The guy next to LSR was enjoying it (apparently genuinely). Reeves just looked weird.
I doubt AR is enjoying things too much at present. Probably trying to work out how she ended up sitting next to Starmer while still in the Labour party
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.
I don’t think Brits are particularly freedom-loving. I wish they were, and maybe there’s a sub-terranean strand of the British psychology that is, but it’s kind of crushed by the curtain-twitching censoriousness that comes from living overwhelmingly in suburbs that pretend to be villages, and consumption of the Daily Mail.
What I think the Brits REALLY like is fairness, and anger with queue jumpers is part of that.
Brits also don’t like “foreign-ness”, and I mean this is the broadest possible sense. They are happy in their Hobbity slumber and are suspicious of cosmopolitaness, utopianism, intellectualism, and overt-optimism. For example, they don’t much like entrepreneurs.
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.
So the percentage opposing arms to Israel is no more than the percentage of Londoners saying immigration is too high?
And I'd be skeptical about the nature of that polling data. I doubt many people are bring up arms to Israel as an issue unprompted.
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.
So the percentage opposing arms to Israel is no more than the percentage of Londoners saying immigration is too high?
And I'd be skeptical about the nature of that polling data. I doubt many people are bring up arms to Israel as an issue unprompted.
I just think your understanding of "not getting involved" is quite different to everyone else's.
(They aren't bringing up housing either, despite how important you think that is)
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.
So the percentage opposing arms to Israel is no more than the percentage of Londoners saying immigration is too high?
And I'd be skeptical about the nature of that polling data. I doubt many people are bring up arms to Israel as an issue unprompted.
I just think your understanding of "not getting involved" is quite different to everyone else's.
(They aren't bringing up housing either, despite how important you think that is)
As a general principle we believe in the concepts of trade and supporting our allies.
So engaging in trade and supporting our allies is "not getting involved".
Cutting off trade is getting involved, given our general principles.
(And a significant proportion do bring up housing unprompted)
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?
How do YOU know all this? Are you privy to MI5 briefings or something?
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.
So the percentage opposing arms to Israel is no more than the percentage of Londoners saying immigration is too high?
And I'd be skeptical about the nature of that polling data. I doubt many people are bring up arms to Israel as an issue unprompted.
I just think your understanding of "not getting involved" is quite different to everyone else's.
(They aren't bringing up housing either, despite how important you think that is)
As a general principle we believe in the concepts of trade and supporting our allies.
So engaging in trade and supporting our allies is "not getting involved".
Cutting off trade is getting involved, given our general principles.
It is strange to sell arms to a country led by someone we're obliged to arrest on suspicion of war crimes if he enters our country. A general principle of not doing that would seem more consistent.
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.
Obviously not following their own opinions which are that the actions of Israel are appalling, cruel and indefensible. Apparently.
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
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.
Lowe doesn't have the charisma Farage does so would not be polling as well.
Parties remove charismatic election winners at their peril, as the Tories discovered after they removed Boris in 2022 and as Labour discovered when Brown effectively pushed out Blair in 2007 before he wanted to go
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
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.
I don’t think Brits are particularly freedom-loving. I wish they were, and maybe there’s a sub-terranean strand of the British psychology that is, but it’s kind of crushed by the curtain-twitching censoriousness that comes from living overwhelmingly in suburbs that pretend to be villages, and consumption of the Daily Mail.
What I think the Brits REALLY like is fairness, and anger with queue jumpers is part of that.
Brits also don’t like “foreign-ness”, and I mean this is the broadest possible sense. They are happy in their Hobbity slumber and are suspicious of cosmopolitaness, utopianism, intellectualism, and overt-optimism. For example, they don’t much like entrepreneurs.
I agree - sadly - on the freedom thing. Compared to the Yanks we are feeble on this. I hope we can regain some vim
Your last paragraph is, however, bullshit, and comes from some long ago vision of England (ie a bit like Tolkien's The Shire). Brits embrace foreign-ness more than almost any culture on earth, our cities have multiple cuisines, we love foreign fads and fashions, from K Pop to Anime to Hygge, we adore new exotic stuff, we drink wine from all over the world (despite making some of our own, now, quite well). In polls Brits constantly register as some of the least racist, least xenophobic people in the world - we are highly tolerant and welcoming - which is one reason why the leftwing caricature of us as racist thickos really grinds our gears
The recent backlash has happened because that incredible British tolerance has been pushed, insanely, to breaking point
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
Starmer's best bet is to do exactly what he's doing and talk up Reform as the main opposition. They only have 5 MPs so they can't affect anything in the Commons and Farage's habit of scything down any colleague who might challenge his popularity makes an almighty implosion very likely. The more depressed the actual opposition (the Tories for clarity) are because of polling like this the better it is for Starmer.
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
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.
So the percentage opposing arms to Israel is no more than the percentage of Londoners saying immigration is too high?
And I'd be skeptical about the nature of that polling data. I doubt many people are bring up arms to Israel as an issue unprompted.
I just think your understanding of "not getting involved" is quite different to everyone else's.
(They aren't bringing up housing either, despite how important you think that is)
As a general principle we believe in the concepts of trade and supporting our allies.
So engaging in trade and supporting our allies is "not getting involved".
Cutting off trade is getting involved, given our general principles.
It is strange to sell arms to a country led by someone we're obliged to arrest on suspicion of war crimes if he enters our country. A general principle of not doing that would seem more consistent.
Ridiculous over-reach by a "court" we should not be a part of any more with such absurd rulings.
Some good news from the conflict yesterday in that it seems that Israel may have got another leader of Hamas. Its funny how often many here were saying early on that Israel was in the wrong as they weren't going after the leaders are Hamas but don't say anything supportive when they do.
Of course that leader was again as Hamas routinely does using a hospital as a base, meaning Israel were forced to hit a hospital to get to him.
The problem with this conflict is that until Hamas is defeated there is nowhere safe for the Palestinians as Hamas turn everything, even hospitals, into legitimate targets by weaponising them as human shields.
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
Cheer up, seems to be plenty of highlights of women’s 6 nations still available on Iplayer. That’s just as good isn’t it?
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
Cheer up, seems to be plenty of highlights of women’s 6 nations still available on Iplayer. That’s just as good isn’t it?
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.
I don’t think Brits are particularly freedom-loving. I wish they were, and maybe there’s a sub-terranean strand of the British psychology that is, but it’s kind of crushed by the curtain-twitching censoriousness that comes from living overwhelmingly in suburbs that pretend to be villages, and consumption of the Daily Mail.
What I think the Brits REALLY like is fairness, and anger with queue jumpers is part of that.
Brits also don’t like “foreign-ness”, and I mean this is the broadest possible sense. They are happy in their Hobbity slumber and are suspicious of cosmopolitaness, utopianism, intellectualism, and overt-optimism. For example, they don’t much like entrepreneurs.
I agree - sadly - on the freedom thing. Compared to the Yanks we are feeble on this. I hope we can regain some vim
Your last paragraph is, however, bullshit, and comes from some long ago vision of England (ie a bit like Tolkien's The Shire). Brits embrace foreign-ness more than almost any culture on earth, our cities have multiple cuisines, we love foreign fads and fashions, from K Pop to Anime to Hygge, we adore new exotic stuff, we drink wine from all over the world (despite making some of our own, now, quite well). In polls Brits constantly register as some of the least racist, least xenophobic people in the world - we are highly tolerant and welcoming - which is one reason why the leftwing caricature of us as racist thickos really grinds our gears
The recent backlash has happened because that incredible British tolerance has been pushed, insanely, to breaking point
I meant foreign-ness in the broadest sense, not racism. I ageee that Brits (like Canadians and NZers) are among the least racist in the world.
And you raise a good point on the food and the catholic taste of British culture. However, it also true that Britain can be stubbornly resistant to foreign ideas - from Cubism to Mixer Taps.
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.
Lowe doesn't have the charisma Farage does so would not be polling as well.
Parties remove charismatic election winners at their peril, as the Tories discovered after they removed Boris in 2022 and as Labour discovered when Brown effectively pushed out Blair in 2007 before he wanted to go
Yes but parties who only have one charismatic leader and a top team on nobodies don't flourish in the long term.
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
Starmer's best bet is to do exactly what he's doing and talk up Reform as the main opposition. They only have 5 MPs so they can't affect anything in the Commons and Farage's habit of scything down any colleague who might challenge his popularity makes an almighty implosion very likely. The more depressed the actual opposition (the Tories for clarity) are because of polling like this the better it is for Starmer.
On today's Freshwater poll Reform would get a majority of over 100 on under 33% of the vote. On the latest Yougov Reform would be over 300 seats and within touching distance of a majority on just 28% of the vote.
Unless Labour can squeeze the LD and Green vote rapidly by the time of the next GE to keep Farage from No 10, Starmer is heading for the scrapheap.
If Starmer is complacent enough to assume Badenoch is his main opponent (assuming the Tories keep her in place by the next GE anyway) when it is now clearly Farage then he will inevitably lose
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.
I don’t think Brits are particularly freedom-loving. I wish they were, and maybe there’s a sub-terranean strand of the British psychology that is, but it’s kind of crushed by the curtain-twitching censoriousness that comes from living overwhelmingly in suburbs that pretend to be villages, and consumption of the Daily Mail.
What I think the Brits REALLY like is fairness, and anger with queue jumpers is part of that...
America loves freedom. They decide their own destiny and safety is provided by self-defence and guns, not government and the police. This is most obvious in its less-densely populated areas
Britain loves safety. They decide other people's destiny and safety is provided by complaining to government and the police, not self-defence and guns. This is most obvious in its most-densely populated areas.
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.
I don’t think Brits are particularly freedom-loving. I wish they were, and maybe there’s a sub-terranean strand of the British psychology that is, but it’s kind of crushed by the curtain-twitching censoriousness that comes from living overwhelmingly in suburbs that pretend to be villages, and consumption of the Daily Mail.
What I think the Brits REALLY like is fairness, and anger with queue jumpers is part of that.
Brits also don’t like “foreign-ness”, and I mean this is the broadest possible sense. They are happy in their Hobbity slumber and are suspicious of cosmopolitaness, utopianism, intellectualism, and overt-optimism. For example, they don’t much like entrepreneurs.
I agree - sadly - on the freedom thing. Compared to the Yanks we are feeble on this. I hope we can regain some vim
Your last paragraph is, however, bullshit, and comes from some long ago vision of England (ie a bit like Tolkien's The Shire). Brits embrace foreign-ness more than almost any culture on earth, our cities have multiple cuisines, we love foreign fads and fashions, from K Pop to Anime to Hygge, we adore new exotic stuff, we drink wine from all over the world (despite making some of our own, now, quite well). In polls Brits constantly register as some of the least racist, least xenophobic people in the world - we are highly tolerant and welcoming - which is one reason why the leftwing caricature of us as racist thickos really grinds our gears
The recent backlash has happened because that incredible British tolerance has been pushed, insanely, to breaking point
I meant foreign-ness in the broadest sense, not racism. I ageee that Brits (like Canadians and NZers) are among the least racist in the world.
And you raise a good point on the food and the Catholic taste of British culture. However, it also true that Britain can be stubbornly resistant to foreign ideas - from Cubism to Mixer Taps.
Not only do we embrace foreign-ness and exhibit commendable racial tolerance, we probably also travel more than any nation on earth, per capita (probably due to our weather, but still)
I read a stat the other day which claimed that there are 200m people worldwide of British descent, possibly the biggest diaspora of any country (tho these are hard to define)
And boy, do we travel. I remember arriving, in the cold and dark, in Bishkek Kyrgystan about 3 weeks ago. I found one little hotel bar open, doing pizza etc. Otherwise the city was dead - it was a horrible night. The hotel bar was deserted apart from one other table - yes, a bunch of Brits, heartily boozing, talking football, cricket and politics
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
Starmer's best bet is to do exactly what he's doing and talk up Reform as the main opposition. They only have 5 MPs so they can't affect anything in the Commons and Farage's habit of scything down any colleague who might challenge his popularity makes an almighty implosion very likely. The more depressed the actual opposition (the Tories for clarity) are because of polling like this the better it is for Starmer.
On today's Freshwater poll Reform would get a majority of over 100 on under 33% of the vote. On today's Yougov Reform would be over 300 seats and within touching distance of a majority on just 28% of the vote.
Unless Labour can squeeze the LD and Green vote rapidly by the time of the next GE to keep Farage from No 10, Starmer is heading for the scrapheap.
If Starmer is complacent enough to assume Badenoch is his main opponent (assuming the Tories keep her in place by the next GE anyway) when it is now clearly Farage then he will inevitably lose
Like Farage inevitably became PM after leading the polls in 2019? Like Corbyn did when he led the polls? Like Ed did when he led the polls for many years?
The only poll that matters is the one on election day and there is nothing inevitable until the votes are cast.
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
I'm more bugged that I still don't seem to be able to search old patents at The British Library. It's nearly two years since the hack, and service restoration is still moving glacially.
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
Starmer's best bet is to do exactly what he's doing and talk up Reform as the main opposition. They only have 5 MPs so they can't affect anything in the Commons and Farage's habit of scything down any colleague who might challenge his popularity makes an almighty implosion very likely. The more depressed the actual opposition (the Tories for clarity) are because of polling like this the better it is for Starmer.
On today's Freshwater poll Reform would get a majority of over 100 on under 33% of the vote. On today's Yougov Reform would be over 300 seats and within touching distance of a majority on just 28% of the vote.
Unless Labour can squeeze the LD and Green vote rapidly by the time of the next GE to keep Farage from No 10, Starmer is heading for the scrapheap.
If Starmer is complacent enough to assume Badenoch is his main opponent (assuming the Tories keep her in place by the next GE anyway) when it is now clearly Farage then he will inevitably lose
It's not clearly Farage though is it. As I've said before, if you take the logic that a run of high opinion poll ratings makes a party 'the real opposition' then you'd have to concede that Roy Jenkins was Thatcher's main opponent in the early 80s or that Nick Clegg was Gordon Brown's main opponent in the 2010 election.
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
I'm more bugged that I still don't seem to be able to search old patents at The British Library. It's nearly two years since the hack, and service restoration is still moving glacially.
See also M&S shelves. We are really unresilient to hacks...
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
Starmer's best bet is to do exactly what he's doing and talk up Reform as the main opposition. They only have 5 MPs so they can't affect anything in the Commons and Farage's habit of scything down any colleague who might challenge his popularity makes an almighty implosion very likely. The more depressed the actual opposition (the Tories for clarity) are because of polling like this the better it is for Starmer.
On today's Freshwater poll Reform would get a majority of over 100 on under 33% of the vote. On today's Yougov Reform would be over 300 seats and within touching distance of a majority on just 28% of the vote.
Unless Labour can squeeze the LD and Green vote rapidly by the time of the next GE to keep Farage from No 10, Starmer is heading for the scrapheap.
If Starmer is complacent enough to assume Badenoch is his main opponent (assuming the Tories keep her in place by the next GE anyway) when it is now clearly Farage then he will inevitably lose
Like Farage inevitably became PM after leading the polls in 2019? Like Corbyn did when he led the polls? Like Ed did when he led the polls for many years?
The only poll that matters is the one on election day and there is nothing inevitable until the votes are cast.
Farage didn't become PM in 2019 only as the Tories replaced May with Boris, had they not done so Farage or Corbyn may well have beaten May in that general election.
The one consoling factor from your points for Labour is that Starmer sometimes leads Farage as best PM in polls as Cameron led Miliband as best PM in polling even when Labour led the polls.
Yet as I said for that to benefit him he needs massive LD and Green tactical voting for Labour in Labour held seats to prevent Farage becoming PM
“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!
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
Starmer's best bet is to do exactly what he's doing and talk up Reform as the main opposition. They only have 5 MPs so they can't affect anything in the Commons and Farage's habit of scything down any colleague who might challenge his popularity makes an almighty implosion very likely. The more depressed the actual opposition (the Tories for clarity) are because of polling like this the better it is for Starmer.
On today's Freshwater poll Reform would get a majority of over 100 on under 33% of the vote. On today's Yougov Reform would be over 300 seats and within touching distance of a majority on just 28% of the vote.
Unless Labour can squeeze the LD and Green vote rapidly by the time of the next GE to keep Farage from No 10, Starmer is heading for the scrapheap.
If Starmer is complacent enough to assume Badenoch is his main opponent (assuming the Tories keep her in place by the next GE anyway) when it is now clearly Farage then he will inevitably lose
Like Farage inevitably became PM after leading the polls in 2019? Like Corbyn did when he led the polls? Like Ed did when he led the polls for many years?
The only poll that matters is the one on election day and there is nothing inevitable until the votes are cast.
Farage didn't become PM in 2019 only as the Tories replaced May with Boris, had they not done so Farage or Corbyn may well have beaten May in that general election.
The one consoling factor from your points for Labour is that Starmer sometimes leads Farage as best PM in polls as Cameron led Miliband as best PM in polling even when Labour led the polls.
Yet as I said for that to benefit him he needs massive LD and Green tactical voting for Labour in Labour held seats to prevent Farage becoming PM
Ed Miliband led in the polls consistently with the Tories not getting even a single poll lead in more than two years, from March 2012 to May 2014.
Tories won a majority at the next election, without changing leader.
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.
The interaction between the Civil Service, the military hierarchy, the Haddon Cafe report (and it legal results) and the politicians over the Nimrod upgrade was hilarious.
1) the aircraft as hacked about by BAe were not built to a standard. Indeed, the unmodified aircraft were a mess with vital structure being fits-where-it-touches 2) the interaction of modifying these aircraft with rather dubious upgrades was judged as not meeting air worthiness. 3) the traditional recourse was to order the officer in charge of the airworthiness certificate to issue it anyway. This was technically illegal, but the officer faced court martial if he/she didn’t obey 4) as a result of the Haddon-Cave report (on an earlier Nimrod crash, as it happened) the law had been changed. Now, the person ordering 3) would become legally responsible for any crash. Rather than the poor bloody airworthiness certificate issuing officer. 5) the Civil Servants and the RAF bigwigs thought it was jolly unfair that they would be legally liable for issuing orders to juniors. 6) so they tried to get Ministers to issue the order. 7) the Ministers took legal advice - and refused to illegally order that an aircraft of unknown safety was airworthy. 8) the project collapsed and the aircraft were scraped.
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
Starmer's best bet is to do exactly what he's doing and talk up Reform as the main opposition. They only have 5 MPs so they can't affect anything in the Commons and Farage's habit of scything down any colleague who might challenge his popularity makes an almighty implosion very likely. The more depressed the actual opposition (the Tories for clarity) are because of polling like this the better it is for Starmer.
On today's Freshwater poll Reform would get a majority of over 100 on under 33% of the vote. On today's Yougov Reform would be over 300 seats and within touching distance of a majority on just 28% of the vote.
Unless Labour can squeeze the LD and Green vote rapidly by the time of the next GE to keep Farage from No 10, Starmer is heading for the scrapheap.
If Starmer is complacent enough to assume Badenoch is his main opponent (assuming the Tories keep her in place by the next GE anyway) when it is now clearly Farage then he will inevitably lose
It's not clearly Farage though is it. As I've said before, if you take the logic that a run of high opinion poll ratings makes a party 'the real opposition' then you'd have to concede that Roy Jenkins was Thatcher's main opponent in the early 80s or that Nick Clegg was Gordon Brown's main opponent in the 2010 election.
But for the Falklands War Jenkins may well have been Thatcher's main opponent in 1983 and Farage is more charismatic and a more effective campaigner than Jenkins was.
Nick Clegg's LDs led exactly 3 polls after the first debate in 2010, with Cameron's Tories second and Brown's Labour only third, Farage's Reform have now led or tied in 18 straight polls this year
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
Starmer's best bet is to do exactly what he's doing and talk up Reform as the main opposition. They only have 5 MPs so they can't affect anything in the Commons and Farage's habit of scything down any colleague who might challenge his popularity makes an almighty implosion very likely. The more depressed the actual opposition (the Tories for clarity) are because of polling like this the better it is for Starmer.
On today's Freshwater poll Reform would get a majority of over 100 on under 33% of the vote. On today's Yougov Reform would be over 300 seats and within touching distance of a majority on just 28% of the vote.
Unless Labour can squeeze the LD and Green vote rapidly by the time of the next GE to keep Farage from No 10, Starmer is heading for the scrapheap.
If Starmer is complacent enough to assume Badenoch is his main opponent (assuming the Tories keep her in place by the next GE anyway) when it is now clearly Farage then he will inevitably lose
It's not clearly Farage though is it. As I've said before, if you take the logic that a run of high opinion poll ratings makes a party 'the real opposition' then you'd have to concede that Roy Jenkins was Thatcher's main opponent in the early 80s or that Nick Clegg was Gordon Brown's main opponent in the 2010 election.
But for the Falklands War Jenkins may well have been Thatcher's main opponent in 1983 and Farage is more charismatic and a more effective campaigner than Jenkins was.
Nick Clegg's LDs led exactly 3 polls after the first debate in 2010, with Cameron's Tories second and Brown's Labour only third, Farage's Reform have now led or tied in 18 straight polls this year
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.
Lowe doesn't have the charisma Farage does so would not be polling as well.
Parties remove charismatic election winners at their peril, as the Tories discovered after they removed Boris in 2022 and as Labour discovered when Brown effectively pushed out Blair in 2007 before he wanted to go
Yes but parties who only have one charismatic leader and a top team on nobodies don't flourish in the long term.
Which is the one thing the main established parties can cling to, if Farage was run over by a bus tomorrow Reform's poll rating would likely collapse back with him to around 10-15% from their 25-30+% 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.
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
Starmer's best bet is to do exactly what he's doing and talk up Reform as the main opposition. They only have 5 MPs so they can't affect anything in the Commons and Farage's habit of scything down any colleague who might challenge his popularity makes an almighty implosion very likely. The more depressed the actual opposition (the Tories for clarity) are because of polling like this the better it is for Starmer.
On today's Freshwater poll Reform would get a majority of over 100 on under 33% of the vote. On today's Yougov Reform would be over 300 seats and within touching distance of a majority on just 28% of the vote.
Unless Labour can squeeze the LD and Green vote rapidly by the time of the next GE to keep Farage from No 10, Starmer is heading for the scrapheap.
If Starmer is complacent enough to assume Badenoch is his main opponent (assuming the Tories keep her in place by the next GE anyway) when it is now clearly Farage then he will inevitably lose
Like Farage inevitably became PM after leading the polls in 2019? Like Corbyn did when he led the polls? Like Ed did when he led the polls for many years?
The only poll that matters is the one on election day and there is nothing inevitable until the votes are cast.
Farage didn't become PM in 2019 only as the Tories replaced May with Boris, had they not done so Farage or Corbyn may well have beaten May in that general election.
The one consoling factor from your points for Labour is that Starmer sometimes leads Farage as best PM in polls as Cameron led Miliband as best PM in polling even when Labour led the polls.
Yet as I said for that to benefit him he needs massive LD and Green tactical voting for Labour in Labour held seats to prevent Farage becoming PM
Ed Miliband led in the polls consistently with the Tories not getting even a single poll lead in more than two years, from March 2012 to May 2014.
Tories won a majority at the next election, without changing leader.
Polls show nothing for certain.
As I said Cameron led Miliband as best PM in polls even as Labour led on voteshare from 2012-2014, Starmer must hope his lead on best PM over Farage holds, on net approval though Farage already leads him
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
I'm more bugged that I still don't seem to be able to search old patents at The British Library. It's nearly two years since the hack, and service restoration is still moving glacially.
Would https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/ be any use? I can't remember whether they only cover things that went through EPO (still might cover most, depending how old you're going) or whether it's wider than that - back when I used to use it I had other access to the UK patents, so was only looking for those outwith UK.
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.
So the percentage opposing arms to Israel is no more than the percentage of Londoners saying immigration is too high?
And I'd be skeptical about the nature of that polling data. I doubt many people are bring up arms to Israel as an issue unprompted.
I just think your understanding of "not getting involved" is quite different to everyone else's.
(They aren't bringing up housing either, despite how important you think that is)
As a general principle we believe in the concepts of trade and supporting our allies.
So engaging in trade and supporting our allies is "not getting involved".
Cutting off trade is getting involved, given our general principles.
It is strange to sell arms to a country led by someone we're obliged to arrest on suspicion of war crimes if he enters our country. A general principle of not doing that would seem more consistent.
Ridiculous over-reach by a "court" we should not be a part of any more with such absurd rulings.
Some good news from the conflict yesterday in that it seems that Israel may have got another leader of Hamas. Its funny how often many here were saying early on that Israel was in the wrong as they weren't going after the leaders are Hamas but don't say anything supportive when they do.
Of course that leader was again as Hamas routinely does using a hospital as a base, meaning Israel were forced to hit a hospital to get to him.
The problem with this conflict is that until Hamas is defeated there is nowhere safe for the Palestinians as Hamas turn everything, even hospitals, into legitimate targets by weaponising them as human shields.
You can make a logical argument for either - or indeed both! - of:
Leaving the ICC
Stopping arms sales to Israel
but being both a member and selling arms to someone for whom the court has an arrest warrant out for war crimes seems inconsistent. Either the law/court is an ass or we should halt weapons sales until Israel has a new leader. Or both.
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?
They could try actually supporting their traditional voters with measures such as reintroducing WFA, sorting out the tax / benefits cliff edge, supporting local government and social care.
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
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.
So the percentage opposing arms to Israel is no more than the percentage of Londoners saying immigration is too high?
And I'd be skeptical about the nature of that polling data. I doubt many people are bring up arms to Israel as an issue unprompted.
I just think your understanding of "not getting involved" is quite different to everyone else's.
(They aren't bringing up housing either, despite how important you think that is)
As a general principle we believe in the concepts of trade and supporting our allies.
So engaging in trade and supporting our allies is "not getting involved".
Cutting off trade is getting involved, given our general principles.
It is strange to sell arms to a country led by someone we're obliged to arrest on suspicion of war crimes if he enters our country. A general principle of not doing that would seem more consistent.
Ridiculous over-reach by a "court" we should not be a part of any more with such absurd rulings.
Some good news from the conflict yesterday in that it seems that Israel may have got another leader of Hamas. Its funny how often many here were saying early on that Israel was in the wrong as they weren't going after the leaders are Hamas but don't say anything supportive when they do.
Of course that leader was again as Hamas routinely does using a hospital as a base, meaning Israel were forced to hit a hospital to get to him.
The problem with this conflict is that until Hamas is defeated there is nowhere safe for the Palestinians as Hamas turn everything, even hospitals, into legitimate targets by weaponising them as human shields.
You can make a logical argument for either - or indeed both! - of:
Leaving the ICC
Stopping arms sales to Israel
but being both a member and selling arms to someone for whom the court has an arrest warrant out for war crimes seems inconsistent. Either the law/court is an ass or we should halt weapons sales until Israel has a new leader. Or both.
The law/court is an ass.
Disregarding the court's grandstanding is the right thing to do.
We shouldn't have international courts, they were a mistake. The highest UK court should be the Supreme Court and it should be subservient to Parliament. The rule of law is different to the rule of lawyers.
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
Hertfordshire and Wiltshire and Bucks and Northumberland are now better for the Tories than Essex, Essex is sold Reform now except for a few LD patches around Chelmsford and Epping and Theydon Bois and for Labour in Colchester and Kemi's more rural seat which is culturally closer to Cambridgeshire.
Even the pensioner Nimbys are now voting Reform mainly.
Basically the safest Tory seats under Kemi are those which voted narrowly Leave, the strongest Leave seats are now Reform and the old Tory Remain seats largely LD and which are largely middle class, the white working class seats are now mainly Reform and which have a significant rural element, as farmers hate Labour after the farms tax.
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
I'm more bugged that I still don't seem to be able to search old patents at The British Library. It's nearly two years since the hack, and service restoration is still moving glacially.
Would https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/ be any use? I can't remember whether they only cover things that went through EPO (still might cover most, depending how old you're going) or whether it's wider than that - back when I used to use it I had other access to the UK patents, so was only looking for those outwith UK.
It does indeed. (Some English Electric patents from the 1930s.)
Doesn't help with the British Library's manuscript problem, which is quite another thing.
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
I'm more bugged that I still don't seem to be able to search old patents at The British Library. It's nearly two years since the hack, and service restoration is still moving glacially.
See also M&S shelves. We are really unresilient to hacks...
We rely too much on computer systems, and just in time deliveries. It saves business people making decisions or spending money. It sums up why Britain is failing.
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.
So the percentage opposing arms to Israel is no more than the percentage of Londoners saying immigration is too high?
And I'd be skeptical about the nature of that polling data. I doubt many people are bring up arms to Israel as an issue unprompted.
I just think your understanding of "not getting involved" is quite different to everyone else's.
(They aren't bringing up housing either, despite how important you think that is)
As a general principle we believe in the concepts of trade and supporting our allies.
So engaging in trade and supporting our allies is "not getting involved".
Cutting off trade is getting involved, given our general principles.
It is strange to sell arms to a country led by someone we're obliged to arrest on suspicion of war crimes if he enters our country. A general principle of not doing that would seem more consistent.
Ridiculous over-reach by a "court" we should not be a part of any more with such absurd rulings.
Some good news from the conflict yesterday in that it seems that Israel may have got another leader of Hamas. Its funny how often many here were saying early on that Israel was in the wrong as they weren't going after the leaders are Hamas but don't say anything supportive when they do.
Of course that leader was again as Hamas routinely does using a hospital as a base, meaning Israel were forced to hit a hospital to get to him.
The problem with this conflict is that until Hamas is defeated there is nowhere safe for the Palestinians as Hamas turn everything, even hospitals, into legitimate targets by weaponising them as human shields.
You can make a logical argument for either - or indeed both! - of:
Leaving the ICC
Stopping arms sales to Israel
but being both a member and selling arms to someone for whom the court has an arrest warrant out for war crimes seems inconsistent. Either the law/court is an ass or we should halt weapons sales until Israel has a new leader. Or both.
The law/court is an ass.
Disregarding the court's grandstanding is the right thing to do.
We shouldn't have international courts, they were a mistake. The highest UK court should be the Supreme Court and it should be subservient to Parliament. The rule of law is different to the rule of lawyers.
The supreme court is made up of a bunch of lawyers too, and there's no guarantee they'd rule in a different way to the ICC.
If by "subservient to parliament" you mean ruling on legislation put in place by parliament, then that's precisely how it works. You're just railing against the courts because you can't face up to the fact that public opinion tends to be rather against the kind of death and destruction we see in Gaza, and our parliament legislates accordingly.
This man is a complete buffoon. And look at Reeves, they’re like children. And that’s insulting kids.
What does it say about British liberals that they venerated this dour, vacuous man?
"What does it say about British liberals that they venerated this dour, vacuous man?" It says they liked winning. Starmer has no underlying theory of the world and is remarkably self-constrained by his veneration of the law. However his ability to flit from crowd-pleasing position to crowd-pleasing position may pay off in '29.
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
Just on the off chance do you know any totally unrelated juicy stories about Joris Bohnson? He's very unlikely to sue.
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.
So the percentage opposing arms to Israel is no more than the percentage of Londoners saying immigration is too high?
And I'd be skeptical about the nature of that polling data. I doubt many people are bring up arms to Israel as an issue unprompted.
I just think your understanding of "not getting involved" is quite different to everyone else's.
(They aren't bringing up housing either, despite how important you think that is)
As a general principle we believe in the concepts of trade and supporting our allies.
So engaging in trade and supporting our allies is "not getting involved".
Cutting off trade is getting involved, given our general principles.
It is strange to sell arms to a country led by someone we're obliged to arrest on suspicion of war crimes if he enters our country. A general principle of not doing that would seem more consistent.
Ridiculous over-reach by a "court" we should not be a part of any more with such absurd rulings.
Some good news from the conflict yesterday in that it seems that Israel may have got another leader of Hamas. Its funny how often many here were saying early on that Israel was in the wrong as they weren't going after the leaders are Hamas but don't say anything supportive when they do.
Of course that leader was again as Hamas routinely does using a hospital as a base, meaning Israel were forced to hit a hospital to get to him.
The problem with this conflict is that until Hamas is defeated there is nowhere safe for the Palestinians as Hamas turn everything, even hospitals, into legitimate targets by weaponising them as human shields.
You can make a logical argument for either - or indeed both! - of:
Leaving the ICC
Stopping arms sales to Israel
but being both a member and selling arms to someone for whom the court has an arrest warrant out for war crimes seems inconsistent. Either the law/court is an ass or we should halt weapons sales until Israel has a new leader. Or both.
It's more complicated than that.
The arms in question (at least those of any significance) are parts for the F35, for which the UK is the second largest supplier after the US. These go into a worldwide pool from which Israel is supplied (by the US).
Contractually, there's no way in which we can place restrictions on the use of those parts. We either continue to supply them, or leave the program.
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.
I don’t think Brits are particularly freedom-loving. I wish they were, and maybe there’s a sub-terranean strand of the British psychology that is, but it’s kind of crushed by the curtain-twitching censoriousness that comes from living overwhelmingly in suburbs that pretend to be villages, and consumption of the Daily Mail.
What I think the Brits REALLY like is fairness, and anger with queue jumpers is part of that...
America loves freedom. They decide their own destiny and safety is provided by self-defence and guns, not government and the police. This is most obvious in its less-densely populated areas
Britain loves safety. They decide other people's destiny and safety is provided by complaining to government and the police, not self-defence and guns. This is most obvious in its most-densely populated areas.
point and order more and more brits are not turning to government and the police for protection
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
Given the amount of immigrants in London , quelle surprise
Indeed. If you meet immigrants, you discover they are just people like the rest of us and you stop demonising them.
No question they are just people but we have enough freeloaders without importing millions more. Pompous rich idiots think it is a great wheeze but it will be ended eventually by the poor voting in people who will sort it and people like you will not be so smug then with the baggage that will come with it.
Comments
I doubt AR is enjoying things too much at present. Probably trying to work out how she ended up sitting next to Starmer while still in the Labour party
I wish they were, and maybe there’s a sub-terranean strand of the British psychology that is, but it’s kind of crushed by the curtain-twitching censoriousness that comes from living overwhelmingly in suburbs that pretend to be villages, and consumption of the Daily Mail.
What I think the Brits REALLY like is fairness, and anger with queue jumpers is part of that.
Brits also don’t like “foreign-ness”, and I mean this is the broadest possible sense. They are happy in their Hobbity slumber and are suspicious of cosmopolitaness, utopianism, intellectualism, and overt-optimism. For example, they don’t much like entrepreneurs.
And I'd be skeptical about the nature of that polling data. I doubt many people are bring up arms to Israel as an issue unprompted.
(They aren't bringing up housing either, despite how important you think that is)
So engaging in trade and supporting our allies is "not getting involved".
Cutting off trade is getting involved, given our general principles.
(And a significant proportion do bring up housing unprompted)
Apparently.
https://x.com/saulstaniforth/status/1922620373339701274?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Last night I was feeling a bit groggy - my Covid bug drags on, in an irritating low key way
So I wanted something light and cheerful to watch on telly, therefore I decided to watch England thrash Wales at rugby again, the whole match. 78-nil or whatever it was. Haha
YOU CAN'T
You can't find it on BBC iPlayer, ITVx, Prime, YouTube, anywhere (or if you can it escaped me)
What makes this stupider is that I would have happily shelled out a couple of quid for the pleasure. Not £20, but £2? Sure
So that's income which could go to broadcasters - and rugby - which is forgone. This is nuts. Presumably there is some complex legal reason for this but whatever it is, it sucks the Pickled Pizzle of Pazuzu
Parties remove charismatic election winners at their peril, as the Tories discovered after they removed Boris in 2022 and as Labour discovered when Brown effectively pushed out Blair in 2007 before he wanted to go
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002937r
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ8NEwAgsjQ&ved=2ahUKEwjfp56zhaONAxWNZ0EAHXItHcoQyCl6BAgWEAM&usg=AOvVaw2JhhhRpoPh4kbwYcNrDeC6
Your last paragraph is, however, bullshit, and comes from some long ago vision of England (ie a bit like Tolkien's The Shire). Brits embrace foreign-ness more than almost any culture on earth, our cities have multiple cuisines, we love foreign fads and fashions, from K Pop to Anime to Hygge, we adore new exotic stuff, we drink wine from all over the world (despite making some of our own, now, quite well). In polls Brits constantly register as some of the least racist, least xenophobic people in the world - we are highly tolerant and welcoming - which is one reason why the leftwing caricature of us as racist thickos really grinds our gears
The recent backlash has happened because that incredible British tolerance has been pushed, insanely, to breaking point
Some good news from the conflict yesterday in that it seems that Israel may have got another leader of Hamas. Its funny how often many here were saying early on that Israel was in the wrong as they weren't going after the leaders are Hamas but don't say anything supportive when they do.
Of course that leader was again as Hamas routinely does using a hospital as a base, meaning Israel were forced to hit a hospital to get to him.
The problem with this conflict is that until Hamas is defeated there is nowhere safe for the Palestinians as Hamas turn everything, even hospitals, into legitimate targets by weaponising them as human shields.
Yes, absolutely. Great. That's me sorted
I ageee that Brits (like Canadians and NZers) are among the least racist in the world.
And you raise a good point on the food and the catholic taste of British culture. However, it also true that Britain can be stubbornly resistant to foreign ideas - from Cubism to Mixer Taps.
Unless Labour can squeeze the LD and Green vote rapidly by the time of the next GE to keep Farage from No 10, Starmer is heading for the scrapheap.
If Starmer is complacent enough to assume Badenoch is his main opponent (assuming the Tories keep her in place by the next GE anyway) when it is now clearly Farage then he will inevitably lose
I read a stat the other day which claimed that there are 200m people worldwide of British descent, possibly the biggest diaspora of any country (tho these are hard to define)
And boy, do we travel. I remember arriving, in the cold and dark, in Bishkek Kyrgystan about 3 weeks ago. I found one little hotel bar open, doing pizza etc. Otherwise the city was dead - it was a horrible night. The hotel bar was deserted apart from one other table - yes, a bunch of Brits, heartily boozing, talking football, cricket and politics
I felt kinda proud. We are EVERYWHERE
Like Corbyn did when he led the polls?
Like Ed did when he led the polls for many years?
The only poll that matters is the one on election day and there is nothing inevitable until the votes are cast.
It's nearly two years since the hack, and service restoration is still moving glacially.
Trump calls Syria’s Al-Sharaa “a real leader” saying he led a charge and “he’s pretty amazing”.
Trump said meeting with Syrian president went “great,” saying he is a “young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Fighter.”
https://x.com/ragipsoylu/status/1922617964211130432
The one consoling factor from your points for Labour is that Starmer sometimes leads Farage as best PM in polls as Cameron led Miliband as best PM in polling even when Labour led the polls.
Yet as I said for that to benefit him he needs massive LD and Green tactical voting for Labour in Labour held seats to prevent Farage becoming PM
Tories won a majority at the next election, without changing leader.
Polls show nothing for certain.
1) the aircraft as hacked about by BAe were not built to a standard. Indeed, the unmodified aircraft were a mess with vital structure being fits-where-it-touches
2) the interaction of modifying these aircraft with rather dubious upgrades was judged as not meeting air worthiness.
3) the traditional recourse was to order the officer in charge of the airworthiness certificate to issue it anyway. This was technically illegal, but the officer faced court martial if he/she didn’t obey
4) as a result of the Haddon-Cave report (on an earlier Nimrod crash, as it happened) the law had been changed. Now, the person ordering 3) would become legally responsible for any crash. Rather than the poor bloody airworthiness certificate issuing officer.
5) the Civil Servants and the RAF bigwigs thought it was jolly unfair that they would be legally liable for issuing orders to juniors.
6) so they tried to get Ministers to issue the order.
7) the Ministers took legal advice - and refused to illegally order that an aircraft of unknown safety was airworthy.
8) the project collapsed and the aircraft were scraped.
Nick Clegg's LDs led exactly 3 polls after the first debate in 2010, with Cameron's Tories second and Brown's Labour only third, Farage's Reform have now led or tied in 18 straight polls this year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Only a few hundred to go to meet Ed Miliband's streak of polls he led in.
https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/1922620631822008714
This man is a complete buffoon. And look at Reeves, they’re like children. And that’s insulting kids.
What does it say about British liberals that they venerated this dour, vacuous man?
- Leaving the ICC
- Stopping arms sales to Israel
but being both a member and selling arms to someone for whom the court has an arrest warrant out for war crimes seems inconsistent. Either the law/court is an ass or we should halt weapons sales until Israel has a new leader. Or both.They both wish Corbyn were PM.
Disregarding the court's grandstanding is the right thing to do.
We shouldn't have international courts, they were a mistake. The highest UK court should be the Supreme Court and it should be subservient to Parliament. The rule of law is different to the rule of lawyers.
Even the pensioner Nimbys are now voting Reform mainly.
Basically the safest Tory seats under Kemi are those which voted narrowly Leave, the strongest Leave seats are now Reform and the old Tory Remain seats largely LD and which are largely middle class, the white working class seats are now mainly Reform and which have a significant rural element, as farmers hate Labour after the farms tax.
(Some English Electric patents from the 1930s.)
Doesn't help with the British Library's manuscript problem, which is quite another thing.
NEW THREAD
If by "subservient to parliament" you mean ruling on legislation put in place by parliament, then that's precisely how it works. You're just railing against the courts because you can't face up to the fact that public opinion tends to be rather against the kind of death and destruction we see in Gaza, and our parliament legislates accordingly.
The arms in question (at least those of any significance) are parts for the F35, for which the UK is the second largest supplier after the US.
These go into a worldwide pool from which Israel is supplied (by the US).
Contractually, there's no way in which we can place restrictions on the use of those parts. We either continue to supply them, or leave the program.
Which would be somewhat awkward...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65788756
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/10/police-britain-private-security-firms-powers
https://www.ward-security.co.uk/news/private-policing/