The right and left blocs of voters are on 47/48% each. I expect tactical voting will feature within those blocs, rather than across the divide.
It think that attributes to 'right' and 'left' a consistency of meaning which has long flown away out of the window. I think political discussion would mean a lot more if the terms were never used at all.
Instead, I suggest, the starting point of all GB political parties (discount NI and independent Islamic MPs for now) is the post WWII social democrat consensus; red hot issues like nationalism (SNP, PC, Reform to some extent) are neither right nor left, and neither is migration (or BTW Brexit), and don't touch on core social democratic principles.
With the 'right' and 'left' thing, we are, so to speak, playing cricket and trying to understand and explain the match by reference to the laws of rugby union.
And I don't understand it either. The best guess I can muster is they thought the controversy helped grab attention and will ultimately, therefore, drive more interest and sales.
I'm not talking about le monstre rose because that's yet to be proven mismanagement. It might work and it'll all depend on the product.
I was referring to the 2008 - 2024 doom spiral that followed the Ford sale.
The Jaguar brand was strong and doing well over the 2015-2020 period. The XE/XF/XJ range of cars was good, as was the E-Pace.
However, it wasn't commercially strong enough and for some reason struggled to hold its own with BMW/Mercedes and Audi.
And are young and have £100k just burning a hole in their pocket....
There's no way it's going to cost 100 grand. JLR will have seen the massive success Rolls Royce have had with the EV Spectre at £300k+ and will want some of that.
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Why? Surely that can easily be turned round. We should train our own doctors and nurses rather than act like colonial powers asset-stripping developing countries of their healthcare workers. We should bring in low-skilled, low-paid workers to free up our own people for better jobs.
I'm not saying I advocate that position but it seems just as plausible as its opposite, especially if we agree to treat academic researchers as a special class.
Damn! Scooped by Stuartinromford who said it better and typed faster just one post earlier.
We have a lump of unskilled labour as well that currently doesn't work (not talking here about carers or the disabled). Part of the issue for a lot of them is that there are not the jobs in their area that they can get to. An example is there are vacancies in Cardiff but the unemployed in north wales can't get there.
Maybe what we should be looking at is a "Help to relocate" scheme
"Get on your bike"
You prefer stay where there are no jobs and spend a life on benefits to be the message?
The "Get on your bike" that Tebbit said also didn't offer assistance to make the relocation.
The Cardiff problem is easier to solve. There is massive unemployment in the valleys. There are also surprisingly plentiful trains from the valleys to Cardiff. But horizons in small depressed valleys towns are so narrow that Cardiff seems a world away. It's 'just' a case of persuading people in the valleys that a 40 minute commute to Cardiff is a reasonable thing to do.
also the cost of the ticket, between that and the taper on benefits they could quite easily find themselves worse off than for example the train fare from landudno to cardiff is £36.40 yes you might get it cheaper for a season ticket but they probably don't have the money to purchase one. In addition to commute time is 4 hours each way and the fare is off peak. Be more expensive if you need to be at work for 9
No, I'm not talking about North Wales - I'm saying that the South Wales problem could be addressed by persuading people in the (South Welsh) Valleys where there is significant unemployment that they could work in Cardiff. Because many don't: they see a short, relatively cheap train ride - 40 minutes or so - as too much of a barrier. This isn't just a persuade-people-to-change-their-attitude post; there are all sorts of practical things that can be done (like loans to cost of train fares until salary).
North Wales is a different and slightly tougher issue - less unemployment in North Wales but far fewer practical opportunities.
I did exactly this (granted 10ish years ago). The trains were awful, hourly for the Ebbw Vale line, ended up having to drive which is another nightmare around Cardiff.
Too many people live at the tops of the valleys where there used to be large employers that just don't exist anymore and probably never will again. If I had dictatorial powers I'd start to depopulate the tops of the valleys and move people to where the jobs are. The housing stock is awful and any attempt at regeneration largely falls to McDonald's and shopping outlets.
Ebbw Vale line is half-hourly now.
I'm not saying the Valleys are a great place to live (though they have their upsides). But for ex-mining villages they're unusual in the extent to which they're well-connected to a big city with plentiful jobs.
I wonder whether people in other countries are so rooted to a place as we are in this country? Once a (private) house exists in this country, in most cases it pretty much gets lived in forever, even if it's somewhere terrible (the obvious, though possibly apocryphal (is it actually lived in?) example being that house in the middle of the M62 between Rochdale and Huddersfield).
Indeed and the added benefit of the half-hourly service is that one now goes to Newport, which makes commuting to Bristol viable. Working from home and this has caused quite the increase in house prices in the more desirable parts (they do exist, I promise).
I struggle with people complaining they should have a job where they live, yes not everyone should have to move to London or a big city, but the jobs aren't coming to the family home. But sadly the desire to work at all then comes into play.
Funny thing is Clarkson used to like Jags, or at least review them favourably, until he dreamt up this Terry-Thomas cad or bounder saying Jaaaaaaaag.
I thought JLR missed an opportunity here by not leaning into it and starting a sub-brand just called "Jag" for smaller cars that weren't aimed at ancient fleg shaggers.
They weren't BMW or Mercedes so the brand wasn't strong enough to prosper when diluted across a wide range of not very good products built the cheapest way possible at the behest of their Indian paymasters.
Some MBA wanker might understand how the same management team simultaneously did so well with the Range Rover brand and so badly with the Jaguar brand because I don't.
I'm no @Roger on these matters, but I would have thought there's only so much you can do to influence public perception - once the public get a certain view of a product it can be hard to shift. I'd be interested to get our resident advertising bloke's view of it.
Incidentally, I saw one of the new Jaguars the other day (at Didsbury cricket club, so the normal habitat of the Jaaaag hasn't changed even if the shape of the car has). I instantly hated it. I wonder if I would have hated it so much had I not been conditioned to do so by that advert. In reality, it's only crimes were being a slightly odd shape and having an inane logo. It wasn't even pink.
You aren't the target market now though, they're aiming at people who don't want cars. It's a truly brilliant business strategy.
It's led by people who think EDI is the key to unlocking young, hip and rich global buyers.
It's a remarkably dumb way of thinking but a very hard one to challenge in the boardroom.
And are young and have £100k just burning a hole in their pocket....
There's no way it's going to cost 100 grand. JLR will have seen the massive success Rolls Royce have had with the EV Spectre at £300k+ and will want some of that.
31% though is all Farage and Reform need for a majority under FPTP unless heavy tactical voting against them
With four years to run, the chance of tactical voting becoming a major sport is fairly high. Most people want to vote for winners or at least a horse that will give them a run. Things can change, but at the moment the real GE contest in 2029 would be Reform v Lab/LD/One Nation/SNP alliance.
As I have told HY often, the vacancy is for a pro-European party on the right. Like the Tories were, once upon a time, when they were sitting comfortably. Until they realise this, which will likely take a long time, they are destined for life in the wilderness.
You mean like Ted Heath, who lost 3 out of 4 general elections he fought? Or like under Cameron who failed to win a majority in 2010 and had to govern with the LDs, only winning a majority in 2015 with a manifesto promise of a referendum to leave the EU?
If the Tories become a full rejoin the EU centre right party they may as well just merge with the LDs anyway under FPTP as about the only seats they might win on that platform are Kensington, Cities of London and Westminster and Chelsea and Fulham and at a push Putney, Battersea and Finchley. The Remain ex Tory seats that went LD at the last GE in the South would likely stay LD and almost all the Leave seats which the Tories now hold would go Reform
The obvious reason being that there probably won't be a General Election in the next 4 years!
Labour isn't calling an early election on current polling.
I say that in the header!
No one except me reads the headers.
I do.
Comment first, read headers later, of course
You should never take my comments literally.
Isn't that a paradox?
If I don't take that post literally, then I sometimes should take your posts literally. But if I sometimes take your post literally, then its not never ...
Once again, too many are trying to read too much into what is happening now and projecting forward to 2028 or 2029 and imagining the same will happen.
If the last decade has taught us anything, it's that nothing is certain.
We can see what is happening now - another strong night for Reform in local council by elections and a hint of what might happen next year in London from the result in Whetstone.
Back in 2022, the vote split in the London locals was Labour 42%, Conservative 26%, LDs 14.5%, Greens 11%. Those numbers seem from an alternate reality.
London is a series of complex, interconnected political battlegrounds and what happens in Inner London is different from Outer London and what happens in North, South, East and West London will all be different. Each party has its areas of stengths and weaknesses and Reform's impact may be akin to tossing a boulder into a duckpond.
Add in groups of pro-Palestine local Independents in East london and other Independents and you get a complete melange of possibilties.
It'll be fun...can Reform win control of a London Borough? How many Boroughs will Labour lose? How many Boroughs will the Conservatives lose? In how many Boroughs could the Greens become the official opposition? Can the LDs progress beyond their south west London heartland? Is there any point to this endless stream of questions? Is a life on the ocean wave better than going to sea? Why do I bother? Why are you still reading this?
It's certainly true that a lot can happen over the next 4-5 years. As you note, a lot has happened over the last six. Or ten. Or fifteen.
But isn't that the point? The assumption by some that Reform is a flash-in-the-pan because these mould-breaking parties tend not to perform when it matters was probably never true in the first place - we ascribe too much to inevitability in these cases and too little to chance - but even if it was true then, there's no reason to assume it still is now.
The basic inertial strength of Labour and the Tories has gone. Their rooting in communities no longer exists. The electorate is far more volatile in its choices. The nature of campaigning has changed. The nature of media and society has changed. The world around us has changed.
Reform is a party that undoubtedly is sitting on any number of problems, any or several of which could blow up at any time and sink their chances of making a major breakthrough. On the other hand, Farage has shown a cockroach-like ability to overcome such issues in the past. It's not as if UKIP or the Brexit Party were without local difficulties from time to time, and yet here Reform is, sitting on a ~30% share and a 5-10% lead.
So while Reform could implode in a series of scandals, resignations and recriminations, we probably underestimate the extend of the existential challenge to both the Tories (more obviously) and to Labour. Both face pincer-assaults on their traditional voter base. There is no guarantee that either will see them off with leaderships (and potential leaderships) who either don't get the extent of the problem, or do but are incapable of forming and delivering on an effective strategy to counter it.
I think a PM Farage is an entirely plausible scenario and his current odds as Next PM are about right.
Douglas Carswell wrote an article in The Telegraph, I think, in 2014 about the old two parties losing their domination of UK politics. I can't find it now, but it was similar in the thrust of it's point to your post.
Well, he was right. Things have teetered since and the Big Two have just about mostly kept hold of the controls but simply the nature of what was allowed into mainstream debate shows the extent to which others have muscled in.
If Labour and the Tories (and Lib Dems) had retained their dominance, there would never have been referendums on Scottish independence or Brexit in the first place, never mind losing one of them. The election of Corbyn, the splits within Labour, the return of Reform, the near-4m UKIP votes in 2015, the devastating Tory result in 2024 (and Labour in 2019, and LD in 2015, and SLab that year too): all are signs of the breakdown.
You're fantasising for a political consensus and landscape that no longer exists.
And you've got it the wrong way round: they lost votes and dominance because of their failure to respond to it.
Once again, too many are trying to read too much into what is happening now and projecting forward to 2028 or 2029 and imagining the same will happen.
If the last decade has taught us anything, it's that nothing is certain.
We can see what is happening now - another strong night for Reform in local council by elections and a hint of what might happen next year in London from the result in Whetstone.
Back in 2022, the vote split in the London locals was Labour 42%, Conservative 26%, LDs 14.5%, Greens 11%. Those numbers seem from an alternate reality.
London is a series of complex, interconnected political battlegrounds and what happens in Inner London is different from Outer London and what happens in North, South, East and West London will all be different. Each party has its areas of stengths and weaknesses and Reform's impact may be akin to tossing a boulder into a duckpond.
Add in groups of pro-Palestine local Independents in East london and other Independents and you get a complete melange of possibilties.
It'll be fun...can Reform win control of a London Borough? How many Boroughs will Labour lose? How many Boroughs will the Conservatives lose? In how many Boroughs could the Greens become the official opposition? Can the LDs progress beyond their south west London heartland? Is there any point to this endless stream of questions? Is a life on the ocean wave better than going to sea? Why do I bother? Why are you still reading this?
It's certainly true that a lot can happen over the next 4-5 years. As you note, a lot has happened over the last six. Or ten. Or fifteen.
But isn't that the point? The assumption by some that Reform is a flash-in-the-pan because these mould-breaking parties tend not to perform when it matters was probably never true in the first place - we ascribe too much to inevitability in these cases and too little to chance - but even if it was true then, there's no reason to assume it still is now.
The basic inertial strength of Labour and the Tories has gone. Their rooting in communities no longer exists. The electorate is far more volatile in its choices. The nature of campaigning has changed. The nature of media and society has changed. The world around us has changed.
Reform is a party that undoubtedly is sitting on any number of problems, any or several of which could blow up at any time and sink their chances of making a major breakthrough. On the other hand, Farage has shown a cockroach-like ability to overcome such issues in the past. It's not as if UKIP or the Brexit Party were without local difficulties from time to time, and yet here Reform is, sitting on a ~30% share and a 5-10% lead.
So while Reform could implode in a series of scandals, resignations and recriminations, we probably underestimate the extend of the existential challenge to both the Tories (more obviously) and to Labour. Both face pincer-assaults on their traditional voter base. There is no guarantee that either will see them off with leaderships (and potential leaderships) who either don't get the extent of the problem, or do but are incapable of forming and delivering on an effective strategy to counter it.
I think a PM Farage is an entirely plausible scenario and his current odds as Next PM are about right.
A thoughtful response as always, David. for which many thanks.
I begin to suspect electoral volatility has been building for a while - it may have been accelerated and accentuated by more recent events but if you look at, for example, the emergence of what we once called "the Red Wall", Conservative vote shares in dozen of northern and midlands began rising in 2001 and rose inexorably until the dam broke in 2019 and the seats went Conservative.
That electoral switch was, I believe, the consequence of the right to buy initiative of the Thatcher Government which created a generation of home owners, the sons and daughters of those who had originally purchased their council houses. The new home owners of the 2000s were Conservative (now Reform I imagine).
As you also say, traditional methods of political campaigning have changed - I was an old fashioned pavement pounding Liberal and then LD activist - I produced leaflets first with a lithograph and then with a friendly printer. It was all typeset - I knocked on doors, it was old school politics.
Now, it's very different.
Reform has become the conduit for and you can call it anger, frustration or whatever over both single issues and a general malaise and discontent about how "it's all going". Whether you consider it leaderless, directionless or hopeless is up to you but the real discontent is we are not progressing (we are) and the world we are leaving our children is worse than the world we ourselves inherited (it isn't on a number of measures).
Reform are a tabula rasa - they are whatever you want them to be. They will disappoint - political parties always do when they try to be all things to all people. At the moment, they attract those who don't like or understand what has happened to their communities and to their country and yes, let's not call a spade a garden implement, those who are worried (or appalled) by people with different cultures, languages and ways of dressing moving into their areas and changing them quickly.
We alreasdy know from listening to the Farage interview about Wales, he loves banging on about "woke" but he's as much up the Magic Money Tree as everyone else and his brand of populist tax and spend will run out of road just as everyone else's has (possibly quicker).
Suspect the bit in bold is the heart of the matter. We got accustomed to easy improvements in life just happening, and they have stopped. And at least some of them were going to stop- we rode the favourable demographics and North Sea hydrocarbons as if they would last forever, and they couldn't. We built on that by booking one-off privatisation receipts as income not windfalls, and are now surprised that the new, capitalist owners want to maximise their profits on the things they gave us money for.
The way out of our problems has to include some acknowledgement that the electorate has made a booboo or two over the last few decades. But there's no electoral advantage in being the one to say that.
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Yes but the polling wasn't about that, it was about wanting zero or negative migration.
To achieve that we need to restrict far more than low skilled migration, and in any case those restrictions are already now in place.
People aren't really interested in the net migration figures. As the rise of Powell on the right demonstrated, fifty years ago.
We can't let one speech, made 57 years ago, prevent us having the debate we need to have today about immigration.
Who the f*** is not having the debate? Debating immigration is 63% of PB discussion.
Your idea of debating immigration is to try and show that no debate need be had.
No it simply means that a debate has two sides, and one side is willing to discuss the downsides of slashing immigration and the knock on effects while the other is not.
Race relations weren't noticeably better in the decades up to 1992, the last year of net emigration.
No, we aren't. There will be no such thing as "and F35 with two engines".
Trump: F-35, we're doing an upgrade, a simple upgrade, but we're also doing an F-55. I'm going to call it an F-55, and that's going to be a substantial upgrade, but it's going to be also with two engines because the F 35 has a single engine. I don't like single engines. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1922919999406223595
Or is it just that's he's already forgotten he had the F47 named after him, and thinks that's an F35 upgrade (it isn't) ?
It's incoherent babble.
If Biden had said this, the usual suspects would have been all over it...
It's coherent babble. It's Trump designing aeroplanes in his mind like an 8 year-old boy, adding more engines because that 'makes it better'.
If you want the root of this thinking, I'd guess that Trump is reverting to type as a property developer. He just wants things to look nice without bothering too much whether it works underneath. Partly that's for his own reflection; partly so it's that he can palm it off onto gullible customers (or voters).
This is at the same time they're talking about cancelling the new navy aircraft program, to save money.
A "two engine F35" would be an entirely new plane, costing as much as the F47, quite probably.
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Here's the problem - because the narrative has been as uncontrolled as the numbers for the last few years, a great deal of voters think the target migration number must be negative. You can't satisfy people who have a genuine concern but have been gaslit into demanding an ungenuine outcome.
And the issue isn't the NHS and skilled jobs - even though that is a genuine issue. I think people get that it takes time to train even if they don't understand how long or why.
The real issue is unskilled where despite that word the migrants fill a genuine gap in the labour market. If British people wanted / could afford those jobs they would have taken them...
I don't think the number should be net negative, I think it can be in the hundreds of thousands so long as we build even more hundreds of thousands of housing and associated infrastructure.
But net negative migration is not ungenuine or gaslit. It's what happened for most of the late 20th century during which time we had productivity growth and rising wages.
Half our population still does not go to University. We have no shortage of people to fill unskilled roles. If an employer can't find someone to work for them, they can improve productivity, pay and conditions.
The catch is that productivity improvements are lumpy- some jobs can become ten or a hundred times more productive, others will struggle to eke out a few percent.
Number wrangling in finance is way more productive than before computing, for example. But maths teaching is still a teacher with 1-3 dozen pupils. Almost certainly more productive than in the days of blackboards, but not transformatively so.
(Actually, it's worse than that. The cost of highly numerate people has gone up, because of the gravitational effect of the City and tech firms. So in terms of maths education per pound spent, productivity probably ends up going down. You could argue that the true hourly cost of a maths teacher is what they can make doing private tuition- that's 2-3 times what schools pay.)
So we end up at a bit of an impasse. Jobs that we want done, but really don't like the idea of paying for. We could raise public sector pay (because it mostly is a public sector issue) but that would mean more tax, and we don't want that.
To take to extremes the fallacy that some are making that it's good to have a class of people in the country doing unskilled jobs, we could save money on maths teachers altogether by eliminating our provision of them to some people.
Have a class of people who are going to do unskilled jobs. No need for education for them. And minimum wage can be slashed for them. Think how much cheaper staffing your nursing home could be then? Trebles all round.
One third of the adult working age population haven't even got a C grade in English and Maths or their current grade equivalent so not everyone can do skilled work certainly at a higher level
I don't often agree with you, so to give you credit that's a very good point, well made!
A third of school leavers fail to get a grade 4 (a pass today) in Maths and English.
Yet we need to import unskilled people? I don't think so!
We have two major issues. The first is we don’t have enough people able or willing to carry out unskilled jobs, or those requiring non-academic skills. We have put too much emphasis on people getting a degree or needing a degree, any degree, to get a worthwhile job, to be a benefit to society. The second is the need to import people to carry out the unskilled jobs, without the infrastructure to support them. If we were to make non-academic jobs valued and fashionable again, which would also require rebalancing salary structures away from white collar jobs in favour of blue collar jobs we would help solve both issues.
We absolutely do have enough people able or willing to carry out unskilled jobs. We have tens of millions of people able or willing to do that today already.
What we don't have is an infinite supply of people willing to do so for minimum wage. So compete for the people who are available by offering better pay or conditions.
We could increase our supply of people willing to work for minimum wage, or especially the amount of hours they're willing to work, by enabling people to keep what they earn rather than having an effective 80%+ tax rate.
The lowest earners already pay no income tax on the first £12,570 they earn and no NI on the first £12,584 they earn. The minimum wage is higher than it has ever been and already so high some employers are not hiring as they cannot afford to pay it.
Sanctions and loss of benefits if you don't apply for and take jobs should be applied rigorously as they can be under UC
Funny thing is Clarkson used to like Jags, or at least review them favourably, until he dreamt up this Terry-Thomas cad or bounder saying Jaaaaaaaag.
I thought JLR missed an opportunity here by not leaning into it and starting a sub-brand just called "Jag" for smaller cars that weren't aimed at ancient fleg shaggers.
They weren't BMW or Mercedes so the brand wasn't strong enough to prosper when diluted across a wide range of not very good products built the cheapest way possible at the behest of their Indian paymasters.
Some MBA wanker might understand how the same management team simultaneously did so well with the Range Rover brand and so badly with the Jaguar brand because I don't.
I'm no @Roger on these matters, but I would have thought there's only so much you can do to influence public perception - once the public get a certain view of a product it can be hard to shift. I'd be interested to get our resident advertising bloke's view of it.
Incidentally, I saw one of the new Jaguars the other day (at Didsbury cricket club, so the normal habitat of the Jaaaag hasn't changed even if the shape of the car has). I instantly hated it. I wonder if I would have hated it so much had I not been conditioned to do so by that advert. In reality, it's only crimes were being a slightly odd shape and having an inane logo. It wasn't even pink.
You aren't the target market now though, they're aiming at people who don't want cars. It's a truly brilliant business strategy.
It's led by people who think EDI is the key to unlocking young, hip and rich global buyers.
It's a remarkably dumb way of thinking but a very hard one to challenge in the boardroom.
This is the all-time best car advert (needs sound on for full effect).
Don't expect to see it on TV any time soon though.
The trailer for Adam Curtis's new series "Shifty" is up on YouTube. Will it be a fitting capstone to an epic career? Or will he go full Ridley Scott and fuck it up in this new era of YouTube hot takes and AI? You'll find out in June!
Now Starmer has tacked right slightly, that's about the extent of the "ex Tory vote Labour to keep Reform out" potential vote out there. Moribund, probably vastly overrepresented on pb.
Once again, too many are trying to read too much into what is happening now and projecting forward to 2028 or 2029 and imagining the same will happen.
If the last decade has taught us anything, it's that nothing is certain.
We can see what is happening now - another strong night for Reform in local council by elections and a hint of what might happen next year in London from the result in Whetstone.
Back in 2022, the vote split in the London locals was Labour 42%, Conservative 26%, LDs 14.5%, Greens 11%. Those numbers seem from an alternate reality.
London is a series of complex, interconnected political battlegrounds and what happens in Inner London is different from Outer London and what happens in North, South, East and West London will all be different. Each party has its areas of stengths and weaknesses and Reform's impact may be akin to tossing a boulder into a duckpond.
Add in groups of pro-Palestine local Independents in East london and other Independents and you get a complete melange of possibilties.
It'll be fun...can Reform win control of a London Borough? How many Boroughs will Labour lose? How many Boroughs will the Conservatives lose? In how many Boroughs could the Greens become the official opposition? Can the LDs progress beyond their south west London heartland? Is there any point to this endless stream of questions? Is a life on the ocean wave better than going to sea? Why do I bother? Why are you still reading this?
It's certainly true that a lot can happen over the next 4-5 years. As you note, a lot has happened over the last six. Or ten. Or fifteen.
But isn't that the point? The assumption by some that Reform is a flash-in-the-pan because these mould-breaking parties tend not to perform when it matters was probably never true in the first place - we ascribe too much to inevitability in these cases and too little to chance - but even if it was true then, there's no reason to assume it still is now.
The basic inertial strength of Labour and the Tories has gone. Their rooting in communities no longer exists. The electorate is far more volatile in its choices. The nature of campaigning has changed. The nature of media and society has changed. The world around us has changed.
Reform is a party that undoubtedly is sitting on any number of problems, any or several of which could blow up at any time and sink their chances of making a major breakthrough. On the other hand, Farage has shown a cockroach-like ability to overcome such issues in the past. It's not as if UKIP or the Brexit Party were without local difficulties from time to time, and yet here Reform is, sitting on a ~30% share and a 5-10% lead.
So while Reform could implode in a series of scandals, resignations and recriminations, we probably underestimate the extend of the existential challenge to both the Tories (more obviously) and to Labour. Both face pincer-assaults on their traditional voter base. There is no guarantee that either will see them off with leaderships (and potential leaderships) who either don't get the extent of the problem, or do but are incapable of forming and delivering on an effective strategy to counter it.
I think a PM Farage is an entirely plausible scenario and his current odds as Next PM are about right.
Douglas Carswell wrote an article in The Telegraph, I think, in 2014 about the old two parties losing their domination of UK politics. I can't find it now, but it was similar in the thrust of it's point to your post.
Well, he was right. Things have teetered since and the Big Two have just about mostly kept hold of the controls but simply the nature of what was allowed into mainstream debate shows the extent to which others have muscled in.
If Labour and the Tories (and Lib Dems) had retained their dominance, there would never have been referendums on Scottish independence or Brexit in the first place, never mind losing one of them. The election of Corbyn, the splits within Labour, the return of Reform, the near-4m UKIP votes in 2015, the devastating Tory result in 2024 (and Labour in 2019, and LD in 2015, and SLab that year too): all are signs of the breakdown.
You're fantasising for a political consensus and landscape that no longer exists.
And you've got it the wrong way round: they lost votes and dominance because of their failure to respond to it.
I think David is agreeing with you/Carswell isn't he?
And are young and have £100k just burning a hole in their pocket....
There's no way it's going to cost 100 grand. JLR will have seen the massive success Rolls Royce have had with the EV Spectre at £300k+ and will want some of that.
Bargain....
I reckon it'll be 200-250. Slotting in above Granturismo Folgore and below Spectre. Unless the development goes horribly wrong then it'll be 250-300. Taycan Turbo GT is 190 and they need to avoid direct comparisons with that.
Now Starmer has tacked right slightly, that's about the extent of the "ex Tory vote Labour to keep Reform out" potential vote out there. Moribund, probably vastly overrepresented on pb.
It was said of Boris, and it seems to be true of Starmer too, that he was in permanent campaign mode. It seems crazy for Sir Keir to be alienating those who voted for him by pandering to people who never will to curry favour for the next election. He is in the fortunate position if having such a huge majority that he can do what he wants to shape the country in the way he likes for the next four years or so. Imagine having that power and wasting it
Funny thing is Clarkson used to like Jags, or at least review them favourably, until he dreamt up this Terry-Thomas cad or bounder saying Jaaaaaaaag.
I thought JLR missed an opportunity here by not leaning into it and starting a sub-brand just called "Jag" for smaller cars that weren't aimed at ancient fleg shaggers.
They weren't BMW or Mercedes so the brand wasn't strong enough to prosper when diluted across a wide range of not very good products built the cheapest way possible at the behest of their Indian paymasters.
Some MBA wanker might understand how the same management team simultaneously did so well with the Range Rover brand and so badly with the Jaguar brand because I don't.
I'm no @Roger on these matters, but I would have thought there's only so much you can do to influence public perception - once the public get a certain view of a product it can be hard to shift. I'd be interested to get our resident advertising bloke's view of it.
Incidentally, I saw one of the new Jaguars the other day (at Didsbury cricket club, so the normal habitat of the Jaaaag hasn't changed even if the shape of the car has). I instantly hated it. I wonder if I would have hated it so much had I not been conditioned to do so by that advert. In reality, it's only crimes were being a slightly odd shape and having an inane logo. It wasn't even pink.
You aren't the target market now though, they're aiming at people who don't want cars. It's a truly brilliant business strategy.
It's led by people who think EDI is the key to unlocking young, hip and rich global buyers.
It's a remarkably dumb way of thinking but a very hard one to challenge in the boardroom.
This is the all-time best car advert (needs sound on for full effect).
Don't expect to see it on TV any time soon though.
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Yes but the polling wasn't about that, it was about wanting zero or negative migration.
To achieve that we need to restrict far more than low skilled migration, and in any case those restrictions are already now in place.
People aren't really interested in the net migration figures. As the rise of Powell on the right demonstrated, fifty years ago.
We can't let one speech, made 57 years ago, prevent us having the debate we need to have today about immigration.
Who the f*** is not having the debate? Debating immigration is 63% of PB discussion.
Your idea of debating immigration is to try and show that no debate need be had.
No it simply means that a debate has two sides, and one side is willing to discuss the downsides of slashing immigration and the knock on effects while the other is not.
Race relations weren't noticeably better in the decades up to 1992, the last year of net emigration.
I wasn't talking to you
Perhaps best not to use an open forum then.
It was a specific post to a specific poster. Not an invitation for you to comment on his behalf.
Perhaps you should do some work?
You've been on here consistently since 6.38am this morning, and I'd hate for your patients not to benefit from your wisdom.
If Blair was the heir to Thatcher, and Cameron the heir to Blair, and
Brown -> May
Johnson -> Truss (Sorry Boris)
Which recent PM is Starmer most like ?
Think I'd have to go with May. Detail oriented, tries hard, talks tough. Hopeless.
The charisma of May or Brown for sure
He has a way of smiling/laughing when he's making a point he thinks is winning an argument that is very reminiscent of Enoch Powell actually. I don't like him doing it
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Yes but the polling wasn't about that, it was about wanting zero or negative migration.
To achieve that we need to restrict far more than low skilled migration, and in any case those restrictions are already now in place.
People aren't really interested in the net migration figures. As the rise of Powell on the right demonstrated, fifty years ago.
We can't let one speech, made 57 years ago, prevent us having the debate we need to have today about immigration.
Who the f*** is not having the debate? Debating immigration is 63% of PB discussion.
Your idea of debating immigration is to try and show that no debate need be had.
So, when you say you want a debate on immigration, what you mean is you don't want a debate on immigration, you just want everyone to agree with your view.
I'm out here debating immigration, putting forth a position with evidence. You may or may not be persuaded by what I say, you may come to a different conclusion, but I am definitely engaging in a debate.
Funny thing is Clarkson used to like Jags, or at least review them favourably, until he dreamt up this Terry-Thomas cad or bounder saying Jaaaaaaaag.
I thought JLR missed an opportunity here by not leaning into it and starting a sub-brand just called "Jag" for smaller cars that weren't aimed at ancient fleg shaggers.
They weren't BMW or Mercedes so the brand wasn't strong enough to prosper when diluted across a wide range of not very good products built the cheapest way possible at the behest of their Indian paymasters.
Some MBA wanker might understand how the same management team simultaneously did so well with the Range Rover brand and so badly with the Jaguar brand because I don't.
I'm no @Roger on these matters, but I would have thought there's only so much you can do to influence public perception - once the public get a certain view of a product it can be hard to shift. I'd be interested to get our resident advertising bloke's view of it.
Incidentally, I saw one of the new Jaguars the other day (at Didsbury cricket club, so the normal habitat of the Jaaaag hasn't changed even if the shape of the car has). I instantly hated it. I wonder if I would have hated it so much had I not been conditioned to do so by that advert. In reality, it's only crimes were being a slightly odd shape and having an inane logo. It wasn't even pink.
You aren't the target market now though, they're aiming at people who don't want cars. It's a truly brilliant business strategy.
It's led by people who think EDI is the key to unlocking young, hip and rich global buyers.
It's a remarkably dumb way of thinking but a very hard one to challenge in the boardroom.
This is the all-time best car advert (needs sound on for full effect).
Don't expect to see it on TV any time soon though.
There was a car advert in the 90s, I think - advertised its product as having 'wheels - which go round! and a brake - so you can stop!' and so on. Didn't last long but it was the only car advert I ever liked and made me feel more favourably about its product. Clearly not that successful though because I can't remember which maker of cars it was for. Anyone remember it?
Funny thing is Clarkson used to like Jags, or at least review them favourably, until he dreamt up this Terry-Thomas cad or bounder saying Jaaaaaaaag.
I thought JLR missed an opportunity here by not leaning into it and starting a sub-brand just called "Jag" for smaller cars that weren't aimed at ancient fleg shaggers.
They weren't BMW or Mercedes so the brand wasn't strong enough to prosper when diluted across a wide range of not very good products built the cheapest way possible at the behest of their Indian paymasters.
Some MBA wanker might understand how the same management team simultaneously did so well with the Range Rover brand and so badly with the Jaguar brand because I don't.
I'm no @Roger on these matters, but I would have thought there's only so much you can do to influence public perception - once the public get a certain view of a product it can be hard to shift. I'd be interested to get our resident advertising bloke's view of it.
Incidentally, I saw one of the new Jaguars the other day (at Didsbury cricket club, so the normal habitat of the Jaaaag hasn't changed even if the shape of the car has). I instantly hated it. I wonder if I would have hated it so much had I not been conditioned to do so by that advert. In reality, it's only crimes were being a slightly odd shape and having an inane logo. It wasn't even pink.
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Yes but the polling wasn't about that, it was about wanting zero or negative migration.
To achieve that we need to restrict far more than low skilled migration, and in any case those restrictions are already now in place.
People aren't really interested in the net migration figures. As the rise of Powell on the right demonstrated, fifty years ago.
We can't let one speech, made 57 years ago, prevent us having the debate we need to have today about immigration.
Who the f*** is not having the debate? Debating immigration is 63% of PB discussion.
Your idea of debating immigration is to try and show that no debate need be had.
So, when you say you want a debate on immigration, what you mean is you don't want a debate on immigration, you just want everyone to agree with your view.
I'm out here debating immigration, putting forth a position with evidence. You may or may not be persuaded by what I say, you may come to a different conclusion, but I am definitely engaging in a debate.
You don't debate it though. You say there's no debate to have as there's no issue with it or that people love it, and then you scratch around trying to find things that back it up. Highly selectively.
That's not a debate. A debate would demonstrate some curiosity from you, a discussion of the problem, not relentless obstinacy, and your suggested solutions.
Yougov also found Mel Stride has a net rating of -13% and Chris Philip -14% compared to -39% for Badenoch.
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
Yougov also found Mel Stride has a net rating of -13% and Chris Philip -14% compared to -39% for Badenoch.
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
Once again, too many are trying to read too much into what is happening now and projecting forward to 2028 or 2029 and imagining the same will happen.
If the last decade has taught us anything, it's that nothing is certain.
We can see what is happening now - another strong night for Reform in local council by elections and a hint of what might happen next year in London from the result in Whetstone.
Back in 2022, the vote split in the London locals was Labour 42%, Conservative 26%, LDs 14.5%, Greens 11%. Those numbers seem from an alternate reality.
London is a series of complex, interconnected political battlegrounds and what happens in Inner London is different from Outer London and what happens in North, South, East and West London will all be different. Each party has its areas of stengths and weaknesses and Reform's impact may be akin to tossing a boulder into a duckpond.
Add in groups of pro-Palestine local Independents in East london and other Independents and you get a complete melange of possibilties.
It'll be fun...can Reform win control of a London Borough? How many Boroughs will Labour lose? How many Boroughs will the Conservatives lose? In how many Boroughs could the Greens become the official opposition? Can the LDs progress beyond their south west London heartland? Is there any point to this endless stream of questions? Is a life on the ocean wave better than going to sea? Why do I bother? Why are you still reading this?
Reform could win somewhere like Havering or Bexley, maybe Bromley, I would imagine. Non-posh white bits of outer London should be fertile territory for them.
Bromley is where Farage lives, in a one horse town.
Funny thing is Clarkson used to like Jags, or at least review them favourably, until he dreamt up this Terry-Thomas cad or bounder saying Jaaaaaaaag.
I thought JLR missed an opportunity here by not leaning into it and starting a sub-brand just called "Jag" for smaller cars that weren't aimed at ancient fleg shaggers.
They weren't BMW or Mercedes so the brand wasn't strong enough to prosper when diluted across a wide range of not very good products built the cheapest way possible at the behest of their Indian paymasters.
Some MBA wanker might understand how the same management team simultaneously did so well with the Range Rover brand and so badly with the Jaguar brand because I don't.
I'm no @Roger on these matters, but I would have thought there's only so much you can do to influence public perception - once the public get a certain view of a product it can be hard to shift. I'd be interested to get our resident advertising bloke's view of it.
Incidentally, I saw one of the new Jaguars the other day (at Didsbury cricket club, so the normal habitat of the Jaaaag hasn't changed even if the shape of the car has). I instantly hated it. I wonder if I would have hated it so much had I not been conditioned to do so by that advert. In reality, it's only crimes were being a slightly odd shape and having an inane logo. It wasn't even pink.
It will be a pity if, like Musk's Cybertruck, the politics overshadow its quality. Because it looks bloody fantastic.
Are you trying to trigger me? Why have these idiots filmed shots of cars - particularly long cars, at that - in fucking portrait? There is almost no shot which can fit the whole car in. I don't know about the creators of these shorts, but like most people, I live most of my life in landscape. I move largely in a horizontal plane. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Most pictures, and almost all video, should be in landscape rather than portrait. (Rocket launches and diving work in landscape, I suppose, but little else). Why people persist in using portrait for everything escapes me. I mean honestly - I've been at scenic lookouts and seen people taking photos of the LANDSCAPE in portrait. The clue is in the name.
(Aside from that, I still think the car looks ridiculous and impractical).
Yougov also found Mel Stride has a net rating of -13% and Chris Philip -14% compared to -39% for Badenoch.
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
I'm not sure of the surprise - the Daily Express is the upmarket version of Daily Telegraph these days !
Having said that, the Daily T podcast did an interview with Rupert Lowe yesterday.
He comes across to me as a curate's egg; reasonably impressive when talking about his behaviour and his case (he made Camilla Tominey withdraw one statement on the spot), but somewhat off the wall when it comes to his political positioning.
None of these neo-Thatcherites bear much similarity to Thatcher's nuances, to me.
Actually it really simple. Reach (aka the Mirror) own the Express and they own basically every local newspaper. They cross pollinate all the content across their whole network as a cheap way to fill up pages. So rather than the local rag doing the sport and tv review etc, they have a very small staff who are send to do something local like a by-election and the Mirror / Express don't necessary send anybody, they just copy and paste the local reporters work and vice versa the tv review is just copy / paste job from the national.
I'm not sure of the surprise - the Daily Express is the upmarket version of Daily Telegraph these days !
Having said that, the Daily T podcast did an interview with Rupert Lowe yesterday.
He comes across to me as a curate's egg; reasonably impressive when talking about his behaviour and his case (he made Camilla Tominey withdraw one statement on the spot), but somewhat off the wall when it comes to his political positioning.
None of these neo-Thatcherites bear much similarity to Thatcher's nuances, to me.
I'm not sure of the surprise - the Daily Express is the upmarket version of Daily Telegraph these days !
Having said that, the Daily T podcast did an interview with Rupert Lowe yesterday.
He comes across to me as a curate's egg; reasonably impressive when talking about his behaviour and his case (he made Camilla Tominey withdraw one statement on the spot), but somewhat off the wall when it comes to his political positioning.
None of these neo-Thatcherites bear much similarity to Thatcher's nuances, to me.
So they are the bastards who make all local news sites almost totally unreadable online?
I presume that was supposed to be in response to me. The answer is yes. AFAIK it is not really working out very well for them and so they cut back even further on local reporting and increased the spam ads.
Just had a moment of self-reflection - I'm being uncharacteristically (I hope!) sweary and combative this morning. Sorry. I'll try to dial it down. I'm actually in a remarkably good mood. It's Friday and the sun is shining and all the unpleasant bits of work that were hanging over me have been addressed and I'm off out shortly to play padel and then it's the weekend.
Just had a moment of self-reflection - I'm being uncharacteristically (I hope!) sweary and combative this morning. Sorry. I'll try to dial it down. I'm actually in a remarkably good mood. It's Friday and the sun is shining and all the unpleasant bits of work that were hanging over me have been addressed and I'm off out shortly to play padel and then it's the weekend.
Once again, too many are trying to read too much into what is happening now and projecting forward to 2028 or 2029 and imagining the same will happen.
If the last decade has taught us anything, it's that nothing is certain.
We can see what is happening now - another strong night for Reform in local council by elections and a hint of what might happen next year in London from the result in Whetstone.
Back in 2022, the vote split in the London locals was Labour 42%, Conservative 26%, LDs 14.5%, Greens 11%. Those numbers seem from an alternate reality.
London is a series of complex, interconnected political battlegrounds and what happens in Inner London is different from Outer London and what happens in North, South, East and West London will all be different. Each party has its areas of stengths and weaknesses and Reform's impact may be akin to tossing a boulder into a duckpond.
Add in groups of pro-Palestine local Independents in East london and other Independents and you get a complete melange of possibilties.
It'll be fun...can Reform win control of a London Borough? How many Boroughs will Labour lose? How many Boroughs will the Conservatives lose? In how many Boroughs could the Greens become the official opposition? Can the LDs progress beyond their south west London heartland? Is there any point to this endless stream of questions? Is a life on the ocean wave better than going to sea? Why do I bother? Why are you still reading this?
Reform could win somewhere like Havering or Bexley, maybe Bromley, I would imagine. Non-posh white bits of outer London should be fertile territory for them.
Bromley is where Farage lives, in a one horse town.
Yes but Bromley is a bit posh. I'd imagine Bexley would be easier for them.
Funny thing is Clarkson used to like Jags, or at least review them favourably, until he dreamt up this Terry-Thomas cad or bounder saying Jaaaaaaaag.
I thought JLR missed an opportunity here by not leaning into it and starting a sub-brand just called "Jag" for smaller cars that weren't aimed at ancient fleg shaggers.
They weren't BMW or Mercedes so the brand wasn't strong enough to prosper when diluted across a wide range of not very good products built the cheapest way possible at the behest of their Indian paymasters.
Some MBA wanker might understand how the same management team simultaneously did so well with the Range Rover brand and so badly with the Jaguar brand because I don't.
I'm no @Roger on these matters, but I would have thought there's only so much you can do to influence public perception - once the public get a certain view of a product it can be hard to shift. I'd be interested to get our resident advertising bloke's view of it.
Incidentally, I saw one of the new Jaguars the other day (at Didsbury cricket club, so the normal habitat of the Jaaaag hasn't changed even if the shape of the car has). I instantly hated it. I wonder if I would have hated it so much had I not been conditioned to do so by that advert. In reality, it's only crimes were being a slightly odd shape and having an inane logo. It wasn't even pink.
Once again, too many are trying to read too much into what is happening now and projecting forward to 2028 or 2029 and imagining the same will happen.
If the last decade has taught us anything, it's that nothing is certain.
We can see what is happening now - another strong night for Reform in local council by elections and a hint of what might happen next year in London from the result in Whetstone.
Back in 2022, the vote split in the London locals was Labour 42%, Conservative 26%, LDs 14.5%, Greens 11%. Those numbers seem from an alternate reality.
London is a series of complex, interconnected political battlegrounds and what happens in Inner London is different from Outer London and what happens in North, South, East and West London will all be different. Each party has its areas of stengths and weaknesses and Reform's impact may be akin to tossing a boulder into a duckpond.
Add in groups of pro-Palestine local Independents in East london and other Independents and you get a complete melange of possibilties.
It'll be fun...can Reform win control of a London Borough? How many Boroughs will Labour lose? How many Boroughs will the Conservatives lose? In how many Boroughs could the Greens become the official opposition? Can the LDs progress beyond their south west London heartland? Is there any point to this endless stream of questions? Is a life on the ocean wave better than going to sea? Why do I bother? Why are you still reading this?
Reform could win somewhere like Havering or Bexley, maybe Bromley, I would imagine. Non-posh white bits of outer London should be fertile territory for them.
Bromley is where Farage lives, in a one horse town.
Yes but Bromley is a bit posh. I'd imagine Bexley would be easier for them.
Yes, Bexley voted Leave, Bromley Remain.
Havering and Barking and Dagenham, even Hillingdon easier Reform targets than Bromley of the London boroughs
Yougov also found Mel Stride has a net rating of -13% and Chris Philip -14% compared to -39% for Badenoch.
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
If Blair was the heir to Thatcher, and Cameron the heir to Blair, and
Brown -> May
Johnson -> Truss (Sorry Boris)
Which recent PM is Starmer most like ?
Think I'd have to go with May. Detail oriented, tries hard, talks tough. Hopeless.
May or Heath, he isn't as intelligent as Brown was though as dour and charisma free as all those 3
I can see Heath in terms of his slightly robotic personality but Heath had a liberal modernising agenda that he stuck to at the expense of political expediency. He'd be contemptuous of Starmer's pivot towards attracting Reform voters. Of course Heath was a disaster as PM because of his unwillingness to play politics so maybe Starmer will have the last laugh. Politically Starmer reminds me of Harold Wilson (who I believe he admires) who always put party advantage over a political principle. If you want to go further back then descriptions of Robert Perl's personality sounds a lot like Starmer.
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Yes but the polling wasn't about that, it was about wanting zero or negative migration.
To achieve that we need to restrict far more than low skilled migration, and in any case those restrictions are already now in place.
People aren't really interested in the net migration figures. As the rise of Powell on the right demonstrated, fifty years ago.
We can't let one speech, made 57 years ago, prevent us having the debate we need to have today about immigration.
Who the f*** is not having the debate? Debating immigration is 63% of PB discussion.
Your idea of debating immigration is to try and show that no debate need be had.
No it simply means that a debate has two sides, and one side is willing to discuss the downsides of slashing immigration and the knock on effects while the other is not.
Race relations weren't noticeably better in the decades up to 1992, the last year of net emigration.
I wasn't talking to you
Perhaps best not to use an open forum then.
It was a specific post to a specific poster. Not an invitation for you to comment on his behalf.
Perhaps you should do some work?
You've been on here consistently since 6.38am this morning, and I'd hate for your patients not to benefit from your wisdom.
Wouldn't use those words, mind. As ever. Detail. Who will fund this? Who will deliver? Who will pay?
Has anyone any idea what parents are for?
Demanding that teachers do their job for them ?
It’s an interesting issue. About a decade ago, my wife was involved in a charity thing, where professionals went into schools to talk about opportunities and the world of work.
One thing she noticed, talking to underprivileged kids, was a low amount of Plan A, Plan B, etc thinking. if the first attempt goes wrong, fallback to the next idea. They often seemed very easily discouraged into “it’s not for the likes of us” thinking.
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Yes but the polling wasn't about that, it was about wanting zero or negative migration.
To achieve that we need to restrict far more than low skilled migration, and in any case those restrictions are already now in place.
People aren't really interested in the net migration figures. As the rise of Powell on the right demonstrated, fifty years ago.
We can't let one speech, made 57 years ago, prevent us having the debate we need to have today about immigration.
Who the f*** is not having the debate? Debating immigration is 63% of PB discussion.
Your idea of debating immigration is to try and show that no debate need be had.
No it simply means that a debate has two sides, and one side is willing to discuss the downsides of slashing immigration and the knock on effects while the other is not.
Race relations weren't noticeably better in the decades up to 1992, the last year of net emigration.
I wasn't talking to you
Perhaps best not to use an open forum then.
It was a specific post to a specific poster. Not an invitation for you to comment on his behalf.
Perhaps you should do some work?
You've been on here consistently since 6.38am this morning, and I'd hate for your patients not to benefit from your wisdom.
I am part time.
I am part time on here too. They offered me full time but the evening banter is all a bit too ranty for me.
Just had a moment of self-reflection - I'm being uncharacteristically (I hope!) sweary and combative this morning. Sorry. I'll try to dial it down. I'm actually in a remarkably good mood. It's Friday and the sun is shining and all the unpleasant bits of work that were hanging over me have been addressed and I'm off out shortly to play padel and then it's the weekend.
No, please feel free. I thought your Cookie Rant on picture format was genuinely funny, in a John Cleese sort of way. Just don't do it too much (also like John Cleese, thinking about it )
F1: many upgrades for teams in Imola. In the triple header we also have Monaco (2 mandatory stops this year) and Spain, so qualifying will remain critical.
Yougov also found Mel Stride has a net rating of -13% and Chris Philip -14% compared to -39% for Badenoch.
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
I would be shocked if many people even knew who Mel Stride or Chris Philip were.
Yes, the "Don't Knows" in Yougov's poll are 74% for Mel Stride & 80% for Chris Philp. Not fair at all to compare their net favourability with Badenoch's.
Yougov also found Mel Stride has a net rating of -13% and Chris Philip -14% compared to -39% for Badenoch.
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
I would be shocked if many people even knew who Mel Stride or Chris Philip were.
Yes, the "Don't Knows" in Yougov's poll are 74% for Mel Stride & 80% for Chris Philp. Not fair at all to compare their net favourability with Badenoch's.
Of course it is. Stride for starters is Shadow Chancellor and is one of the most high profile Tory frontbenchers yet Badenoch has a 35% worse negative rating than he does.
Even before she became leader last autumn Badenoch already had 45% with a negative view of her and 12% favourable
Wouldn't use those words, mind. As ever. Detail. Who will fund this? Who will deliver? Who will pay?
Has anyone any idea what parents are for?
Demanding that teachers do their job for them ?
It’s an interesting issue. About a decade ago, my wife was involved in a charity thing, where professionals went into schools to talk about opportunities and the world of work.
One thing she noticed, talking to underprivileged kids, was a low amount of Plan A, Plan B, etc thinking. if the first attempt goes wrong, fallback to the next idea. They often seemed very easily discouraged into “it’s not for the likes of us” thinking.
It's not a new thing.
I've said this story before, but a while back I knew two men, both of whom were at school in the late seventies, in a mining area. Both got told by their teachers that it was pointless educating them beyond a basic level, as they would just end up down the pit. Both did, although both were surface workers, rather than down the pit. And when the mines closed, they both went on the long-term sick.
A third acquaintance was in a similar situation; but he arranged to get trained in plant/machinery maintenance rather than just operating machinery, so he found it easy to get a new career once the pit closures reached a critical point. He, at least, was skilled in something other than just operating a machine.
Expectations matter. If you're told by schools, or even parents, that you will not amount to much, it is hard to actually amount to much. And if the expectation is that you will do Plan A, it is hard to think about plan B or C.
Yougov also found Mel Stride has a net rating of -13% and Chris Philip -14% compared to -39% for Badenoch.
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
I would be shocked if many people even knew who Mel Stride or Chris Philip were.
Yes, the "Don't Knows" in Yougov's poll are 74% for Mel Stride & 80% for Chris Philp. Not fair at all to compare their net favourability with Badenoch's.
Of course it is. Stride for starters is Shadow Chancellor and is one of the most high profile Tory frontbenchers yet Badenoch has a 35% worse negative rating than he does
By definition, he is not high profile if 80% don't have an opinion on an issue where they routinely do have opinions. They just haven't heard of him.
Actually it really simple. Reach (aka the Mirror) own the Express and they own basically every local newspaper. They cross pollinate all the content across their whole network as a cheap way to fill up pages. So rather than the local rag doing the sport and tv review etc, they have a very small staff who are send to do something local like a by-election and the Mirror / Express don't necessary send anybody, they just copy and paste the local reporters work and vice versa the tv review is just copy / paste job from the national.
Don't forget scanning social media to report that television viewers were outraged by Love Island, amazed by an Antiques Roadshow valuation, puzzled by a quiz question or noticed an anomaly in Eastenders (eagle-eyed viewers, those ones). Sometimes a giveaway is the programme was a repeat!
It has always been the case that papers depended on the agencies. Your local rag, even in its heyday, never had a whole team of crime reporters. Rather they'd scan PA reports from the local magistrates and crown courts. Sports results would come in from agencies, and the local amateur sports clubs would file their own match reports.
Just had a moment of self-reflection - I'm being uncharacteristically (I hope!) sweary and combative this morning. Sorry. I'll try to dial it down. I'm actually in a remarkably good mood. It's Friday and the sun is shining and all the unpleasant bits of work that were hanging over me have been addressed and I'm off out shortly to play padel and then it's the weekend.
I'm the opposite. I'm in a really good mood, for no apparent reason. Despite the fact the garage have called to say they can't do the work I needed doing on my car, or the fact I'm just recovering from a cold a few days out from a race.
Yougov also found Mel Stride has a net rating of -13% and Chris Philip -14% compared to -39% for Badenoch.
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
I would be shocked if many people even knew who Mel Stride or Chris Philip were.
Yes, the "Don't Knows" in Yougov's poll are 74% for Mel Stride & 80% for Chris Philp. Not fair at all to compare their net favourability with Badenoch's.
Of course it is. Stride for starters is Shadow Chancellor and is one of the most high profile Tory frontbenchers yet Badenoch has a 35% worse negative rating than he does
By definition, he is not high profile if 80% don't have an opinion on an issue where they routinely do have opinions. They just haven't heard of him.
Yet Badenoch has the negatives baked in now, Tory MPs will likely give Kemi another year or so to make inroads, if she doesn't she will be removed and replaced by Stride or Cleverly by coronation
Wouldn't use those words, mind. As ever. Detail. Who will fund this? Who will deliver? Who will pay?
Has anyone any idea what parents are for?
Demanding that teachers do their job for them ?
It’s an interesting issue. About a decade ago, my wife was involved in a charity thing, where professionals went into schools to talk about opportunities and the world of work.
One thing she noticed, talking to underprivileged kids, was a low amount of Plan A, Plan B, etc thinking. if the first attempt goes wrong, fallback to the next idea. They often seemed very easily discouraged into “it’s not for the likes of us” thinking.
It's not a new thing.
I've said this story before, but a while back I knew two men, both of whom were at school in the late seventies, in a mining area. Both got told by their teachers that it was pointless educating them beyond a basic level, as they would just end up down the pit. Both did, although both were surface workers, rather than down the pit. And when the mines closed, they both went on the long-term sick.
A third acquaintance was in a similar situation; but he arranged to get trained in plant/machinery maintenance rather than just operating machinery, so he found it easy to get a new career once the pit closures reached a critical point. He, at least, was skilled in something other than just operating a machine.
Expectations matter. If you're told by schools, or even parents, that you will not amount to much, it is hard to actually amount to much. And if the expectation is that you will do Plan A, it is hard to think about plan B or C.
Especially if you are told that B & C don’t exist or “aren’t for the likes of you”
In the late 90s came across some sixth formers who’d been told *by their teacher* not to bother with university. Despite high A level grades.
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Yes but the polling wasn't about that, it was about wanting zero or negative migration.
To achieve that we need to restrict far more than low skilled migration, and in any case those restrictions are already now in place.
People aren't really interested in the net migration figures. As the rise of Powell on the right demonstrated, fifty years ago.
We can't let one speech, made 57 years ago, prevent us having the debate we need to have today about immigration.
Who the f*** is not having the debate? Debating immigration is 63% of PB discussion.
Your idea of debating immigration is to try and show that no debate need be had.
No it simply means that a debate has two sides, and one side is willing to discuss the downsides of slashing immigration and the knock on effects while the other is not.
Race relations weren't noticeably better in the decades up to 1992, the last year of net emigration.
I wasn't talking to you
Perhaps best not to use an open forum then.
It was a specific post to a specific poster. Not an invitation for you to comment on his behalf.
Perhaps you should do some work?
You've been on here consistently since 6.38am this morning, and I'd hate for your patients not to benefit from your wisdom.
I am part time.
I am part time on here too. They offered me full time but the evening banter is all a bit too ranty for me.
11pm to 2am slot is good: the rants die down. 6:30am to about 9am is also good, but lost in the changeover between articles.
Yougov also found Mel Stride has a net rating of -13% and Chris Philip -14% compared to -39% for Badenoch.
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
I would be shocked if many people even knew who Mel Stride or Chris Philip were.
Including those in these comments, it would seem, who have inserted an extra 'i' into his name
To be fair, it sounds like a name Michael Palin would have in a Monty Python sketch. "No - PHILP. There's only one 'i'. I lost the other one."
And that's the most memorable thing about him.
I've been trying on and off to promote Stride as a 21stC Jim Hacker. With what success, I'm not sure. Because if he were, how would you know anyway - until he became PM ?
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Yes but the polling wasn't about that, it was about wanting zero or negative migration.
To achieve that we need to restrict far more than low skilled migration, and in any case those restrictions are already now in place.
People aren't really interested in the net migration figures. As the rise of Powell on the right demonstrated, fifty years ago.
We can't let one speech, made 57 years ago, prevent us having the debate we need to have today about immigration.
Who the f*** is not having the debate? Debating immigration is 63% of PB discussion.
Your idea of debating immigration is to try and show that no debate need be had.
So, when you say you want a debate on immigration, what you mean is you don't want a debate on immigration, you just want everyone to agree with your view.
I'm out here debating immigration, putting forth a position with evidence. You may or may not be persuaded by what I say, you may come to a different conclusion, but I am definitely engaging in a debate.
You don't debate it though. You say there's no debate to have as there's no issue with it or that people love it, and then you scratch around trying to find things that back it up. Highly selectively.
That's not a debate. A debate would demonstrate some curiosity from you, a discussion of the problem, not relentless obstinacy, and your suggested solutions.
We're all ears.
I don't believe that's a fair description. I don't recall ever saying there's no debate to have. Feel free to point out specific examples of what I've said if you have them. I may be missing something n what you're saying.
I don't think that people love immigration, but I do think people are more keen on immigration in some forms than what they say to questions about immigration in general. I've put forth various suggestions for solutions (e.g., process asylum seekers quicker, negotiate bilateral agreements like Sunak did with Albania).
I do find the "we aren't allowed to talk about immigration" claim to be very silly. Maybe it was true a few decades ago, but it's complete nonsense today. The Prime Minister just gave a big speech all about immigration. We talk about immigration here all the time.
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Yes but the polling wasn't about that, it was about wanting zero or negative migration.
To achieve that we need to restrict far more than low skilled migration, and in any case those restrictions are already now in place.
People aren't really interested in the net migration figures. As the rise of Powell on the right demonstrated, fifty years ago.
We can't let one speech, made 57 years ago, prevent us having the debate we need to have today about immigration.
Who the f*** is not having the debate? Debating immigration is 63% of PB discussion.
Your idea of debating immigration is to try and show that no debate need be had.
No it simply means that a debate has two sides, and one side is willing to discuss the downsides of slashing immigration and the knock on effects while the other is not.
Race relations weren't noticeably better in the decades up to 1992, the last year of net emigration.
I wasn't talking to you
Perhaps best not to use an open forum then.
It was a specific post to a specific poster. Not an invitation for you to comment on his behalf.
Perhaps you should do some work?
You've been on here consistently since 6.38am this morning, and I'd hate for your patients not to benefit from your wisdom.
I am part time.
I am part time on here too. They offered me full time but the evening banter is all a bit too ranty for me.
11pm to 2am slot is good: the rants die down. 6:30am to about 9am is also good, but lost in the changeover between articles.
The most interesting local election yesterday was probably Clydebank where Reform came 2nd with 26% with 1st preferences, managed to narrowly stay in 2nd place for the final round, and made it 59% SNP, 41% Ref in that round.
Yougov also found Mel Stride has a net rating of -13% and Chris Philip -14% compared to -39% for Badenoch.
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
I would be shocked if many people even knew who Mel Stride or Chris Philip were.
Yes, the "Don't Knows" in Yougov's poll are 74% for Mel Stride & 80% for Chris Philp. Not fair at all to compare their net favourability with Badenoch's.
Of course it is. Stride for starters is Shadow Chancellor and is one of the most high profile Tory frontbenchers yet Badenoch has a 35% worse negative rating than he does
By definition, he is not high profile if 80% don't have an opinion on an issue where they routinely do have opinions. They just haven't heard of him.
It’s why net ratings don’t tell the whole story. They’re only any use of the don’t knows are below 30%ish, and even then, a politician with a net of -5 made up of +35 and -40 won’t mind at all
Funny thing is Clarkson used to like Jags, or at least review them favourably, until he dreamt up this Terry-Thomas cad or bounder saying Jaaaaaaaag.
I thought JLR missed an opportunity here by not leaning into it and starting a sub-brand just called "Jag" for smaller cars that weren't aimed at ancient fleg shaggers.
They weren't BMW or Mercedes so the brand wasn't strong enough to prosper when diluted across a wide range of not very good products built the cheapest way possible at the behest of their Indian paymasters.
Some MBA wanker might understand how the same management team simultaneously did so well with the Range Rover brand and so badly with the Jaguar brand because I don't.
I'm no @Roger on these matters, but I would have thought there's only so much you can do to influence public perception - once the public get a certain view of a product it can be hard to shift. I'd be interested to get our resident advertising bloke's view of it.
Incidentally, I saw one of the new Jaguars the other day (at Didsbury cricket club, so the normal habitat of the Jaaaag hasn't changed even if the shape of the car has). I instantly hated it. I wonder if I would have hated it so much had I not been conditioned to do so by that advert. In reality, it's only crimes were being a slightly odd shape and having an inane logo. It wasn't even pink.
You aren't the target market now though, they're aiming at people who don't want cars. It's a truly brilliant business strategy.
It's led by people who think EDI is the key to unlocking young, hip and rich global buyers.
It's a remarkably dumb way of thinking but a very hard one to challenge in the boardroom.
And the middle eastern buyers they're targeting with this will be repulsed by the overtly gay styling given to marketing campaign. They've designed a gaudy a car to appeal to rich young Arabs with more money than sense, yet they're launching it with a rainbow pride flag. It's genuinely one of the worst campaigns I've ever seen.
63% want virtually none or only entirety tokenistic net migration, and yet we get what the 5% want.
Yes but wasn't there also a recent survey showing the public greatly underestimates the rate of immigration? If so, is the desired rate actually telling us the desired rate, or just whether they want more of less than the status quo?
The polling also doesn't cover the downsides of that sort of restriction, such as staffing shortages and rising costs. Which is why government after government of all stripes has permitted these sorts of numbers.
By rising costs do you mean wages?
Not sure everyone calls that a downside.
Yet when British doctors want more pay they don't get a very positive response.
Isn't the whole point of restricting immigration to give sturdy British Yeomen more leverage?
Is that the same doctors who were just granted a 22% pay rise?
Yet we need to keep care staff on minimum wage, because reasons.
Restricting medical and nursing immigration would certainly help my unions bargaining position.
It wouldn't do much for either waiting lists or the viability of some services though.
Still, for the greater good...
Indeed, so long as your salary is below the £37k or whatever it is that the skilled visa migration threshold is set at.
No problems with skilled migration, it's the flow of unskilled, minimum wage migration we need to be stemming.
Yes but the polling wasn't about that, it was about wanting zero or negative migration.
To achieve that we need to restrict far more than low skilled migration, and in any case those restrictions are already now in place.
People aren't really interested in the net migration figures. As the rise of Powell on the right demonstrated, fifty years ago.
We can't let one speech, made 57 years ago, prevent us having the debate we need to have today about immigration.
Who the f*** is not having the debate? Debating immigration is 63% of PB discussion.
Your idea of debating immigration is to try and show that no debate need be had.
So, when you say you want a debate on immigration, what you mean is you don't want a debate on immigration, you just want everyone to agree with your view.
I'm out here debating immigration, putting forth a position with evidence. You may or may not be persuaded by what I say, you may come to a different conclusion, but I am definitely engaging in a debate.
You don't debate it though. You say there's no debate to have as there's no issue with it or that people love it, and then you scratch around trying to find things that back it up. Highly selectively.
That's not a debate. A debate would demonstrate some curiosity from you, a discussion of the problem, not relentless obstinacy, and your suggested solutions.
We're all ears.
I don't believe that's a fair description. I don't recall ever saying there's no debate to have. Feel free to point out specific examples of what I've said if you have them. I may be missing something n what you're saying.
I don't think that people love immigration, but I do think people are more keen on immigration in some forms than what they say to questions about immigration in general. I've put forth various suggestions for solutions (e.g., process asylum seekers quicker, negotiate bilateral agreements like Sunak did with Albania).
I do find the "we aren't allowed to talk about immigration" claim to be very silly. Maybe it was true a few decades ago, but it's complete nonsense today. The Prime Minister just gave a big speech all about immigration. We talk about immigration here all the time.
The self proclaimed victimhood of right wing opinion has been something of a trend since Trump demonstrated its effectiveness.
Rats and ships - a bunch of tory councillors in Sevenoaks District Council have resigned from party leaving it without an administration - more info available via search engine of choice
Thought: Reform are just two gifted politicians from government
The polls are pretty clear now. The people have had enough of Lab and Con. They are absolutely hacked off with ALL immigration - a lot of them want remigration
The only party positioned to benefit from this is Reform. BUT Reform have one massive problem - they are entirely reliant on Farage. With him gone - and he’s not a young man - they’d be screwed
However if they can find just a couple of good, younger politicians - a Sturgeon to Farage’s Salmond - then they will be well set
My mind turns to Jenrick. He’s increasingly capable. He’s excellent on social media. He’s sharp and punchy and he agrees with Reform on the culture war issues
In return he must be tempted to defect if Reform look like winning. He’d go straight to the top (under Farage) and be the likely next prime minister if/when Farage goes
Funny thing is Clarkson used to like Jags, or at least review them favourably, until he dreamt up this Terry-Thomas cad or bounder saying Jaaaaaaaag.
I thought JLR missed an opportunity here by not leaning into it and starting a sub-brand just called "Jag" for smaller cars that weren't aimed at ancient fleg shaggers.
They weren't BMW or Mercedes so the brand wasn't strong enough to prosper when diluted across a wide range of not very good products built the cheapest way possible at the behest of their Indian paymasters.
Some MBA wanker might understand how the same management team simultaneously did so well with the Range Rover brand and so badly with the Jaguar brand because I don't.
I'm no @Roger on these matters, but I would have thought there's only so much you can do to influence public perception - once the public get a certain view of a product it can be hard to shift. I'd be interested to get our resident advertising bloke's view of it.
Incidentally, I saw one of the new Jaguars the other day (at Didsbury cricket club, so the normal habitat of the Jaaaag hasn't changed even if the shape of the car has). I instantly hated it. I wonder if I would have hated it so much had I not been conditioned to do so by that advert. In reality, it's only crimes were being a slightly odd shape and having an inane logo. It wasn't even pink.
It will be a pity if, like Musk's Cybertruck, the politics overshadow its quality. Because it looks bloody fantastic.
Are you trying to trigger me? Why have these idiots filmed shots of cars - particularly long cars, at that - in fucking portrait? There is almost no shot which can fit the whole car in. I don't know about the creators of these shorts, but like most people, I live most of my life in landscape. I move largely in a horizontal plane. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Most pictures, and almost all video, should be in landscape rather than portrait. (Rocket launches and diving work in landscape, I suppose, but little else). Why people persist in using portrait for everything escapes me. I mean honestly - I've been at scenic lookouts and seen people taking photos of the LANDSCAPE in portrait. The clue is in the name.
(Aside from that, I still think the car looks ridiculous and impractical).
Just found this, and felt a mere like is insufficient. I thought the first one might be an 'edgy' slow reveal, but gave up when the second was exactly the same. Aaaaasrgh.
My real pet hate (slightly unreasonable in the context) is footage from war zones in portrait mode. What's needed is a phone which takes video/pics in landscape while it's being help upright.
Thought: Reform are just two gifted politicians from government
The polls are pretty clear now. The people have had enough of Lab and Con. They are absolutely hacked off with ALL immigration - a lot of them want remigration
The only party positioned to benefit from this is Reform. BUT Reform have one massive problem - they are entirely reliant on Farage. With him gone - and he’s not a young man - they’d be screwed
However if they can find just a couple of good, younger politicians - a Sturgeon to Farage’s Salmond - then they will be well set
My mind turns to Jenrick. He’s increasingly capable. He’s excellent on social media. He’s sharp and punchy and he agrees with Reform on the culture war issues
In return he must be tempted to defect if Reform look like winning. He’d go straight to the top (under Farage) and be the likely next prime minister if/when Farage goes
Then they need one more. A spare for the heir
Sorted
Farage won't tolerate a rival, Jenrick included.
Jenrick's best bet is for Farage to fail to become PM at the next GE and Kemi and/or Stride and Cleverly to also lose, then he is best placed to become Conservative leader and unite the right again. Ideally against a Labour and LD government so he has opposition to himself
Just had a moment of self-reflection - I'm being uncharacteristically (I hope!) sweary and combative this morning. Sorry. I'll try to dial it down. I'm actually in a remarkably good mood. It's Friday and the sun is shining and all the unpleasant bits of work that were hanging over me have been addressed and I'm off out shortly to play padel and then it's the weekend.
Same for me
I'm often at my most sweary and aggressive when I'm in the best mood. Testosterone surges, I think
Wouldn't use those words, mind. As ever. Detail. Who will fund this? Who will deliver? Who will pay?
Has anyone any idea what parents are for?
Demanding that teachers do their job for them ?
It’s an interesting issue. About a decade ago, my wife was involved in a charity thing, where professionals went into schools to talk about opportunities and the world of work.
One thing she noticed, talking to underprivileged kids, was a low amount of Plan A, Plan B, etc thinking. if the first attempt goes wrong, fallback to the next idea. They often seemed very easily discouraged into “it’s not for the likes of us” thinking.
It's not a new thing.
I've said this story before, but a while back I knew two men, both of whom were at school in the late seventies, in a mining area. Both got told by their teachers that it was pointless educating them beyond a basic level, as they would just end up down the pit. Both did, although both were surface workers, rather than down the pit. And when the mines closed, they both went on the long-term sick.
A third acquaintance was in a similar situation; but he arranged to get trained in plant/machinery maintenance rather than just operating machinery, so he found it easy to get a new career once the pit closures reached a critical point. He, at least, was skilled in something other than just operating a machine.
Expectations matter. If you're told by schools, or even parents, that you will not amount to much, it is hard to actually amount to much. And if the expectation is that you will do Plan A, it is hard to think about plan B or C.
Whatever you think of him, Lee Anderson is a model there - with several careers - including a number of years as a single dad.
As is, iirc my reading correctly, the new leader of Notts County Council.
Comments
There's a lot within and beneath each block.
It's probably slightly economically centrist to the centre-left economically and the other way socioculturally, for example.
Instead, I suggest, the starting point of all GB political parties (discount NI and independent Islamic MPs for now) is the post WWII social democrat consensus; red hot issues like nationalism (SNP, PC, Reform to some extent) are neither right nor left, and neither is migration (or BTW Brexit), and don't touch on core social democratic principles.
With the 'right' and 'left' thing, we are, so to speak, playing cricket and trying to understand and explain the match by reference to the laws of rugby union.
However, it wasn't commercially strong enough and for some reason struggled to hold its own with BMW/Mercedes and Audi.
I struggle with people complaining they should have a job where they live, yes not everyone should have to move to London or a big city, but the jobs aren't coming to the family home. But sadly the desire to work at all then comes into play.
It's a remarkably dumb way of thinking but a very hard one to challenge in the boardroom.
If the Tories become a full rejoin the EU centre right party they may as well just merge with the LDs anyway under FPTP as about the only seats they might win on that platform are Kensington, Cities of London and Westminster and Chelsea and Fulham and at a push Putney, Battersea and Finchley. The Remain ex Tory seats that went LD at the last GE in the South would likely stay LD and almost all the Leave seats which the Tories now hold would go Reform
And you've got it the wrong way round: they lost votes and dominance because of their failure to respond to it.
The way out of our problems has to include some acknowledgement that the electorate has made a booboo or two over the last few decades. But there's no electoral advantage in being the one to say that.
A "two engine F35" would be an entirely new plane, costing as much as the F47, quite probably.
Sanctions and loss of benefits if you don't apply for and take jobs should be applied rigorously as they can be under UC
Don't expect to see it on TV any time soon though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snst8htbwBo
The trailer for Adam Curtis's new series "Shifty" is up on YouTube. Will it be a fitting capstone to an epic career? Or will he go full Ridley Scott and fuck it up in this new era of YouTube hot takes and AI? You'll find out in June!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQc8625Y03g
🔵 Sunak's Tories – 36% (+12)
🔴 Starmer's Labour – 31% (-4)
Via @Moreincommon_, May 2025 (+/- vs GE2024)
https://x.com/leftiestats/status/1923095661479670263?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Not sure about the Lib Dem change from last week 👀
📊 Ref lead of 7pts
Westminster voting intention
REF: 29% (+1)
LAB: 22% (-1)
CON: 18% (-1)
LDEM: 15% (+15)
GRN: 9% (+1)
via @TechneUK, 15 May
Chgs. w/ 08 May
britainelects.com
https://x.com/britainelects/status/1923293913428689188?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Perhaps you should do some work?
You've been on here consistently since 6.38am this morning, and I'd hate for your patients not to benefit from your wisdom.
Brown -> May
Johnson -> Truss (Sorry Boris)
Which recent PM is Starmer most like ?
Think I'd have to go with May. Detail oriented, tries hard, talks tough. Hopeless.
He has a way of smiling/laughing when he's making a point he thinks is winning an argument that is very reminiscent of Enoch Powell actually. I don't like him doing it
I'm out here debating immigration, putting forth a position with evidence. You may or may not be persuaded by what I say, you may come to a different conclusion, but I am definitely engaging in a debate.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yikRvTKcKrs
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dIKTZ0i4Up0
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZV1XeuWR86I
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PZXuGnjG06Q
It will be a pity if, like Musk's Cybertruck, the politics overshadow its quality. Because it looks bloody fantastic.
That's not a debate. A debate would demonstrate some curiosity from you, a discussion of the problem, not relentless obstinacy, and your suggested solutions.
We're all ears.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/reform-deals-even-more-council-election-blows-to-labour-and-tories-with-huge-swings/ar-AA1ESUw1?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=9d8098f8ef544038bb91002685d35010&ei=13
Angela Rayner at -31% and Yvette Cooper at -25% both do better than Starmer at -46%, though Reeves does even worse at -48%. Philipson at -14% does best of senior Labour figures polled
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1923284836455743525
I don't know about the creators of these shorts, but like most people, I live most of my life in landscape. I move largely in a horizontal plane. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Most pictures, and almost all video, should be in landscape rather than portrait. (Rocket launches and diving work in landscape, I suppose, but little else). Why people persist in using portrait for everything escapes me.
I mean honestly - I've been at scenic lookouts and seen people taking photos of the LANDSCAPE in portrait. The clue is in the name.
(Aside from that, I still think the car looks ridiculous and impractical).
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/16/much-needed-grit-to-be-fostered-in-englands-schoolchildren-say-ministers
Wouldn't use those words, mind.
As ever. Detail.
Who will fund this? Who will deliver? Who will pay?
To be fair, it sounds like a name Michael Palin would have in a Monty Python sketch. "No - PHILP. There's only one 'i'. I lost the other one."
Having said that, the Daily T podcast did an interview with Rupert Lowe yesterday.
He comes across to me as a curate's egg; reasonably impressive when talking about his behaviour and his case (he made Camilla Tominey withdraw one statement on the spot), but somewhat off the wall when it comes to his political positioning.
None of these neo-Thatcherites bear much similarity to Thatcher's nuances, to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQHMWIHZgq0
I'm actually in a remarkably good mood. It's Friday and the sun is shining and all the unpleasant bits of work that were hanging over me have been addressed and I'm off out shortly to play padel and then it's the weekend.
Havering and Barking and Dagenham, even Hillingdon easier Reform targets than Bromley of the London boroughs
It’s an interesting issue. About a decade ago, my wife was involved in a charity thing, where professionals went into schools to talk about opportunities and the world of work.
One thing she noticed, talking to underprivileged kids, was a low amount of Plan A, Plan B, etc thinking. if the first attempt goes wrong, fallback to the next idea. They often seemed very easily discouraged into “it’s not for the likes of us” thinking.
"Techne UK
@techneUK
·
12m
📊NEW POLL: LATEST WESTMINSTER VOTER INTENTIONS
Reform 29% (+1)
Lab 22% (-1)
Cons 18% (-1)
Lib Dems 15% (+1)
Greens 9% (=)
SNP 2% (-1)
Others 5% (=)
👥 1635 Surveyed
🔎 Field Work: 14th & 15th May 2025
🗓️ +/- 9th May 2025
🔗 Data: https://ll.ink/Lb52XT
#UKPolitics"
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1923325941859652075
F1: many upgrades for teams in Imola. In the triple header we also have Monaco (2 mandatory stops this year) and Spain, so qualifying will remain critical.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52187-political-favourability-ratings-may-2025
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=18&LAB=22&LIB=15&Reform=29&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
Even before she became leader last autumn Badenoch already had 45% with a negative view of her and 12% favourable
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50851-what-do-britons-think-of-kemi-badenoch-and-robert-jenrick
I've said this story before, but a while back I knew two men, both of whom were at school in the late seventies, in a mining area. Both got told by their teachers that it was pointless educating them beyond a basic level, as they would just end up down the pit. Both did, although both were surface workers, rather than down the pit. And when the mines closed, they both went on the long-term sick.
A third acquaintance was in a similar situation; but he arranged to get trained in plant/machinery maintenance rather than just operating machinery, so he found it easy to get a new career once the pit closures reached a critical point. He, at least, was skilled in something other than just operating a machine.
Expectations matter. If you're told by schools, or even parents, that you will not amount to much, it is hard to actually amount to much. And if the expectation is that you will do Plan A, it is hard to think about plan B or C.
It has always been the case that papers depended on the agencies. Your local rag, even in its heyday, never had a whole team of crime reporters. Rather they'd scan PA reports from the local magistrates and crown courts. Sports results would come in from agencies, and the local amateur sports clubs would file their own match reports.
Life is good.
In the late 90s came across some sixth formers who’d been told *by their teacher* not to bother with university. Despite high A level grades.
I've been trying on and off to promote Stride as a 21stC Jim Hacker.
With what success, I'm not sure. Because if he were, how would you know anyway - until he became PM ?
I don't think that people love immigration, but I do think people are more keen on immigration in some forms than what they say to questions about immigration in general. I've put forth various suggestions for solutions (e.g., process asylum seekers quicker, negotiate bilateral agreements like Sunak did with Albania).
I do find the "we aren't allowed to talk about immigration" claim to be very silly. Maybe it was true a few decades ago, but it's complete nonsense today. The Prime Minister just gave a big speech all about immigration. We talk about immigration here all the time.
NEW THREAD
As well as the awful loss of life, a lot of small specialist businesses will be wiped out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2r5mrv2n0t
The polls are pretty clear now. The people have had enough of Lab and Con. They are absolutely hacked off with ALL immigration - a lot of them want remigration
The only party positioned to benefit from this is Reform. BUT Reform have one massive problem - they are entirely reliant on Farage. With him gone - and he’s not a young man - they’d be screwed
However if they can find just a couple of good, younger politicians - a Sturgeon to Farage’s Salmond - then they will be well set
My mind turns to Jenrick. He’s increasingly capable. He’s excellent on social media. He’s sharp and punchy and he agrees with Reform on the culture war issues
In return he must be tempted to defect if Reform look like winning. He’d go straight to the top (under Farage) and be the likely next prime minister if/when Farage goes
Then they need one more. A spare for the heir
Sorted
I thought the first one might be an 'edgy' slow reveal, but gave up when the second was exactly the same. Aaaaasrgh.
My real pet hate (slightly unreasonable in the context) is footage from war zones in portrait mode.
What's needed is a phone which takes video/pics in landscape while it's being help upright.
Jenrick's best bet is for Farage to fail to become PM at the next GE and Kemi and/or Stride and Cleverly to also lose, then he is best placed to become Conservative leader and unite the right again. Ideally against a Labour and LD government so he has opposition to himself
I'm often at my most sweary and aggressive when I'm in the best mood. Testosterone surges, I think
But, it was a fantasy.
Fell apart when they failed and the insurgent Right got a grip.
As is, iirc my reading correctly, the new leader of Notts County Council.