see a situation where some Tories vote tactically for Labour on economic grounds.
Economic policy and fiscal policy is Reform's real weak point. OTOH, if they clear that up, then the opposite could be true.
Note: at no point in this analysis do I credit the Tories with having any chance of surviving as the main opposition party next time. They don't.
After Labour's farms and employers tax and snatching WFA no chance.
Of course ironically Starmer now needs the Tories to recover almost as much as Badenoch, for if Tory voters shift en masse to Reform that likely means a Farage landslide under FPTP whereas a split right as last July saves Labour seats. Otherwise Starmer would just have to hope for a collapse in the LD and Green vote in Labour held seats to keep Farage out as Carney got a collapse in the NDP vote to help the Liberals keep out Polievre earlier this month
One of the things that baffles me about all current polling is that neither the Lib Dem nor the Green percentage has dropped since the General Election. I can't remember anything like it - their support normally tanks once there's no election publicity for them. At the moment, it doesn't look like there's much chance of the Alt-Left vote collapsing in Labour's favour.
Mark my words: I will take back control of our borders.
That means cutting migration, ending the use of asylum hotels, and ramping up our efforts to stop small boat crossings.
We will smash the people smuggling gangs at source.
I'm starting to get embarrassed by Starmer's populist language.
What is populist about it? That is just common sense setting out objectives shared by 70-80% of the country (whether they believe he can achieve those or not).
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
It seems odd to say we have only very weak links with Afghanistan given it was long partly under the British Empire and British troops were stationed there in recent years. Sudan, Iraq and Bangladesh were part of the empire too. The UK has particularly close links with Bangladesh.
That’s really weaksauce polling
The question posed is
“Would you support or oppose the UK introducing a scheme to resettle some Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban here in the UK? (%)”
I am pretty fierce on migration but I would “support” SOME Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban being allowed here. Democrats and feminists, women about to be murdered, orphaned children - who would oppose us helping THEM?
It’s the random young male Afghan economic migrants that people reject
Another thing the political class gets wrong, because they can't resist commenting on it, is Israel/Palestine.
The view of the average British voter is that they're as bad as each other, and we should stay out of it. And consequently they're not especially interested.
Jennings on Emperor Palpatine: He took on an entrenched deep state at the jedi council. He wanted free and fair and reciprocal trade around the galaxy. Protected law and order.
Lathan: He blew up Alderaan
Jennings: Some could argue it was warranted given their rebellious activities. He defended the empire against unelected hippies and violent protesters https://x.com/Acyn/status/1922486771008602162
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Survey after survey has shown that Scots are no more "progressive" in their attitudes than anyone else in the UK. The reason for the "progressive" majority at Holyrood is that many "unpleasant righties" vote SNP as they are wedded to Indy and are prepared to overlook the SNP's, by-and-large, social progressivism.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
Haven’t backed a Tory government for 60+ years, loathed Maggie & Boris, resoundingly voted against Brexit, considers Farage & co an annoying weeping sore on the body politic, but APART from that…
I do love the Yoon ‘we’re all as awful as each other’ meme though.
Just to pick that apart a bit.
Lack of Tory backing, due to being perceived as the "English" party, not because Scots have a long-lasting affection for the Summer of Love. Maggie and Boris quintessentially offensive to many of a Scottish sensibility.
Brexit, fair enough, although some parts did vote in favour, or very close, Moray and Buchan coast, for instance.
As for Farage, we'll find out soon enough.
Scotland, with its large industrial belt, will always be more left-wing than median England, but not more socially progressive.
Indeed, Scotland legalised homosexuality after England and Yougov has 68% of Scots thinking immigration too high ie near identical to the 70% UK wide.
London by contrast has only 58% saying immigration too high
That its a majority in London actually surprises me. In fact at over nearly a 2:1 ratio over the other views combined (only 25% said about right and only 8% said too low), its quite a significant majority.
That surprises me. The way people speak about London, would imply that is an unthinkable viewpoint that gets you cancelled over there.
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Didn't you see me post this yesterday? I wasn't sure whether they're a member of the polling council or not.
You can never post a great Reform poll too many times on PB.
Quite so. More ten point leads, please
What happens if Starmer’s “we must have Lebensraum” speech doesn’t do the trick? What happens if voters don’t budge and Reform remain ascendant and migration/boats don’t dramatically improve?
I can’t see the next move for Labour. Suddenly go back to the Left?
Another thing the political class gets wrong, because they can't resist commenting on it, is Israel/Palestine.
The view of the average British voter is that they're as bad as each other, and we should stay out of it. And consequently they're not especially interested.
More importantly imo neither side will give a toss about anything we say so what is the point of us saying it?
The alcholics have one thing right - the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.
Mark my words: I will take back control of our borders.
That means cutting migration, ending the use of asylum hotels, and ramping up our efforts to stop small boat crossings.
We will smash the people smuggling gangs at source.
I'm starting to get embarrassed by Starmer's populist language.
What is populist about it? That is just common sense setting out objectives shared by 70-80% of the country (whether they believe he can achieve those or not).
One reason is that it's so different to anything he was saying before local election day a couple of weeks ago.
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
It seems odd to say we have only very weak links with Afghanistan given it was long partly under the British Empire and British troops were stationed there in recent years. Sudan, Iraq and Bangladesh were part of the empire too. The UK has particularly close links with Bangladesh.
Your leitmotif is to reject that immigration is even a legitimate issue for discussion, then deny it's an issue when it's highlighted to you, and then (your ultimate fallback) to try and show people actually quite like it when it is.
You have zero credibility on the subject, and it's a waste of time engaging with you on it.
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Never heard of Freshwater Strategies. That's quite a salty poll they've come up with.
Aussies I believe.
Yes, they are an Australian pollster.
They were actually the in-house pollsters for the Aussie Liberals & have been subjected to heavy criticism for providing an unrealistically rosy picture of the election to the Liberal Party leadership. The Liberals have said that they're going to terminate their contract with Freshwater.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that their British polls are also biased towards right-wing parties.
If the bias is pulling to the right in the southern hemisphere, wouldn't that suggest it would be to the left in the northern one?
If their previous poll was ref 28, Con 27, Lab 22, it would be rather out of kilter with other polls from early April?
28+27 would be 55 - 22, 5 and 14 would be 41. Is that where it really was early April?
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Never heard of Freshwater Strategies. That's quite a salty poll they've come up with.
Aussies I believe.
Yes, they are an Australian pollster.
They were actually the in-house pollsters for the Aussie Liberals & have been subjected to heavy criticism for providing an unrealistically rosy picture of the election to the Liberal Party leadership. The Liberals have said that they're going to terminate their contract with Freshwater.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that their British polls are also biased towards right-wing parties.
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
Agree on the Student Tower - that's pure Nimbyism for that location:
Four councillors had voted against the advice of the borough’s own planning officers by refusing permission for the project, while three voted in favour of it. Councillors opposed to the tower had argued it could lead to an increase in “anti-social activity”, “noise and disturbance” for neighbouring residents, and that it was an “inappropriate location for student accommodation”.
OTOH the guy on Twitter suggesting eg that towers up to 30m or 50m should only need one escape staircase seems to me to be perhaps abusing his data and confusing categories, and making arguments for changes which will make such buildings more dangerous.
On the single staircase for example, his argument is that "there are few scenarios in a properly maintained building in which a fire renders only one staircase impassable for a significant amount of time". That's exactly the point - he is relying on "well-regulated", which is precisely what failed at Grenfell in maintenance work, renovation and management. That's why we need the second staircase, to provide resilience to failure to regulate well.
His space standards argument seems similar, in having a spurious comparison between the area of a one bed flat, and the area per person of a two bed flat, and suggesting that the two should be the same. But I have not yet checked the relevant standards for NL and FR.
Why don’t we just insist on maintenance being carried out, instead of imposing regulatory gold-plating on every new build?
Because we have a culture in this country where no-one wants to take any accountability for the treatment of risk.
As this is my area (construction law) I am curious to understand what you mean in more detail. Who should take accountability?
Mark my words: I will take back control of our borders.
That means cutting migration, ending the use of asylum hotels, and ramping up our efforts to stop small boat crossings.
We will smash the people smuggling gangs at source.
I'm starting to get embarrassed by Starmer's populist language.
What is populist about it? That is just common sense setting out objectives shared by 70-80% of the country (whether they believe he can achieve those or not).
One reason is that it's so different to anything he was saying before local election day a couple of weeks ago.
Fake news. He has said the same for at least a couple of years, probably since the Boris wave. Pre Boris wave he would have had a different view because things were......different.
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
Because all the nations you’ve just named as undesirable are Islamic. So you’re basically saying “we don’t want any more Muslims”
I believe (I haven’t checked recently) polls show this is quite a widely held opinion but it’s a brave and maybe foolish politician who would come right out and say it. And absolutely impossible for a Labour leader
Actually, I wasn't trying to do that - but I can't deny the common theme there. I should have (and could have) added on Vietnam onto the list, which is a weird one on top.
Essentially, Britons won't accept mass immigration from a country/people they don't feel an affinity with and don't feel will fit in. They might in small numbers. But not in big ones.
That isn't racially bound, but it is culturally bound.
Mark my words: I will take back control of our borders.
That means cutting migration, ending the use of asylum hotels, and ramping up our efforts to stop small boat crossings.
We will smash the people smuggling gangs at source.
I'm starting to get embarrassed by Starmer's populist language.
What is populist about it? That is just common sense setting out objectives shared by 70-80% of the country (whether they believe he can achieve those or not).
One reason is that it's so different to anything he was saying before local election day a couple of weeks ago.
Yes it’s not so much the words - tho they are kinda cringe (they remind me of Ed Miliband saying “hell yes”) - it’s the total dissonance that this is keir starmer saying all this. Has he believed this all along? Why didn’t he mention it then? Why wasn’t this language in the manifesto?
Or could it simply be that he’s panicking after Reform crushed Labour in the election?
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
Because all the nations you’ve just named as undesirable are Islamic. So you’re basically saying “we don’t want any more Muslims”
I believe (I haven’t checked recently) polls show this is quite a widely held opinion but it’s a brave and maybe foolish politician who would come right out and say it. And absolutely impossible for a Labour leader
Actually, I wasn't trying to do that - but I can't deny the common theme there. I should have (and could have) added on Vietnam onto the list, which is a weird one on top.
Essentially, Britons won't accept mass immigration from a country/people they don't feel an affinity with and don't feel will fit in. They might in small numbers. But not in big ones.
That isn't racially bound, but it is culturally bound.
Why on earth would you add Vietnam? They are not prone to crime, they are hard working, bright, resourceful, they make brilliant food and they won’t blow you up, or demand their own legal system, or shroud their women etc
Vietnamese - like all East Asians - are model migrants
Starmer is renting his 4-bed house in Kentish Town to his sister in law for less than £10,000 a year. Very generous, market rate must be almost that per month I’d guess
Perhaps it's cheaper because of family?
It does happen. Not everyone is driven by the bottom line.
Am I meant to be upset about this? I'm struggling to see how it reflects badly on Starmer to be renting his place to a family member for less than market rent. Given that he doesn't know when he will need it back, and above all need to avoid any problems with the arrangement that the press could blow out of all proportion, this seems like an entirely sensible arrangement. Charge enough to cover the mortgage and running repairs, but don't seek to make a profit when the taxpayer is covering his living expenses. Good on him for helping his family, as well.
While I think Starmer is fairly crap, the apparent readiness to spin the most inconsequential stories about him in a negative frame is notable.
The reality is that's he's just rather boring.
On the contrary, there is absolutely zero attempt to spin any stories about Starmer as anything negative - he actually enjoys an effective privacy cloak, even though one might assume that disclosure of irregular family arrangements and their concealment would speak both to the character of the Prime Minister and potentially his vulnerability to blackmail, and therefore be very much in the public interest.
It is in extraordinarily marked contrast to the treatment of Boris Johnson's private affairs.
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
Agree on the Student Tower - that's pure Nimbyism for that location:
Four councillors had voted against the advice of the borough’s own planning officers by refusing permission for the project, while three voted in favour of it. Councillors opposed to the tower had argued it could lead to an increase in “anti-social activity”, “noise and disturbance” for neighbouring residents, and that it was an “inappropriate location for student accommodation”.
OTOH the guy on Twitter suggesting eg that towers up to 30m or 50m should only need one escape staircase seems to me to be perhaps abusing his data and confusing categories, and making arguments for changes which will make such buildings more dangerous.
On the single staircase for example, his argument is that "there are few scenarios in a properly maintained building in which a fire renders only one staircase impassable for a significant amount of time". That's exactly the point - he is relying on "well-regulated", which is precisely what failed at Grenfell in maintenance work, renovation and management. That's why we need the second staircase, to provide resilience to failure to regulate well.
His space standards argument seems similar, in having a spurious comparison between the area of a one bed flat, and the area per person of a two bed flat, and suggesting that the two should be the same. But I have not yet checked the relevant standards for NL and FR.
Why don’t we just insist on maintenance being carried out, instead of imposing regulatory gold-plating on every new build?
Because we have a culture in this country where no-one wants to take any accountability for the treatment of risk.
As this is my area (construction law) I am curious to understand what you mean in more detail. Who should take accountability?
It's my area too. And the answer is complex. Essentially, you can't be superficial or binary: risk must be allocated to the party best able to bear it and control it.
Very few people talk about this. In part because it's hard to work through (although if done right, like the London 2012 Olympics, you get successful projects) but also because it's cuts across the fact that HMG doesn't want to admit it does own risk, because the politicians have zero risk appetite or eye for detail.
Podcast featuring Fiona Hill, the Durham-born former security advisor to Trump, on the possibilities of WW3. Very interesting insights into how the Donald and VVP operate. Sobering. Worth a listen.
Starmer is renting his 4-bed house in Kentish Town to his sister in law for less than £10,000 a year. Very generous, market rate must be almost that per month I’d guess
Perhaps it's cheaper because of family?
It does happen. Not everyone is driven by the bottom line.
Am I meant to be upset about this? I'm struggling to see how it reflects badly on Starmer to be renting his place to a family member for less than market rent. Given that he doesn't know when he will need it back, and above all need to avoid any problems with the arrangement that the press could blow out of all proportion, this seems like an entirely sensible arrangement. Charge enough to cover the mortgage and running repairs, but don't seek to make a profit when the taxpayer is covering his living expenses. Good on him for helping his family, as well.
While I think Starmer is fairly crap, the apparent readiness to spin the most inconsequential stories about him in a negative frame is notable.
The reality is that's he's just rather boring.
On the contrary, there is absolutely zero attempt to spin any stories about Starmer as anything negative - he actually enjoys an effective privacy cloak, even though one might assume that disclosure of irregular family arrangements and their concealment would speak both to the character of the Prime Minister and potentially his vulnerability to blackmail, and therefore be very much in the public interest.
It is in extraordinarily marked contrast to the treatment of Boris Johnson's private affairs.
A friend who knows Sarah Vine very well tells me she’s finishing a memoir and it is FULL of juicy gossip. Being lawyered right now
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Didn't you see me post this yesterday? I wasn't sure whether they're a member of the polling council or not.
You can never post a great Reform poll too many times on PB.
Quite so. More ten point leads, please
What happens if Starmer’s “we must have Lebensraum” speech doesn’t do the trick? What happens if voters don’t budge and Reform remain ascendant and migration/boats don’t dramatically improve?
I can’t see the next move for Labour. Suddenly go back to the Left?
When economic plan is proved to have failed in late 27, Starmer and Reeves will be forced out “when the herd moves there’s nothing you can do about it” and Labour will swing left. All certain to happen now I think.
No one likes Starmer, not even his own party and Labour supporters - if he doesn’t deliver bigly he will be gone before end of end of 27. Kemi may still be there, having seen him off. Farage has a £100B+ hole in his economic plan, so has zero chance of becoming PM, Conservatives will be well ahead of Reform by late 27.
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
Agree on the Student Tower - that's pure Nimbyism for that location:
Four councillors had voted against the advice of the borough’s own planning officers by refusing permission for the project, while three voted in favour of it. Councillors opposed to the tower had argued it could lead to an increase in “anti-social activity”, “noise and disturbance” for neighbouring residents, and that it was an “inappropriate location for student accommodation”.
OTOH the guy on Twitter suggesting eg that towers up to 30m or 50m should only need one escape staircase seems to me to be perhaps abusing his data and confusing categories, and making arguments for changes which will make such buildings more dangerous.
On the single staircase for example, his argument is that "there are few scenarios in a properly maintained building in which a fire renders only one staircase impassable for a significant amount of time". That's exactly the point - he is relying on "well-regulated", which is precisely what failed at Grenfell in maintenance work, renovation and management. That's why we need the second staircase, to provide resilience to failure to regulate well.
His space standards argument seems similar, in having a spurious comparison between the area of a one bed flat, and the area per person of a two bed flat, and suggesting that the two should be the same. But I have not yet checked the relevant standards for NL and FR.
Why don’t we just insist on maintenance being carried out, instead of imposing regulatory gold-plating on every new build?
Because we have a culture in this country where no-one wants to take any accountability for the treatment of risk.
As this is my area (construction law) I am curious to understand what you mean in more detail. Who should take accountability?
It's my area too. And the answer is complex. Essentially, you can't be superficial or binary: risk must be allocated to the party best able to bear it and control it.
Very few people talk about this. In part because it's hard to work through (although if done right, like the London 2012 Olympics, you get successful projects) but also because it's cuts across the fact that HMG doesn't want to admit it does own risk, because the politicians have zero risk appetite or eye for detail.
The civil service is awful for this. Senior managers hate owning anything and are more than happy to delegate really important stuff to junior members of staff.
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
Because all the nations you’ve just named as undesirable are Islamic. So you’re basically saying “we don’t want any more Muslims”
I believe (I haven’t checked recently) polls show this is quite a widely held opinion but it’s a brave and maybe foolish politician who would come right out and say it. And absolutely impossible for a Labour leader
Actually, I wasn't trying to do that - but I can't deny the common theme there. I should have (and could have) added on Vietnam onto the list, which is a weird one on top.
Essentially, Britons won't accept mass immigration from a country/people they don't feel an affinity with and don't feel will fit in. They might in small numbers. But not in big ones.
That isn't racially bound, but it is culturally bound.
Why on earth would you add Vietnam? They are not prone to crime... and they won’t blow you up, or demand their own legal system, or shroud their women etc
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Didn't you see me post this yesterday? I wasn't sure whether they're a member of the polling council or not.
You can never post a great Reform poll too many times on PB.
Quite so. More ten point leads, please
What happens if Starmer’s “we must have Lebensraum” speech doesn’t do the trick? What happens if voters don’t budge and Reform remain ascendant and migration/boats don’t dramatically improve?
I can’t see the next move for Labour. Suddenly go back to the Left?
When economic plan is proved to have failed in late 27, Starmer and Reeves will be forced out “when the herd moves there’s nothing you can do about it” and Labour will swing left. All certain to happen now I think.
No one likes Starmer, not even his own party and Labour supporters - if he doesn’t deliver bigly he will be gone before end of end of 27. Kemi may still be there, having seen him off. Farage has a £100B+ hole in his economic plan, so has zero chance of becoming PM, Conservatives will be well ahead of Reform by late 27.
Yes. If the polls don’t budge then Labour’s last move might be Replace Starmer
If Reform look likely to win, I could see a situation where some Tories vote tactically for Labour on economic grounds.
Economic policy and fiscal policy is Reform's real weak point. OTOH, if they clear that up, then the opposite could be true.
Note: at no point in this analysis do I credit the Tories with having any chance of surviving as the main opposition party next time. They don't.
At this point do you want them to?
Whom are you supporting, if anyone?
I wish the Tories would sort themselves out. But I believe them incapable of it.
I have no home right now.
It’s the party for pensioners.
No, even pensioners are now 37% Reform and 29% Conservative. The Tories are now the party for middle class soft Brexiteers mainly living in the South of England and West London and some Unionists living in rural Scotland
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
Because all the nations you’ve just named as undesirable are Islamic. So you’re basically saying “we don’t want any more Muslims”
I believe (I haven’t checked recently) polls show this is quite a widely held opinion but it’s a brave and maybe foolish politician who would come right out and say it. And absolutely impossible for a Labour leader
Actually, I wasn't trying to do that - but I can't deny the common theme there. I should have (and could have) added on Vietnam onto the list, which is a weird one on top.
Essentially, Britons won't accept mass immigration from a country/people they don't feel an affinity with and don't feel will fit in. They might in small numbers. But not in big ones.
That isn't racially bound, but it is culturally bound.
Why on earth would you add Vietnam? They are not prone to crime, they are hard working, bright, resourceful, they make brilliant food and they won’t blow you up, or demand their own legal system, or shroud their women etc
Vietnamese - like all East Asians - are model migrants
Brits wouldn't see why they should have an asylum right just turning up here on boats.
Brits want to decide and choose - and they will choose those who share their values.
Starmer is renting his 4-bed house in Kentish Town to his sister in law for less than £10,000 a year. Very generous, market rate must be almost that per month I’d guess
Perhaps it's cheaper because of family?
It does happen. Not everyone is driven by the bottom line.
Am I meant to be upset about this? I'm struggling to see how it reflects badly on Starmer to be renting his place to a family member for less than market rent. Given that he doesn't know when he will need it back, and above all need to avoid any problems with the arrangement that the press could blow out of all proportion, this seems like an entirely sensible arrangement. Charge enough to cover the mortgage and running repairs, but don't seek to make a profit when the taxpayer is covering his living expenses. Good on him for helping his family, as well.
While I think Starmer is fairly crap, the apparent readiness to spin the most inconsequential stories about him in a negative frame is notable.
The reality is that's he's just rather boring.
On the contrary, there is absolutely zero attempt to spin any stories about Starmer as anything negative - he actually enjoys an effective privacy cloak, even though one might assume that disclosure of irregular family arrangements and their concealment would speak both to the character of the Prime Minister and potentially his vulnerability to blackmail, and therefore be very much in the public interest.
It is in extraordinarily marked contrast to the treatment of Boris Johnson's private affairs.
A friend who knows Sarah Vine very well tells me she’s finishing a memoir and it is FULL of juicy gossip. Being lawyered right now
Almost makes me feel sorry for Michael Gove. But I can't quite manage that, so will simply stick to offering my sympathy to your friend.
Starmer is renting his 4-bed house in Kentish Town to his sister in law for less than £10,000 a year. Very generous, market rate must be almost that per month I’d guess
Perhaps it's cheaper because of family?
It does happen. Not everyone is driven by the bottom line.
Am I meant to be upset about this? I'm struggling to see how it reflects badly on Starmer to be renting his place to a family member for less than market rent. Given that he doesn't know when he will need it back, and above all need to avoid any problems with the arrangement that the press could blow out of all proportion, this seems like an entirely sensible arrangement. Charge enough to cover the mortgage and running repairs, but don't seek to make a profit when the taxpayer is covering his living expenses. Good on him for helping his family, as well.
While I think Starmer is fairly crap, the apparent readiness to spin the most inconsequential stories about him in a negative frame is notable.
The reality is that's he's just rather boring.
On the contrary, there is absolutely zero attempt to spin any stories about Starmer as anything negative - he actually enjoys an effective privacy cloak, even though one might assume that disclosure of irregular family arrangements and their concealment would speak both to the character of the Prime Minister and potentially his vulnerability to blackmail, and therefore be very much in the public interest.
It is in extraordinarily marked contrast to the treatment of Boris Johnson's private affairs.
A friend who knows Sarah Vine very well tells me she’s finishing a memoir and it is FULL of juicy gossip. Being lawyered right now
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
Agree on the Student Tower - that's pure Nimbyism for that location:
Four councillors had voted against the advice of the borough’s own planning officers by refusing permission for the project, while three voted in favour of it. Councillors opposed to the tower had argued it could lead to an increase in “anti-social activity”, “noise and disturbance” for neighbouring residents, and that it was an “inappropriate location for student accommodation”.
OTOH the guy on Twitter suggesting eg that towers up to 30m or 50m should only need one escape staircase seems to me to be perhaps abusing his data and confusing categories, and making arguments for changes which will make such buildings more dangerous.
On the single staircase for example, his argument is that "there are few scenarios in a properly maintained building in which a fire renders only one staircase impassable for a significant amount of time". That's exactly the point - he is relying on "well-regulated", which is precisely what failed at Grenfell in maintenance work, renovation and management. That's why we need the second staircase, to provide resilience to failure to regulate well.
His space standards argument seems similar, in having a spurious comparison between the area of a one bed flat, and the area per person of a two bed flat, and suggesting that the two should be the same. But I have not yet checked the relevant standards for NL and FR.
Why don’t we just insist on maintenance being carried out, instead of imposing regulatory gold-plating on every new build?
Because we have a culture in this country where no-one wants to take any accountability for the treatment of risk.
As this is my area (construction law) I am curious to understand what you mean in more detail. Who should take accountability?
It's my area too. And the answer is complex. Essentially, you can't be superficial or binary: risk must be allocated to the party best able to bear it and control it.
Very few people talk about this. In part because it's hard to work through (although if done right, like the London 2012 Olympics, you get successful projects) but also because it's cuts across the fact that HMG doesn't want to admit it does own risk, because the politicians have zero risk appetite or eye for detail.
In my experience it goes all the way to one extreme from the other. Either the contractor is given all the risk regardless of control OR the obligations are so loose that everything is a variation and costs spiral out of control.
In my experience (in agreement with your previous post) project management consultant firms never want to do the hardwork up front to define the works or the specification. It’s usually left to up to people down the chain to deal with the hard details…
However on the BSR point and high rise residential, in theory there is adequate liability allocation to consultants and contractors under the defective premises act but realistically tenants are so far removed from the contractual chain (or they don’t have the resources to do so) so that these rights aren’t enforced. I think that the BSR (as a process, yes I know I know) attempts to stop issues before this point.
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
Because all the nations you’ve just named as undesirable are Islamic. So you’re basically saying “we don’t want any more Muslims”
I believe (I haven’t checked recently) polls show this is quite a widely held opinion but it’s a brave and maybe foolish politician who would come right out and say it. And absolutely impossible for a Labour leader
Actually, I wasn't trying to do that - but I can't deny the common theme there. I should have (and could have) added on Vietnam onto the list, which is a weird one on top.
Essentially, Britons won't accept mass immigration from a country/people they don't feel an affinity with and don't feel will fit in. They might in small numbers. But not in big ones.
That isn't racially bound, but it is culturally bound.
Why on earth would you add Vietnam? They are not prone to crime, they are hard working, bright, resourceful, they make brilliant food and they won’t blow you up, or demand their own legal system, or shroud their women etc
Vietnamese - like all East Asians - are model migrants
Brits wouldn't see why they should have an asylum right just turning up here on boats.
Brits want to decide and choose - and they will choose those who share their values.
Ah. You’re talking about asylum specifically. In which case yes I agree. As I’ve said, I believe universal asylum rights should be suspended entirely and replaced with a much more limited specific law where we MIGHT let you in but generally won’t
But in terms of legal migration Vietnamese are great people. Australia has a lot of them and Australia is lucky. Vietnamese are dynamic clever and peaceful (and a surprising number are Christian)
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Didn't you see me post this yesterday? I wasn't sure whether they're a member of the polling council or not.
You can never post a great Reform poll too many times on PB.
Quite so. More ten point leads, please
What happens if Starmer’s “we must have Lebensraum” speech doesn’t do the trick? What happens if voters don’t budge and Reform remain ascendant and migration/boats don’t dramatically improve?
I can’t see the next move for Labour. Suddenly go back to the Left?
When economic plan is proved to have failed in late 27, Starmer and Reeves will be forced out “when the herd moves there’s nothing you can do about it” and Labour will swing left. All certain to happen now I think.
No one likes Starmer, not even his own party and Labour supporters - if he doesn’t deliver bigly he will be gone before end of end of 27. Kemi may still be there, having seen him off. Farage has a £100B+ hole in his economic plan, so has zero chance of becoming PM, Conservatives will be well ahead of Reform by late 27.
Yes. If the polls don’t budge then Labour’s last move might be Replace Starmer
PR would now be Starmer's best bet and indeed PR would now elect more Tory MPs than FPTP too
If Reform look likely to win, I could see a situation where some Tories vote tactically for Labour on economic grounds.
Economic policy and fiscal policy is Reform's real weak point. OTOH, if they clear that up, then the opposite could be true.
Note: at no point in this analysis do I credit the Tories with having any chance of surviving as the main opposition party next time. They don't.
At this point do you want them to?
Whom are you supporting, if anyone?
I wish the Tories would sort themselves out. But I believe them incapable of it.
I have no home right now.
They'll sort themselves out, eventually.
Ultimately, British political culture (the "deep state" if you like) is hostile, with good reason, to the kind of populism of Farage. It prevailed in the 30s, thank god, and it will ultimately prevail in the 20s too.
Collectively we don't want a rampant Farage running the country.
If it looks likely, the voters will reluctantly give Starmer another term.
Another thing the political class gets wrong, because they can't resist commenting on it, is Israel/Palestine.
The view of the average British voter is that they're as bad as each other, and we should stay out of it. And consequently they're not especially interested.
So why does the government continue to support Israel with arms exports and RAF surveillance flights? Curious that they aren't following public opinion, particularly a Labour government.
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Didn't you see me post this yesterday? I wasn't sure whether they're a member of the polling council or not.
You can never post a great Reform poll too many times on PB.
Quite so. More ten point leads, please
What happens if Starmer’s “we must have Lebensraum” speech doesn’t do the trick? What happens if voters don’t budge and Reform remain ascendant and migration/boats don’t dramatically improve?
I can’t see the next move for Labour. Suddenly go back to the Left?
Next move?
Lowe sees Farage in court perhaps.
Lowe is actually quite good.
You can understand how from abroad, at just a glance without knowing much else, people like Musk thought Lowe far better Front Man than Farage.
Starmer is renting his 4-bed house in Kentish Town to his sister in law for less than £10,000 a year. Very generous, market rate must be almost that per month I’d guess
Perhaps it's cheaper because of family?
It does happen. Not everyone is driven by the bottom line.
Am I meant to be upset about this? I'm struggling to see how it reflects badly on Starmer to be renting his place to a family member for less than market rent. Given that he doesn't know when he will need it back, and above all need to avoid any problems with the arrangement that the press could blow out of all proportion, this seems like an entirely sensible arrangement. Charge enough to cover the mortgage and running repairs, but don't seek to make a profit when the taxpayer is covering his living expenses. Good on him for helping his family, as well.
While I think Starmer is fairly crap, the apparent readiness to spin the most inconsequential stories about him in a negative frame is notable.
The reality is that's he's just rather boring.
On the contrary, there is absolutely zero attempt to spin any stories about Starmer as anything negative - he actually enjoys an effective privacy cloak, even though one might assume that disclosure of irregular family arrangements and their concealment would speak both to the character of the Prime Minister and potentially his vulnerability to blackmail, and therefore be very much in the public interest.
It is in extraordinarily marked contrast to the treatment of Boris Johnson's private affairs.
A friend who knows Sarah Vine very well tells me she’s finishing a memoir and it is FULL of juicy gossip. Being lawyered right now
Almost makes me feel sorry for Michael Gove. But I can't quite manage that, so will simply stick to offering my sympathy to your friend.
Sadly, it looks like the best stories won’t make it past the lawyers. They are quite hair raising. Clearly I will not repeat them here
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Didn't you see me post this yesterday? I wasn't sure whether they're a member of the polling council or not.
You can never post a great Reform poll too many times on PB.
Quite so. More ten point leads, please
What happens if Starmer’s “we must have Lebensraum” speech doesn’t do the trick? What happens if voters don’t budge and Reform remain ascendant and migration/boats don’t dramatically improve?
I can’t see the next move for Labour. Suddenly go back to the Left?
When economic plan is proved to have failed in late 27, Starmer and Reeves will be forced out “when the herd moves there’s nothing you can do about it” and Labour will swing left. All certain to happen now I think.
No one likes Starmer, not even his own party and Labour supporters - if he doesn’t deliver bigly he will be gone before end of end of 27. Kemi may still be there, having seen him off. Farage has a £100B+ hole in his economic plan, so has zero chance of becoming PM, Conservatives will be well ahead of Reform by late 27.
Yes. If the polls don’t budge then Labour’s last move might be Replace Starmer
Another thing the political class gets wrong, because they can't resist commenting on it, is Israel/Palestine.
The view of the average British voter is that they're as bad as each other, and we should stay out of it. And consequently they're not especially interested.
So why does the government continue to support Israel with arms exports and RAF surveillance flights? Curious that they aren't following public opinion, particularly a Labour government.
If public opinion is that they're not interested, then why shouldn't we have arms exports? Arms exports are good for business and good for our economy, so there should be a very good reason to prevent them.
Seems the Government is following public opinion, just not loudmouth opinion.
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Didn't you see me post this yesterday? I wasn't sure whether they're a member of the polling council or not.
You can never post a great Reform poll too many times on PB.
Quite so. More ten point leads, please
What happens if Starmer’s “we must have Lebensraum” speech doesn’t do the trick? What happens if voters don’t budge and Reform remain ascendant and migration/boats don’t dramatically improve?
I can’t see the next move for Labour. Suddenly go back to the Left?
Next move?
Lowe sees Farage in court perhaps.
Lowe is actually quite good.
You can understand how from abroad, at just a glance without knowing much else, people like Musk thought Lowe far better Front Man than Farage.
I thought Musk (or was it Vance?) wanted Tommeh for PM.
This is a public forum - so I have to be careful what I say - but I've been shocked in the last week by looking at the set-up of two major government programmes.
On both there is a huge central overhead of checkers, assurers, reporters and monitors but it isn't actually clear why the client organisation exists or what risks they're supposed to be controlling. They have struggled to recruit for client roles (the Prime Minister salary cap is part of it, but they also don't really know what skills they need) so lots are backfilled with consultants. Meanwhile, they try and shunt all risk and liability - which they don't really understand - onto the supply chain which they either can't take, so refuse the work or do so out of desperation, because they need the work, and then go bankrupt the first time it's drawn upon. They jump straight to putting a spade in the ground without taking the time (it can take up to 2 years or more to set a major programme up for success) to design the organisation and the delivery model properly, and run straight into a brick wall.
A surprisingly large number of people are OK with that, and believe it's important. Hard truths are not welcomed and most people invest 90%+ of their time and energy in defending their turf and not doing what's necessary to get the job done well. Because it requires hard work, a bit of moral courage, and making some decisions.
It says everything about our process culture.
That is a not an unfamiliar story. I don't know, however, that I would call this "process culture". There's a post-Thatcherite model that government is bad at doing things, so you have a contracting model. Government contracts out work to the (supposedly) efficient private sector. That pushes the centre into being checkers and monitors, while hollowing out any in-house expertise and increasing reliance on consultants.
This is hilariously wide of the mark. But I suppose I should have guessed you'd just jump to "Fatch".
I blame Blair and Brown as much as Thatcher, if that makes you feel any better.
I recommend “ A Government that Worked Better and Cost Less?: Evaluating Three Decades of Reform and Change in UK Central Government” by Christopher Hood & Ruth Dixon.
It wasn't a comment on premiers, and nor am I looking for a political debate. It's a comment on our atavistic risk culture and sheer nihilism of the process state we've built up and the paucity of recognising the value of leadership.
It's now much easier to earn a good living by slavishly following policy - indeed, you can build a career on it - than it is to innovate or take any sort of initiative to create or deliver anything.
If you do, it's harder work with higher personal risk - and you're a real target for punishment for any failing. If you don't, it's an easy life, the "system" is blamed for any failing, and you can just carry on as before - drawing your salary.
We all pay.
I agree with parts of that. I think when talking about the process state, there’s a question of where does the process state come from? What is its origins? I think partly the answer to that is a government that contracts out rather than doing things in-house. Contracting out encourages a process approach, because that’s how you manage contracts. Contracting out encourages slavishly following policy.
I think we also need to recognise why these processes were introduced. They are generally a reaction to something. Getting the right checks and balances is important, but difficult. Trump shows us the disaster that occurs if you just ignore all process.
Starmer is renting his 4-bed house in Kentish Town to his sister in law for less than £10,000 a year. Very generous, market rate must be almost that per month I’d guess
Perhaps it's cheaper because of family?
It does happen. Not everyone is driven by the bottom line.
Am I meant to be upset about this? I'm struggling to see how it reflects badly on Starmer to be renting his place to a family member for less than market rent. Given that he doesn't know when he will need it back, and above all need to avoid any problems with the arrangement that the press could blow out of all proportion, this seems like an entirely sensible arrangement. Charge enough to cover the mortgage and running repairs, but don't seek to make a profit when the taxpayer is covering his living expenses. Good on him for helping his family, as well.
While I think Starmer is fairly crap, the apparent readiness to spin the most inconsequential stories about him in a negative frame is notable.
The reality is that's he's just rather boring.
On the contrary, there is absolutely zero attempt to spin any stories about Starmer as anything negative - he actually enjoys an effective privacy cloak, even though one might assume that disclosure of irregular family arrangements and their concealment would speak both to the character of the Prime Minister and potentially his vulnerability to blackmail, and therefore be very much in the public interest.
It is in extraordinarily marked contrast to the treatment of Boris Johnson's private affairs.
A friend who knows Sarah Vine very well tells me she’s finishing a memoir and it is FULL of juicy gossip. Being lawyered right now
Almost makes me feel sorry for Michael Gove. But I can't quite manage that, so will simply stick to offering my sympathy to your friend.
Sadly, it looks like the best stories won’t make it past the lawyers. They are quite hair raising. Clearly I will not repeat them here
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Survey after survey has shown that Scots are no more "progressive" in their attitudes than anyone else in the UK. The reason for the "progressive" majority at Holyrood is that many "unpleasant righties" vote SNP as they are wedded to Indy and are prepared to overlook the SNP's, by-and-large, social progressivism.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
Haven’t backed a Tory government for 60+ years, loathed Maggie & Boris, resoundingly voted against Brexit, considers Farage & co an annoying weeping sore on the body politic, but APART from that…
I do love the Yoon ‘we’re all as awful as each other’ meme though.
Just to pick that apart a bit.
Lack of Tory backing, due to being perceived as the "English" party, not because Scots have a long-lasting affection for the Summer of Love. Maggie and Boris quintessentially offensive to many of a Scottish sensibility.
Brexit, fair enough, although some parts did vote in favour, or very close, Moray and Buchan coast, for instance.
As for Farage, we'll find out soon enough.
Scotland, with its large industrial belt, will always be more left-wing than median England, but not more socially progressive.
Indeed, Scotland legalised homosexuality after England and Yougov has 68% of Scots thinking immigration too high ie near identical to the 70% UK wide.
London by contrast has only 58% saying immigration too high
Via Freshwater Strategies, 9-11 May (+/- vs 4-6 Apr)
Didn't you see me post this yesterday? I wasn't sure whether they're a member of the polling council or not.
You can never post a great Reform poll too many times on PB.
Quite so. More ten point leads, please
What happens if Starmer’s “we must have Lebensraum” speech doesn’t do the trick? What happens if voters don’t budge and Reform remain ascendant and migration/boats don’t dramatically improve?
I can’t see the next move for Labour. Suddenly go back to the Left?
When economic plan is proved to have failed in late 27, Starmer and Reeves will be forced out “when the herd moves there’s nothing you can do about it” and Labour will swing left. All certain to happen now I think.
No one likes Starmer, not even his own party and Labour supporters - if he doesn’t deliver bigly he will be gone before end of end of 27. Kemi may still be there, having seen him off. Farage has a £100B+ hole in his economic plan, so has zero chance of becoming PM, Conservatives will be well ahead of Reform by late 27.
Yes. If the polls don’t budge then Labour’s last move might be Replace Starmer
Late 27 is within about 18 months from General Election - working on difficulties of holding one late July or in August. We need to consider the closeness of this crunch moment on Political Betting, Starmer and Reeves don’t have long to turn the economy round and with it polling, before their party dumps them. Kemi surviving Starmer at PMQs is an interesting bet.
Seems to me Labour don’t have a chance at next election if they can’t turn the economy round. With or without Starmer, they might well go into the next election behind in the polls but arguing “haven’t we done well.” Without some “haven’t we done well argument” then attacks on other parties will fall on deaf ears.
The SNP appear to be getting slightly nervous about Reform & the Hamilton byelection: "Stop Farage, vote for a better future. This election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is an opportunity to stop Farage in Scotland. His Reform party is gaining support down south, but we can take the wind out of his sails with a victory here. The SNP is stepping in where Labour have let you down and, crucially, offering hope for a better future."
Pretty sure the SNP are v. grateful for Reform stirring the Unionist pot and will highlight their presence as much as possible. The SLab candidate is a Rangers fanboi (seats in the directors' box etc), the SCon is Orange Lodge and Reform is of course the Union Bears with a rosette. The Predator v Alien v some crap Dr Who monster from the 60s will be great craic.
Reform got only 7.8% in Hamilton and Clyde Valley at the UK GE last year, barely more than half what Reform got UK wide.
Yebbut the high water mark of SCons + various unpleasant righties is about 30% (seen during the Ruth Davidson miracle - whatever happened to her?). I don’t think SCons, Reform and OTHER unpleasant righties has got above that in polling? While I would love to see Anas ‘working with’ these people I doubt it will come to pass, so impotent bellowing from the sidelines, the MO of the right at Holyrood, seems about the most Reform could hope for.
Survey after survey has shown that Scots are no more "progressive" in their attitudes than anyone else in the UK. The reason for the "progressive" majority at Holyrood is that many "unpleasant righties" vote SNP as they are wedded to Indy and are prepared to overlook the SNP's, by-and-large, social progressivism.
White van man, who now votes Reform in England and Wales, will in many cases be voting SNP in next year's Holyrood elections. Hence the 30% high watermark.
Haven’t backed a Tory government for 60+ years, loathed Maggie & Boris, resoundingly voted against Brexit, considers Farage & co an annoying weeping sore on the body politic, but APART from that…
I do love the Yoon ‘we’re all as awful as each other’ meme though.
Just to pick that apart a bit.
Lack of Tory backing, due to being perceived as the "English" party, not because Scots have a long-lasting affection for the Summer of Love. Maggie and Boris quintessentially offensive to many of a Scottish sensibility.
Brexit, fair enough, although some parts did vote in favour, or very close, Moray and Buchan coast, for instance.
As for Farage, we'll find out soon enough.
Scotland, with its large industrial belt, will always be more left-wing than median England, but not more socially progressive.
Indeed, Scotland legalised homosexuality after England and Yougov has 68% of Scots thinking immigration too high ie near identical to the 70% UK wide.
London by contrast has only 58% saying immigration too high
A lot of the toxicity of immigration would be reduced if there was a clear strategy (including numbers!) which acknowledged the benefits and negatives of immigration, and then defined the various means of entry (students, work, family) and of control.
As many have pointed out, our population is ageing vast and inbound migration of some quantity is desirable. The public expectation is that both quantity AND quality will be managed.
The asylum problem, is actually I think I different issue altogether, and at this juncture seemingly more intractable. Starmer should separate them out and appoint an Asylum Tsar or some such.
I suspect the average British voter is utterly baffled by why we should be obligated to accept anyone who lands here from Albania, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Afghanistan - nations we have very weak links with and have a culture very much at variance with our own.
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
It seems odd to say we have only very weak links with Afghanistan given it was long partly under the British Empire and British troops were stationed there in recent years. Sudan, Iraq and Bangladesh were part of the empire too. The UK has particularly close links with Bangladesh.
Your leitmotif is to reject that immigration is even a legitimate issue for discussion, then deny it's an issue when it's highlighted to you, and then (your ultimate fallback) to try and show people actually quite like it when it is.
You have zero credibility on the subject, and it's a waste of time engaging with you on it.
Where have I rejected that immigration is a legitimate issue for discussion? It would be nice if you engaged with what I said rather than with some strawman stereotype you appear to have in your head.
Another thing the political class gets wrong, because they can't resist commenting on it, is Israel/Palestine.
The view of the average British voter is that they're as bad as each other, and we should stay out of it. And consequently they're not especially interested.
So why does the government continue to support Israel with arms exports and RAF surveillance flights? Curious that they aren't following public opinion, particularly a Labour government.
If public opinion is that they're not interested, then why shouldn't we have arms exports? Arms exports are good for business and good for our economy, so there should be a very good reason to prevent them.
Seems the Government is following public opinion, just not loudmouth opinion.
The polling is pretty clear, and consistent with what CR said. 58:18 for opposing exports to Israel, with 40% for strongly opposing.
And that was April 2024. It will be even more overwhelming now.
Starmer is renting his 4-bed house in Kentish Town to his sister in law for less than £10,000 a year. Very generous, market rate must be almost that per month I’d guess
Perhaps it's cheaper because of family?
It does happen. Not everyone is driven by the bottom line.
Am I meant to be upset about this? I'm struggling to see how it reflects badly on Starmer to be renting his place to a family member for less than market rent. Given that he doesn't know when he will need it back, and above all need to avoid any problems with the arrangement that the press could blow out of all proportion, this seems like an entirely sensible arrangement. Charge enough to cover the mortgage and running repairs, but don't seek to make a profit when the taxpayer is covering his living expenses. Good on him for helping his family, as well.
While I think Starmer is fairly crap, the apparent readiness to spin the most inconsequential stories about him in a negative frame is notable.
The reality is that's he's just rather boring.
On the contrary, there is absolutely zero attempt to spin any stories about Starmer as anything negative - he actually enjoys an effective privacy cloak, even though one might assume that disclosure of irregular family arrangements and their concealment would speak both to the character of the Prime Minister and potentially his vulnerability to blackmail, and therefore be very much in the public interest.
It is in extraordinarily marked contrast to the treatment of Boris Johnson's private affairs.
Maybe because the claims of irregular family arrangements are social media conspiracy theories whereas the stories of Johnson’s private affairs were true?
Great thread about how a series of daft regulations are hampering housing development in London.
For example, a special (and unaccountable) quango set up post-Grenfell to review developments over 18 metres has essentially resulted in no developments over 18 metres being consented.
London (and Britain) can’t afford this nonsense. Will Sadiq Khan address any of this? Seems doubtful, given his default position of do-nothingism and virtue signalling.
Canary Wharf student rooms skyscraper gets go-ahead as City Hall overrules council
As an aside, it’s absurd this 46-storey tower was ever delayed. It’s in the Canary Wharf cluster so can’t possibly be objected to on massing grounds.
Agree on the Student Tower - that's pure Nimbyism for that location:
Four councillors had voted against the advice of the borough’s own planning officers by refusing permission for the project, while three voted in favour of it. Councillors opposed to the tower had argued it could lead to an increase in “anti-social activity”, “noise and disturbance” for neighbouring residents, and that it was an “inappropriate location for student accommodation”.
OTOH the guy on Twitter suggesting eg that towers up to 30m or 50m should only need one escape staircase seems to me to be perhaps abusing his data and confusing categories, and making arguments for changes which will make such buildings more dangerous.
On the single staircase for example, his argument is that "there are few scenarios in a properly maintained building in which a fire renders only one staircase impassable for a significant amount of time". That's exactly the point - he is relying on "well-regulated", which is precisely what failed at Grenfell in maintenance work, renovation and management. That's why we need the second staircase, to provide resilience to failure to regulate well.
His space standards argument seems similar, in having a spurious comparison between the area of a one bed flat, and the area per person of a two bed flat, and suggesting that the two should be the same. But I have not yet checked the relevant standards for NL and FR.
Why don’t we just insist on maintenance being carried out, instead of imposing regulatory gold-plating on every new build?
Because we have a culture in this country where no-one wants to take any accountability for the treatment of risk.
As this is my area (construction law) I am curious to understand what you mean in more detail. Who should take accountability?
It's my area too. And the answer is complex. Essentially, you can't be superficial or binary: risk must be allocated to the party best able to bear it and control it.
Very few people talk about this. In part because it's hard to work through (although if done right, like the London 2012 Olympics, you get successful projects) but also because it's cuts across the fact that HMG doesn't want to admit it does own risk, because the politicians have zero risk appetite or eye for detail.
HMG does own risk, and moreover it *should* own risk: as a very large entity it is often better placed to analyse, mitigate and absorb it than e.g. private individuals or small companies. When it tries to pass the risk buck to others it is abdicating part of its public service role and I suspect also often produces worse and more expensive outcomes.
Starmer is renting his 4-bed house in Kentish Town to his sister in law for less than £10,000 a year. Very generous, market rate must be almost that per month I’d guess
Perhaps it's cheaper because of family?
It does happen. Not everyone is driven by the bottom line.
Am I meant to be upset about this? I'm struggling to see how it reflects badly on Starmer to be renting his place to a family member for less than market rent. Given that he doesn't know when he will need it back, and above all need to avoid any problems with the arrangement that the press could blow out of all proportion, this seems like an entirely sensible arrangement. Charge enough to cover the mortgage and running repairs, but don't seek to make a profit when the taxpayer is covering his living expenses. Good on him for helping his family, as well.
While I think Starmer is fairly crap, the apparent readiness to spin the most inconsequential stories about him in a negative frame is notable.
The reality is that's he's just rather boring.
On the contrary, there is absolutely zero attempt to spin any stories about Starmer as anything negative - he actually enjoys an effective privacy cloak, even though one might assume that disclosure of irregular family arrangements and their concealment would speak both to the character of the Prime Minister and potentially his vulnerability to blackmail, and therefore be very much in the public interest.
It is in extraordinarily marked contrast to the treatment of Boris Johnson's private affairs.
A friend who knows Sarah Vine very well tells me she’s finishing a memoir and it is FULL of juicy gossip. Being lawyered right now
How much does it cost to lawyer a memoir?
Or do they get a percentage to encourage them to leave things in .
“Island of strangers” is about the only evocative phrase that Starmer has uttered in his life, and accurately describes a legitimate anxiety in response to mass immigration.
Again, the backlash is largely performative.
Starmer should double down.
No, it's "citizens of nowhere" bile.
I myself took gross exception to “citizens of nowhere”, as it was uttered in the heat of an intense rise of xenophobia post-Brexit.
May’s intent was to criticise an ideology of rootless capitalism - “globalists” avant la letter - but she delivered it in an incredibly ham-fisted way.
There is a key difference between “citizens of nowhere” and “island of strangers”.
May sought to “other” and blame a sector of society.
Starmer’s speech only identifies the anxiety felt by existing resident in response to massive societal change.
It certainly resonates with me, but not so much as a result of immigration. It makes me think of:
the closure of pubs
people living hundreds of miles away from family
WFH
Not going to church
Lack of universal cultural events, like the finales to TV programmes or popular music
Car based society where you never interact with people on the pavements or in buses and trains
fewer young people having children, and higher rates of divorce
A man in my tenement died suddenly a few days ago, and we've had the police in the stairwell doing some sort of investigation. We're all going to the pub on Friday to have a drink in his memory. Feels weird and alien; my only interaction with him was to help retrieve his washing when the rain came in. But for the older people living here, a perfectly normal social occasion.
I guess this feeling of atomization varies depending on where you live or your stage of life. Despite living in supposedly anonymous and unfriendly inner London I have never felt so rooted in a community as I do now. We know so many of our neighbours and people in neighboring streets, through having children at school together but also through participating in various local groups and activities. It's hard for me to walk around the local park or visit the local Cafe without running into people I know. I'm even on first name terms with our local vicar. And these are people with roots from across the world. I know we are lucky to live in such a nice neighbourhood, but I have to say that Starmer’s Island of Strangers speech didn't resonate with me on every level. Perhaps everyone just needs to try being a bit more friendly instead of always thinking the worst of people.
That sounds like my idea of Hell. Like living in a village where everyone knows you and your doings
A friend of mine tells a story on this theme. He was on a bus and a neighbour recognised him and started chatting. My friend said
“Listen, mate, I moved to London so I wouldn’t have to talk to neighbours on buses”
The chat never recurred
Your misanthropy is more generalized than I had realised!
Comments
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1922564643433627824
I know you're angry about immigration. I get it.
Mark my words: I will take back control of our borders.
That means cutting migration, ending the use of asylum hotels, and ramping up our efforts to stop small boat crossings.
We will smash the people smuggling gangs at source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2025
So Reform landslide and Farage PM with a majority of 110 for Reform, on that poll only PR could stop him (albeit the Yougov poll today had Reform most seats but still short of a majority)
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=19&LAB=22&LIB=15&Reform=32&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
I would set tie the 10 year rule to HMRC-confirmed tax-paid income meeting the threshold required for a visa (£37k?) with no exceptions whatsoever.
Perfectly reasonable to have some exceptions to that rule for entry, eg students, but if within 10 years you're still not hitting the threshold then visa renewal/ILR should not be for you.
Any employer claiming "shortages" ought to be able to pay the threshold if the shortage is real.
We could look at household size, car ownership, the nuclear family, entertainment moving into the home with TV, the loss of the generation of community minded single women who had less chance to marry after WW1 when 3-4% of British men were killed (I make it 880k from 23 million), and the rest.
A friend of mine tells a story on this theme. He was on a bus and a neighbour recognised him and started chatting. My friend said
“Listen, mate, I moved to London so I wouldn’t have to talk to neighbours on buses”
The chat never recurred
Economic policy and fiscal policy is Reform's real weak point. OTOH, if they clear that up, then the opposite could be true.
Note: at no point in this analysis do I credit the Tories with having any chance of surviving as the main opposition party next time. They don't.
I recommend “ A Government that Worked Better and Cost Less?: Evaluating Three Decades of Reform and Change in UK Central Government” by Christopher Hood & Ruth Dixon.
London by contrast has only 58% saying immigration too high
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/do-brits-think-that-immigration-has-been-too-high-or-low-in-the-last-10-years?crossBreak=london
You get a very different reaction when it comes to Ukraine or Hong Kong, because they both touch different parts of our (freedom-loving) identity.
Whom are you supporting, if anyone?
What happens if Starmer’s “we must have Lebensraum” speech doesn’t do the trick? What happens if voters don’t budge and Reform remain ascendant and migration/boats don’t dramatically improve?
I can’t see the next move for Labour. Suddenly go back to the Left?
Of course ironically Starmer now needs the Tories to recover almost as much as Badenoch, for if Tory voters shift en masse to Reform that likely means a Farage landslide under FPTP whereas a split right as last July saves Labour seats. Otherwise Starmer would just have to hope for a collapse in the LD and Green vote in Labour held seats to keep Farage out as Carney got a collapse in the NDP vote to help the Liberals keep out Polievre earlier this month
Freshwater Strategy is a Company Partner of the Market Research Society (MRS), is currently applying to be a member of the British Polling Council (BPC) and abides by their rules.
I believe (I haven’t checked recently) polls show this is quite a widely held opinion but it’s a brave and maybe foolish politician who would come right out and say it. And absolutely impossible for a Labour leader
They are the Aussie Angus Reid.
They were actually the in-house pollsters for the Aussie Liberals & have been subjected to heavy criticism for providing an unrealistically rosy picture of the election to the Liberal Party leadership. The Liberals have said that they're going to terminate their contract with Freshwater.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that their British polls are also biased towards right-wing parties.
It seems odd to say we have only very weak links with Afghanistan given it was long partly under the British Empire and British troops were stationed there in recent years. Sudan, Iraq and Bangladesh were part of the empire too. The UK has particularly close links with Bangladesh.
It's now much easier to earn a good living by slavishly following policy - indeed, you can build a career on it - than it is to innovate or take any sort of initiative to create or deliver anything.
If you do, it's harder work with higher personal risk - and you're a real target for punishment for any failing. If you don't, it's an easy life, the "system" is blamed for any failing, and you can just carry on as before - drawing your salary.
We all pay.
The question posed is
“Would you support or oppose the UK introducing a scheme to resettle some Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban here in the UK? (%)”
I am pretty fierce on migration but I would “support” SOME Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban being allowed here. Democrats and feminists, women about to be murdered, orphaned children - who would oppose us helping THEM?
It’s the random young male Afghan economic migrants that people reject
The view of the average British voter is that they're as bad as each other, and we should stay out of it. And consequently they're not especially interested.
Jennings on Emperor Palpatine: He took on an entrenched deep state at the jedi council. He wanted free and fair and reciprocal trade around the galaxy. Protected law and order.
Lathan: He blew up Alderaan
Jennings: Some could argue it was warranted given their rebellious activities. He defended the empire against unelected hippies and violent protesters
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1922486771008602162
EDIT: The contrasting reaction of Reeves and Rayner is very interesting.
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1922614098916745624
That surprises me. The way people speak about London, would imply that is an unthinkable viewpoint that gets you cancelled over there.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13211577
Lowe sees Farage in court perhaps.
The alcholics have one thing right - the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.
You have zero credibility on the subject, and it's a waste of time engaging with you on it.
28+27 would be 55 - 22, 5 and 14 would be 41. Is that where it really was early April?
Fake news. He has said the same for at least a couple of years, probably since the Boris wave. Pre Boris wave he would have had a different view because things were......different.
Essentially, Britons won't accept mass immigration from a country/people they don't feel an affinity with and don't feel will fit in. They might in small numbers. But not in big ones.
That isn't racially bound, but it is culturally bound.
Or could it simply be that he’s panicking after Reform crushed Labour in the election?
You talk Right, but vote Left.
I have no home right now.
Vietnamese - like all East Asians - are model migrants
It is in extraordinarily marked contrast to the treatment of Boris Johnson's private affairs.
Very few people talk about this. In part because it's hard to work through (although if done right, like the London 2012 Olympics, you get successful projects) but also because it's cuts across the fact that HMG doesn't want to admit it does own risk, because the politicians have zero risk appetite or eye for detail.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2025/may/14/trumps-ex-russia-adviser-on-the-prospect-of-ww3-podcast
No one likes Starmer, not even his own party and Labour supporters - if he doesn’t deliver bigly he will be gone before end of end of 27. Kemi may still be there, having seen him off. Farage has a £100B+ hole in his economic plan, so has zero chance of becoming PM, Conservatives will be well ahead of Reform by late 27.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention?crossBreak=65plus
Brits want to decide and choose - and they will choose those who share their values.
I may use that Farage photo soon.
In my experience (in agreement with your previous post) project management consultant firms never want to do the hardwork up front to define the works or the specification. It’s usually left to up to people down the chain to deal with the hard details…
However on the BSR point and high rise residential, in theory there is adequate liability allocation to consultants and contractors under the defective premises act but realistically tenants are so far removed from the contractual chain (or they don’t have the resources to do so) so that these rights aren’t enforced. I think that the BSR (as a process, yes I know I know) attempts to stop issues before this point.
But in terms of legal migration Vietnamese are great people. Australia has a lot of them and Australia is lucky. Vietnamese are dynamic clever and peaceful (and a surprising number are Christian)
Ultimately, British political culture (the "deep state" if you like) is hostile, with good reason, to the kind of populism of Farage. It prevailed in the 30s, thank god, and it will ultimately prevail in the 20s too.
Collectively we don't want a rampant Farage running the country.
If it looks likely, the voters will reluctantly give Starmer another term.
You can understand how from abroad, at just a glance without knowing much else, people like Musk thought Lowe far better Front Man than Farage.
Whoosh. That went over so many heads!
Seems the Government is following public opinion, just not loudmouth opinion.
I think we also need to recognise why these processes were introduced. They are generally a reaction to something. Getting the right checks and balances is important, but difficult. Trump shows us the disaster that occurs if you just ignore all process.
Seems to me Labour don’t have a chance at next election if they can’t turn the economy round. With or without Starmer, they might well go into the next election behind in the polls but arguing “haven’t we done well.” Without some “haven’t we done well argument” then attacks on other parties will fall on deaf ears.
And that was April 2024. It will be even more overwhelming now.
Or do they get a percentage to encourage them to leave things in