Skip to content

Reasons why Brits won’t vote Lib Dem, number four will shock you – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,710
edited September 24 in General
Reasons why Brits won’t vote Lib Dem, number four will shock you – politicalbetting.com

The Lib Dems won 13% of the vote share in GB* at GE2024, but still only have 14% despite the collapse of the Lab and Tory vote shares – so what is holding Britons back from voting Lib Dem?yougov.co.uk/politics/art…

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,480
    edited September 24
    First. Unlike Ed Davy.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,193
    Not shocked.
  • *puts on PB Tory spectacles*
    Presumably reason 4 is because the LDs didn’t shout from the rooftops about their MASSIVE achievements in the coalition.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,403
    rcs1000 said:
    Only the innocent and pure were raptured, hence no one has noticed...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,496
    I am surprised that because they are smug, patronising, hypocrites has been subsumed under something else.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,403

    *puts on PB Tory spectacles*
    Presumably reason 4 is because the LDs didn’t shout from the rooftops about their MASSIVE achievements in the coalition.

    I said at the time that the coalition will be looked back on as a golden age of good government.

    A decade on that looks to be increasingly obvious, and getting more obvious by the day.
  • On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?
  • You have little memory of the Coalition. Lib Dems happy to take up governmental positions no matter how poorly qualified they were for the posts but then going on the Today Programme happily dissing the government they were nominally a part of.

    But, their practice of saying one thing to one set of voters and another to another set can only work in opposition.

    I can't see many people from farming families voting Lib Dem as Ed Davey kisses Keir Starmer's backside. All those LDs I know are now ardent Reformistas.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,717
    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail
  • DavidL said:

    I am surprised that because they are smug, patronising, hypocrites has been subsumed under something else.

    Golly, the warm glow inspired by nature’s beauty didn’t last long.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,021
    Hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems have had one shot at government in the last hundred years and they used it to put David Cameron and George Osborne in power. They won't be getting my vote. Like, ever.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,193

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    Same reason that Jimmy Kimmel is ‘news’. Media likes media stories.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,681
    DavidL said:

    I am surprised that because they are smug, patronising, hypocrites has been subsumed under something else.

    Yes, you and Taz.

    I don't think you're LibDem targets somehow.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,681
    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    My "first time" was a few PMs back.
    You probably voted for him, too.
  • Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    How well I remember Pollard’s reasonable, respectful tone towards Corbyn.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,025

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    It’s too early in the day for Farage to have done or said anything yet, so they have to fill the time somehow?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,681

    Hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems have had one shot at government in the last hundred years and they used it to put David Cameron and George Osborne in power. They won't be getting my vote. Like, ever.

    They should have propped up Brown ?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 16,334
    rcs1000 said:
    For those who are unclear, that was a satirical video.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,021

    Hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems have had one shot at government in the last hundred years and they used it to put David Cameron and George Osborne in power. They won't be getting my vote. Like, ever.

    What was the alternative?

    An unstable rainbow coalition that would torn itself asunder within weeks and likely been Liz Truss on speed.

    Plus you forget the legacy Labour bequeathed them, as I point Labour went into that election promising bigger cuts than Thatcher.
    The coalition's badly thought out austerity policies (with the triple lock as the cherry on top) created the breeding ground of resentment that gave us Brexit. Worst government ever - until the even worse Tory clusterfucks tht followed. Talk about a legacy! Brexit, NHS in the toilet, asylum system fucked, debt way higher than in 2010, no progress on fixing social care, major infrastructure projects mismanaged and canceled, corrupt Covid projects pouring money down the drain, the triple lock bankrupting working people... it will take a generation to fix the mess the Tories have made of this country. All stemming from that posh boy love fest in the Rose Garden. No thanks.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,949
    Good morning, everyone.

    I don't watch any more (not enough time, especially with history and the odd current events videos) but Luetin09 does lore videos for Warhammer 40K and has about 940k subs, similar to the official channel.

    When looking at YouTube and similar it's not just the raw subs/views (though those are nice for sponsors) it's about how deep that pool is. Just look at the Likes ratio, it's often 1-2% even on perfectly good videos. Even fewer are members or join Patreon, or give superchats (or bits on Twitch). But if you've got a small yet dedicated fanbase that may mean the views are modest but the income and stability (via subs) can be perfectly good, if not better than 'larger'/more viewed channels.

    You also get legacy subs. I think it was called WTF1, which was a very popular F1 channel that got bought by another group and has since nose-dived (apologies if I got the name wrong). Views are very low but the sub count is still high.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,826
    What's going on in Bedford? Are there rival paramilitary coffee groups?
    What do they do if you don't tip? How does a private coffee shop have £10k/month to spend on security?
    So many questions...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzkrrjlmno.amp
  • Sandpit said:

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    Same reason that Jimmy Kimmel is ‘news’. Media likes media stories.
    I’m not keen on the UK’s endless neurotic USAphillia, but stretching a point the fairly tedious Kimmel story is news involving the political future of a country with whom we apparently have a special relationship.
    A drama on a rival broadcasting platform, not so much.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 16,334

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    Maybe we need a bit of light entertainment to break up the unending horror of so many other world events?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,949

    Hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems have had one shot at government in the last hundred years and they used it to put David Cameron and George Osborne in power. They won't be getting my vote. Like, ever.

    What was the alternative?

    An unstable rainbow coalition that would torn itself asunder within weeks and likely been Liz Truss on speed.

    Plus you forget the legacy Labour bequeathed them, as I point Labour went into that election promising bigger cuts than Thatcher.
    The coalition's badly thought out austerity policies (with the triple lock as the cherry on top) created the breeding ground of resentment that gave us Brexit. Worst government ever - until the even worse Tory clusterfucks tht followed. Talk about a legacy! Brexit, NHS in the toilet, asylum system fucked, debt way higher than in 2010, no progress on fixing social care, major infrastructure projects mismanaged and canceled, corrupt Covid projects pouring money down the drain, the triple lock bankrupting working people... it will take a generation to fix the mess the Tories have made of this country. All stemming from that posh boy love fest in the Rose Garden. No thanks.
    "... debt way higher than in 2010 ..."

    Could you explain the means by which, either in 2015 or 2024, the debt could reasonably be expected to be lower than it was in 2010, after the worst recession in British history and a colossal deficit inherited by the Coalition?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,066
    edited September 24
    rkrkrk said:

    What's going on in Bedford? Are there rival paramilitary coffee groups?
    What do they do if you don't tip? How does a private coffee shop have £10k/month to spend on security?
    So many questions...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzkrrjlmno.amp

    Not really. The guy has made an incredible amount of money out of being early into Bitcoin. He bought the football club as well, because well he could.

    Also he had a podcast, so its advertising as well.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,663

    *puts on PB Tory spectacles*
    Presumably reason 4 is because the LDs didn’t shout from the rooftops about their MASSIVE achievements in the coalition.

    I'm surprised "they've done a poor job in my local area" is so low, I live in a labour run local authority and work in the LD run LA next door and they're making a total bollocks of it.
    LD/Con coalition achievements
    Tuition fee system
    Destruction of judicial system
    NHS waiting list
    Destruction of Sure start
    Putting electoral reform back a generation
    Putting reform of second chamber back a generation
    Tax cuts for the well-off
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,521

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    They also managed nearly 5 minutes on a nightclub back in the late 70s this morning when, call me crazy, a news programme could have got more experts in to discuss the implications of Trump switching sides on Ukraine for example.

    The Baron of Banal, Adrian Chiles, has now got a Saturday morning R4 programme for nostalgic randomness like this, he could also no doubt take on the Today programmes section on their listeners’ favourite apple, walk on a beach, brand of fish cakes.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,781

    ...
    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    Starmer wishes to harm our country - or at the very, very least, has subsumed any notion of our interests in the face of a broader vision he has of a green, socially just world order (but where some people are filthy rich). Burgess, Maclean and Philby would look on his achievements with awe.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,486
    Talk of issues with the Coalition seem a laughable reason to avoid the Lib Dems, from the average persons' perspective.

    As highlighted upthread, regardless of details it was a period of competent and stable governance compared to the subsequent 9 years of Tory chaos, Brexit drama, record migration and spiralling debt.

    I'm more sympathetic to Labour than many given what they inherited and only having had 16 months (not 14 years). But even a sympathetic ear can see they've royally screwed up a large majority that gave the opportunity for real change.

    In that context, the Lib Dems are a clear antithesis to Reform and all they stand for. With as good a chance as any of being a positive influence on governance.

    Reform, by contrast, are Trump-worshipping, former Putin sympathisers who sow division by looking for scapegoats. First it was the EU, next it was small boats and asylum seekers, now it's a much larger array of migrants. Once that fails to improve the lives of their politically disillusioned supporters, they'll find new enemies and saboteurs. Just as Trump has.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,717
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    My "first time" was a few PMs back.
    You probably voted for him, too.
    Pollard is not my favourite journalist. And this piece feels like a screeching rant. Lots of repetitions and infelicities, not quite enough venom to be effective

    So I’m not arguing that this is persuasive, I’m adducing it as evidence that Starmer DOES infuriate - in a visceral way - lots of people. He is loathed to an extent I’ve not witnessed

    Yes Truss was abhorred but she was gone in weeks. Yes Remainers hated Boris but far more voters hate Starmer. If Labour could just dump him I reckon they’d get a 5 point leap in the polls. Maybe more

    He is ripe for the toppling. It’s either Burnham, if he can get a seat, or Rayner, if she can force her way back to credibility

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,681
    Sandpit said:

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    Same reason that Jimmy Kimmel is ‘news’. Media likes media stories.
    1. Trump’s government publicly threatens TV network for running a show that mocks the president

    2. Show is suspended

    3. Trump defenders claim the government had nothing to do with it

    4. Show comes back

    5. Trump publicly threatens TV network again

    https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1970688754437497041

    I've never watched his stuff, and probably never will (and in that respect at least, the reporting has saved me the effort of finding out what was said).
    I'd prefer never to have had to hear about any of it, but this affair is one of the canaries in the mine regarding state control of the media.

  • ...

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    Starmer wishes to harm our country - or at the very, very least, has subsumed any notion of our interests in the face of a broader vision he has of a green, socially just world order (but where some people are filthy rich). Burgess, Maclean and Philby would look on his achievements with awe.
    Has Starmer the Harmer been coined yet?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,512
    boulay said:

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    They also managed nearly 5 minutes on a nightclub back in the late 70s this morning when, call me crazy, a news programme could have got more experts in to discuss the implications of Trump switching sides on Ukraine for example.

    The Baron of Banal, Adrian Chiles, has now got a Saturday morning R4 programme for nostalgic randomness like this, he could also no doubt take on the Today programmes section on their listeners’ favourite apple, walk on a beach, brand of fish cakes.
    I don't think a single second should be devoted to Trump switching sides on Ukraine until he does.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,781

    rkrkrk said:

    What's going on in Bedford? Are there rival paramilitary coffee groups?
    What do they do if you don't tip? How does a private coffee shop have £10k/month to spend on security?
    So many questions...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzkrrjlmno.amp

    Not really. The guy has made an incredible amount of money out of being early into Bitcoin. He bought the football club as well, because well he could.

    Also he had a podcast, so its advertising as well.
    Good for him.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,061
    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    I felt rather like that about Boris. Not actually despise, but shading towards that.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,446
    Democrat Adelita Grijalva wins the Arizona 7 special election . The seat was held by her father for over 20 years who died in March .

    This is important as it adds another vote to the discharge petition to release the Epstein files. If those in favour hold and this includes a few GOP then her vote means there’s now enough votes .

    It would then go to the Senate for a vote .
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,300

    rkrkrk said:

    What's going on in Bedford? Are there rival paramilitary coffee groups?
    What do they do if you don't tip? How does a private coffee shop have £10k/month to spend on security?
    So many questions...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzkrrjlmno.amp

    Not really. The guy has made an incredible amount of money out of being early into Bitcoin. He bought the football club as well, because well he could.

    Also he had a podcast, so its advertising as well.
    I recall anger here, when I described a similar scheme by a hedge fund type living out in the sticks. Tired of the police NFAing all crime reports he hired private security.

    The modern Compact of Civilisation is that we give up the use of personal violence and depute public bodies to deal out retribution, protection etc. The Common Law vs The Law of Lek.

    The Process State decides, in its wisdom, that certain kinds of policing are “inefficient”, “non-inclusive” etc.

    The reaction of the Head Count is not joy at the dictates of their masters. They feel that the Compact has been broken.

    But, comes the cry, what about the thousands of pages of reports written by experts on law and order? Are we to be governed by the wishes of the unwashed rather than the Process of The State?

    Well, it’s a simple answer. Do you like Farage as PM or will you bend to the popular will and arrest bicycle thieves and shop lifters?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,020

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    Not much else good news for England TUD, bit of a shithole at present and getting worse by the day
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,256
    Reason 2 is a huge concern for the Lib Dems. At a time when Labour and Tories can barely reach 20% in the polls, the Lib Dems should be seen as having a great chance of winning.

    There are two possibilities. One, the potential Lib Dem voters are glory hunters and don’t want go over to them until others have first.

    Alternatively, the public are lying.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,388
    edited September 24
    boulay said:

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    They also managed nearly 5 minutes on a nightclub back in the late 70s this morning when, call me crazy, a news programme could have got more experts in to discuss the implications of Trump switching sides on Ukraine for example.

    The Baron of Banal, Adrian Chiles, has now got a Saturday morning R4 programme for nostalgic randomness like this, he could also no doubt take on the Today programmes section on their listeners’ favourite apple, walk on a beach, brand of fish cakes.
    Yep, that’s the nub. R4 has if you include the World Service 24/7 output with lots of different formats with theoretically different aims. It’s the gradual reduction of everything to a cheery sludge pushing a phoney engagement with the audience that’s dispiriting. On Today I want to hear interesting, fact based reporting, not Emma Barnett telling me how deliciously lovely it is to have me as a listener.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,061


    ...

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    Starmer wishes to harm our country - or at the very, very least, has subsumed any notion of our interests in the face of a broader vision he has of a green, socially just world order (but where some people are filthy rich). Burgess, Maclean and Philby would look on his achievements with awe.
    Has Starmer the Harmer been coined yet?
    '... the Charmer' seems to me to work better.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,681
    edited September 24
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    My "first time" was a few PMs back.
    You probably voted for him, too.
    Pollard is not my favourite journalist. And this piece feels like a screeching rant. Lots of repetitions and infelicities, not quite enough venom to be effective

    So I’m not arguing that this is persuasive, I’m adducing it as evidence that Starmer DOES infuriate - in a visceral way - lots of people. He is loathed to an extent I’ve not witnessed

    Yes Truss was abhorred but she was gone in weeks. Yes Remainers hated Boris but far more voters hate Starmer. If Labour could just dump him I reckon they’d get a 5 point leap in the polls. Maybe more

    He is ripe for the toppling. It’s either Burnham, if he can get a seat, or Rayner, if she can force her way back to credibility

    Someone in Labour seems to be giving it a go ?

    In the latest (McSweeney) story, Kevin Hollinrake referenced a Labour leak in his interview on Today this morning.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79v74gy38lo

    The recent drip of negative stories from inside the party gives ant least the impression of being orchestrated.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,486
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    Same reason that Jimmy Kimmel is ‘news’. Media likes media stories.
    1. Trump’s government publicly threatens TV network for running a show that mocks the president

    2. Show is suspended

    3. Trump defenders claim the government had nothing to do with it

    4. Show comes back

    5. Trump publicly threatens TV network again

    https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1970688754437497041

    I've never watched his stuff, and probably never will (and in that respect at least, the reporting has saved me the effort of finding out what was said).
    I'd prefer never to have had to hear about any of it, but this affair is one of the canaries in the mine regarding state control of the media.
    I was intrigued and listened to him. I'm not sure his comedy translates to UK ears as well as Jon Stewart, for example. Or he's just not as good.

    But that's not the story, there's lots of average television out there. The story is Trump explicitly threatening the broadcast media for criticizing him. Which is why it matters.

    For more amusing satire, there's a new South Park episode out later today...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,300
    Nigelb said:

    Hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems have had one shot at government in the last hundred years and they used it to put David Cameron and George Osborne in power. They won't be getting my vote. Like, ever.

    They should have propped up Brown ?
    The real issue is the number of Labour tribal voters who were using the Lib Dems as Spare Labour.

    So they felt betrayed that, having voted for the Lib Dems, the Lib Dems didn’t just prop up Labour as they (the Labour voters) assumed they would.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,425
    Ratters said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    Same reason that Jimmy Kimmel is ‘news’. Media likes media stories.
    1. Trump’s government publicly threatens TV network for running a show that mocks the president

    2. Show is suspended

    3. Trump defenders claim the government had nothing to do with it

    4. Show comes back

    5. Trump publicly threatens TV network again

    https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1970688754437497041

    I've never watched his stuff, and probably never will (and in that respect at least, the reporting has saved me the effort of finding out what was said).
    I'd prefer never to have had to hear about any of it, but this affair is one of the canaries in the mine regarding state control of the media.
    I was intrigued and listened to him. I'm not sure his comedy translates to UK ears as well as Jon Stewart, for example. Or he's just not as good.

    But that's not the story, there's lots of average television out there. The story is Trump explicitly threatening the broadcast media for criticizing him. Which is why it matters.

    For more amusing satire, there's a new South Park episode out later today...
    Given that South Park is written during the week it airs I suspect it may be topical.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,066
    edited September 24

    rkrkrk said:

    What's going on in Bedford? Are there rival paramilitary coffee groups?
    What do they do if you don't tip? How does a private coffee shop have £10k/month to spend on security?
    So many questions...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzkrrjlmno.amp

    Not really. The guy has made an incredible amount of money out of being early into Bitcoin. He bought the football club as well, because well he could.

    Also he had a podcast, so its advertising as well.
    I recall anger here, when I described a similar scheme by a hedge fund type living out in the sticks. Tired of the police NFAing all crime reports he hired private security.

    The modern Compact of Civilisation is that we give up the use of personal violence and depute public bodies to deal out retribution, protection etc. The Common Law vs The Law of Lek.

    The Process State decides, in its wisdom, that certain kinds of policing are “inefficient”, “non-inclusive” etc.

    The reaction of the Head Count is not joy at the dictates of their masters. They feel that the Compact has been broken.

    But, comes the cry, what about the thousands of pages of reports written by experts on law and order? Are we to be governed by the wishes of the unwashed rather than the Process of The State?

    Well, it’s a simple answer. Do you like Farage as PM or will you bend to the popular will and arrest bicycle thieves and shop lifters?
    Bitcoin Billy genuinely does seem to be trying to pay it forward in Bedford. He owns a number of businesses and the football club. And has been complaining for quite a while now of how the authorities aren't doing anything about trouble in the town and that something needs to be done.

    His podcast has been going for ages so I don't think that is a major part of the motivation.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,061
    I couldn't vote LD because of some of their policies locally. Nice people to a man & woman, but some of their policies, nah.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,021

    Hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems have had one shot at government in the last hundred years and they used it to put David Cameron and George Osborne in power. They won't be getting my vote. Like, ever.

    What was the alternative?

    An unstable rainbow coalition that would torn itself asunder within weeks and likely been Liz Truss on speed.

    Plus you forget the legacy Labour bequeathed them, as I point Labour went into that election promising bigger cuts than Thatcher.
    The coalition's badly thought out austerity policies (with the triple lock as the cherry on top) created the breeding ground of resentment that gave us Brexit. Worst government ever - until the even worse Tory clusterfucks tht followed. Talk about a legacy! Brexit, NHS in the toilet, asylum system fucked, debt way higher than in 2010, no progress on fixing social care, major infrastructure projects mismanaged and canceled, corrupt Covid projects pouring money down the drain, the triple lock bankrupting working people... it will take a generation to fix the mess the Tories have made of this country. All stemming from that posh boy love fest in the Rose Garden. No thanks.
    "... debt way higher than in 2010 ..."

    Could you explain the means by which, either in 2015 or 2024, the debt could reasonably be expected to be lower than it was in 2010, after the worst recession in British history and a colossal deficit inherited by the Coalition?
    The Coalition government's first budget envisioned debt to GDP rising from 62% to 67% by 2015. Fair enough, they inherited a big deficit in the wake of the global financial crisis. But because their policies were a failure, debt actually rose to 84% of GDP by 2015. So yeah, I do blame them, sorry.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,681
    .

    boulay said:

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    They also managed nearly 5 minutes on a nightclub back in the late 70s this morning when, call me crazy, a news programme could have got more experts in to discuss the implications of Trump switching sides on Ukraine for example.

    The Baron of Banal, Adrian Chiles, has now got a Saturday morning R4 programme for nostalgic randomness like this, he could also no doubt take on the Today programmes section on their listeners’ favourite apple, walk on a beach, brand of fish cakes.
    Yep, that’s the nub. R4 has if you include the World Service 24/7 output with lots of different formats with theoretically different aims. It’s the gradual reduction of everything to a cheery sludge pushing a phoney engagement with the listener that’s dispiriting. On Today I want to hear interesting, fact based reporting, not Emma Barnett telling me how deliciously lovely it is to have me as a listener.
    And she pronounces Duchy as Doochie.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,717
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    My "first time" was a few PMs back.
    You probably voted for him, too.
    Pollard is not my favourite journalist. And this piece feels like a screeching rant. Lots of repetitions and infelicities, not quite enough venom to be effective

    So I’m not arguing that this is persuasive, I’m adducing it as evidence that Starmer DOES infuriate - in a visceral way - lots of people. He is loathed to an extent I’ve not witnessed

    Yes Truss was abhorred but she was gone in weeks. Yes Remainers hated Boris but far more voters hate Starmer. If Labour could just dump him I reckon they’d get a 5 point leap in the polls. Maybe more

    He is ripe for the toppling. It’s either Burnham, if he can get a seat, or Rayner, if she can force her way back to credibility

    Someone in Labour seems to be giving it a go ?

    In the latest (McSweeney) story, Kevin Hollinrake referenced a Labour leak in his interview on Today this morning.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79v74gy38lo

    The recent drip of negative stories from inside the party gives ant least the impression of being orchestrated.
    Agreed. I think “they” are trying to oust McSweeney. He’s Skyr’s consigliere. Once he’s gone Skyr is totally exposed and much weaker
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,298
    AnneJGP said:

    I couldn't vote LD because of some of their policies locally. Nice people to a man & woman, but some of their policies, nah.

    Why would that stop you from voting for them for a general election? (Unless I suppose they are likely to roll the local policies you dislike out across the country. But policies that are wrong for one area may be right for another)
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,631

    You have little memory of the Coalition. Lib Dems happy to take up governmental positions no matter how poorly qualified they were for the posts but then going on the Today Programme happily dissing the government they were nominally a part of.

    But, their practice of saying one thing to one set of voters and another to another set can only work in opposition.

    I can't see many people from farming families voting Lib Dem as Ed Davey kisses Keir Starmer's backside. All those LDs I know are now ardent Reformistas.

    You're a purist then. AFIAK the purpose of a political party is to achieve a position where they can enact their manifesto. Kemi seems to be struggling in this department. I'm sure Davey will be first in line to kiss whoever's backside to get (back) into a Coalition.
  • Battlebus said:
    I don’t know a typical Argentinian salad vegetable, but it would have greater longevity than a lettuce I imagine.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,061

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    I hold no candle for Starmer. I was dissing him before the election. But I think that says more about Pollard than it does about Starmer.

    The British right have reacted very badly to the general election result. There's been no introspection about how and why they failed in government. About why they deserved the crushing result at GE2024. About what went so very wrong that they made Liz Truss Prime Minister.

    Jumping off the deep end and competing with each other as to who can despise Starmer more is simply a way to avoid facing these uncomfortable questions. It is pathetic.
    The lack of forward thinking with which Labour arrived in office after, what? 14 years suggests a lack of introspection on the part of the left, too. That in turn suggests that lack of introspection after losing an election is the general rule.

    Maybe if Labour had had a plan the oppositions would have had more of a breathing space to let time pass and be more introspective.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,298

    Nigelb said:

    Hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems have had one shot at government in the last hundred years and they used it to put David Cameron and George Osborne in power. They won't be getting my vote. Like, ever.

    They should have propped up Brown ?
    The real issue is the number of Labour tribal voters who were using the Lib Dems as Spare Labour.

    So they felt betrayed that, having voted for the Lib Dems, the Lib Dems didn’t just prop up Labour as they (the Labour voters) assumed they would.
    Didn't Clegg say at some point during the campaign that in the event of a hung parliament, he would talk to whichever of the main parties did best?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,717

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    I hold no candle for Starmer. I was dissing him before the election. But I think that says more about Pollard than it does about Starmer.

    The British right have reacted very badly to the general election result. There's been no introspection about how and why they failed in government. About why they deserved the crushing result at GE2024. About what went so very wrong that they made Liz Truss Prime Minister.

    Jumping off the deep end and competing with each other as to who can despise Starmer more is simply a way to avoid facing these uncomfortable questions. It is pathetic.
    But Starmer-hatred can be found everywhere. That’s my point - I’m not being partisan

    He’s loathed on the left as well. There are centrists that want to push him off a cliff. There are entirely apolitical people - who normally don’t care - who find his strangled vowels enraging in a way they can’t explain. Heck, from what I’ve heard the Starmer family budgie is planning to dive bomb his fat pink head at Christmas

    Ergo, he’s a disaster for the government as much as the country and Labour need him gone
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,781
    Battlebus said:
    I am very interested in that story as I admire Millei, but I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, nor am I planning to, so I will forego it for now.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,403

    Hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems have had one shot at government in the last hundred years and they used it to put David Cameron and George Osborne in power. They won't be getting my vote. Like, ever.

    What was the alternative?

    An unstable rainbow coalition that would torn itself asunder within weeks and likely been Liz Truss on speed.

    Plus you forget the legacy Labour bequeathed them, as I point Labour went into that election promising bigger cuts than Thatcher.
    The coalition's badly thought out austerity policies (with the triple lock as the cherry on top) created the breeding ground of resentment that gave us Brexit. Worst government ever - until the even worse Tory clusterfucks tht followed. Talk about a legacy! Brexit, NHS in the toilet, asylum system fucked, debt way higher than in 2010, no progress on fixing social care, major infrastructure projects mismanaged and canceled, corrupt Covid projects pouring money down the drain, the triple lock bankrupting working people... it will take a generation to fix the mess the Tories have made of this country. All stemming from that posh boy love fest in the Rose Garden. No thanks.
    "... debt way higher than in 2010 ..."

    Could you explain the means by which, either in 2015 or 2024, the debt could reasonably be expected to be lower than it was in 2010, after the worst recession in British history and a colossal deficit inherited by the Coalition?
    The Coalition government's first budget envisioned debt to GDP rising from 62% to 67% by 2015. Fair enough, they inherited a big deficit in the wake of the global financial crisis. But because their policies were a failure, debt actually rose to 84% of GDP by 2015. So yeah, I do blame them, sorry.
    Presumably you condemn the current government's failure to get debt and deficit under control, alongside their ham fisted austerity policies?
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,631
    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    Good morning Leon. How was your meeting with MI6?

    You're one of their ideal candidates as you travel the world by invitation of host countries; meet some interesting people and talk to them; and you never seem to have any restrictions on who you meet and where. Is the Groucho Club where you are debriefed?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,584
    edited September 24
    Two points.

    The number of people against the LDs because of something something 15-10 years ago in a different universe is revealing. IMO the only specific thing anyone remembers about the LDs in coalition is the reverse on tuition fees.

    Which means that it is astonishingly fatal to do something which is all of these things: appears to break a pledge; costs actual money to actual people; is memorable; is stand alone and simple to understand.

    Something Rachel Reeves will be thinking about.

    Secondly, WRT the LDs, what are the 'reasons for the reasons' for not voting LD? These are more interesting and don't show up in polling.

    The answer is somewhere in social studies. Their appeal is multiple: to people who are wanting (1) to vote against the Tories (2) like to think they are reasonably bright (3) are fairly well off and a bit guilty about it (4) don't want to stop Labour forming a government at any cost (5) don't like performative cruelty (6) don't do the language - left or right - of class conflict.

    Nice people, but not the stuff of majorities or government.

    Most people know secretly that governments have to do things we would hate to do personally. Reform, labour and Tories can all do this and we know it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,025

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    I hold no candle for Starmer. I was dissing him before the election. But I think that says more about Pollard than it does about Starmer.

    The British right have reacted very badly to the general election result. There's been no introspection about how and why they failed in government. About why they deserved the crushing result at GE2024. About what went so very wrong that they made Liz Truss Prime Minister.

    Jumping off the deep end and competing with each other as to who can despise Starmer more is simply a way to avoid facing these uncomfortable questions. It is pathetic.
    +1

    We see much of that from our regular poster, whose various obsessions are generally a means of avoiding facing up to uncomfortable realities.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,193
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    Same reason that Jimmy Kimmel is ‘news’. Media likes media stories.
    1. Trump’s government publicly threatens TV network for running a show that mocks the president

    2. Show is suspended

    3. Trump defenders claim the government had nothing to do with it

    4. Show comes back

    5. Trump publicly threatens TV network again

    https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1970688754437497041

    I've never watched his stuff, and probably never will (and in that respect at least, the reporting has saved me the effort of finding out what was said).
    I'd prefer never to have had to hear about any of it, but this affair is one of the canaries in the mine regarding state control of the media.
    1. Kimmel makes knowingly false statements about a recent murder in order to make a joke at the President’s expense

    2. Regulator warns the show about the need to not make such false statements

    3. Facing pressure from advertisers and affiliates, Disney suspends the show

    4. Hollywood and media immediately spring to his defence, as an issue of freedom of speech rather than about the false statements

    5. A week later, facing pressure from supporters, Disney puts the show back on air, also making it clear that it was they and not the administration who made the decision to take the show off air

    6. Affiliates are still not playing ball, and the show is not broadcast to half the country

    7. Kimmel uses to the show to treat himself as the victim, rather than the guy who was murdered, he makes no apology to Charlie Kirk’s family and doesn’t even mention him by name


    The key point here is Point 2. Broadcast TV in the US is regulated by the FCC, in the same way as it is by OFCOM in the UK. Which is why they don’t swear or show nudity, and they don’t tell lies about current events.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,636
    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,521
    Nigelb said:

    .

    boulay said:

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    They also managed nearly 5 minutes on a nightclub back in the late 70s this morning when, call me crazy, a news programme could have got more experts in to discuss the implications of Trump switching sides on Ukraine for example.

    The Baron of Banal, Adrian Chiles, has now got a Saturday morning R4 programme for nostalgic randomness like this, he could also no doubt take on the Today programmes section on their listeners’ favourite apple, walk on a beach, brand of fish cakes.
    Yep, that’s the nub. R4 has if you include the World Service 24/7 output with lots of different formats with theoretically different aims. It’s the gradual reduction of everything to a cheery sludge pushing a phoney engagement with the listener that’s dispiriting. On Today I want to hear interesting, fact based reporting, not Emma Barnett telling me how deliciously lovely it is to have me as a listener.
    And she pronounces Duchy as Doochie.
    A great shame they couldn’t keep Mishal Husain and not turned down Katya Adler instead of the R5live presenter. I don’t think Emma Barnett and Anna Foster are able to drop their need to know what the listeners think and dropping in pointless personal insights traits which worked in their previous roles but not for Today.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,681
    edited September 24
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    My "first time" was a few PMs back.
    You probably voted for him, too.
    Pollard is not my favourite journalist. And this piece feels like a screeching rant. Lots of repetitions and infelicities, not quite enough venom to be effective

    So I’m not arguing that this is persuasive, I’m adducing it as evidence that Starmer DOES infuriate - in a visceral way - lots of people. He is loathed to an extent I’ve not witnessed

    Yes Truss was abhorred but she was gone in weeks. Yes Remainers hated Boris but far more voters hate Starmer. If Labour could just dump him I reckon they’d get a 5 point leap in the polls. Maybe more

    He is ripe for the toppling. It’s either Burnham, if he can get a seat, or Rayner, if she can force her way back to credibility

    Someone in Labour seems to be giving it a go ?

    In the latest (McSweeney) story, Kevin Hollinrake referenced a Labour leak in his interview on Today this morning.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79v74gy38lo

    The recent drip of negative stories from inside the party gives ant least the impression of being orchestrated.
    Agreed. I think “they” are trying to oust McSweeney. He’s Skyr’s consigliere. Once he’s gone Skyr is totally exposed and much weaker
    Hollinrake was also trying (a bit unconvincingly) to link Starmer to McSweeney's alleged criminal suppression of disclosure regarding funding.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,631
    rkrkrk said:

    What's going on in Bedford? Are there rival paramilitary coffee groups?
    What do they do if you don't tip? How does a private coffee shop have £10k/month to spend on security?
    So many questions...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzkrrjlmno.amp

    Does the Duke of Atholl have a coffee shop?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atholl_Highlanders
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,074
    DavidL said:

    I am surprised that because they are smug, patronising, hypocrites has been subsumed under something else.

    I couldn’t find “two faces chancers” either!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,403

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Yes, its a bit weird following Labour's 2 weeks of misery and rebellion.

    I hope that it is a reaction to Farages mass deportation of legal immigrants, otherwise known as my friends and colleagues?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,681
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    On BBC headlines, R4 Today trailing that they’ll be looking at the return of Slow Horses this week and why we love the Gary Oldman character. Much as I like the show, why the fck is this news?

    Same reason that Jimmy Kimmel is ‘news’. Media likes media stories.
    1. Trump’s government publicly threatens TV network for running a show that mocks the president

    2. Show is suspended

    3. Trump defenders claim the government had nothing to do with it

    4. Show comes back

    5. Trump publicly threatens TV network again

    https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1970688754437497041

    I've never watched his stuff, and probably never will (and in that respect at least, the reporting has saved me the effort of finding out what was said).
    I'd prefer never to have had to hear about any of it, but this affair is one of the canaries in the mine regarding state control of the media.
    1. Kimmel makes knowingly false statements about a recent murder in order to make a joke at the President’s expense

    2. Regulator warns the show about the need to not make such false statements

    3. Facing pressure from advertisers and affiliates, Disney suspends the show

    4. Hollywood and media immediately spring to his defence, as an issue of freedom of speech rather than about the false statements

    5. A week later, facing pressure from supporters, Disney puts the show back on air, also making it clear that it was they and not the administration who made the decision to take the show off air

    6. Affiliates are still not playing ball, and the show is not broadcast to half the country

    7. Kimmel uses to the show to treat himself as the victim, rather than the guy who was murdered, he makes no apology to Charlie Kirk’s family and doesn’t even mention him by name


    The key point here is Point 2. Broadcast TV in the US is regulated by the FCC, in the same way as it is by OFCOM in the UK. Which is why they don’t swear or show nudity, and they don’t tell lies about current events.
    The BBC reported him as tearfully apologising.
    (I haven't listened to the show.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,717

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Hmm. I wonder if that’s a reaction to Reform’s “deport the settled” proposal. If so, you called it correctly. Farage went too far

    Tho they’re still in the lead
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,521
    More or Less on R4 about to look at Ed Daley’s claims on how easy it was to deport immigrants pre Brexit. Sadly can’t listen to it now but the trail for it sounded very sceptical.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,074
    rkrkrk said:

    What's going on in Bedford? Are there rival paramilitary coffee groups?
    What do they do if you don't tip? How does a private coffee shop have £10k/month to spend on security?
    So many questions...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzkrrjlmno.amp

    Where the state doesn’t provide basic services communities fill the gap
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 16,334
    Battlebus said:

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    Good morning Leon. How was your meeting with MI6?

    You're one of their ideal candidates as you travel the world by invitation of host countries; meet some interesting people and talk to them; and you never seem to have any restrictions on who you meet and where. Is the Groucho Club where you are debriefed?
    And he is the soul of discretion.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,636
    edited September 24
    Leon said:

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Hmm. I wonder if that’s a reaction to Reform’s “deport the settled” proposal. If so, you called it correctly. Farage went too far

    Tho they’re still in the lead
    I don't think so tbf, the fieldwork only catches the announcement at the very end.
    We will call it noise unless further polling confirms a trend
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,663


    ...

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    Starmer wishes to harm our country - or at the very, very least, has subsumed any notion of our interests in the face of a broader vision he has of a green, socially just world order (but where some people are filthy rich). Burgess, Maclean and Philby would look on his achievements with awe.
    Has Starmer the Harmer been coined yet?
    I've seen "Starmer Farmer Harmer" on fences

  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,717
    Battlebus said:

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    Good morning Leon. How was your meeting with MI6?

    You're one of their ideal candidates as you travel the world by invitation of host countries; meet some interesting people and talk to them; and you never seem to have any restrictions on who you meet and where. Is the Groucho Club where you are debriefed?
    It was a good meeting. I learned that the *third risk* for MI6 and MI5 is surging up “the grid”. The first and second risks are Islamism and The Far Right, respectively
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,300

    Nigelb said:

    Hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems have had one shot at government in the last hundred years and they used it to put David Cameron and George Osborne in power. They won't be getting my vote. Like, ever.

    They should have propped up Brown ?
    The real issue is the number of Labour tribal voters who were using the Lib Dems as Spare Labour.

    So they felt betrayed that, having voted for the Lib Dems, the Lib Dems didn’t just prop up Labour as they (the Labour voters) assumed they would.
    Didn't Clegg say at some point during the campaign that in the event of a hung parliament, he would talk to whichever of the main parties did best?
    Yes

    But Labour voters who switched to the Oib Dems over Iraq ignored that.

    Much like Corbynistas ignoring his decades of consistent belief in leaving the EU
  • algarkirk said:

    Two points.

    The number of people against the LDs because of something something 15-10 years ago in a different universe is revealing. IMO the only specific thing anyone remembers about the LDs in coalition is the reverse on tuition fees.

    Which means that it is astonishingly fatal to do something which is all of these things: appears to break a pledge; costs actual money to actual people; is memorable; is stand alone and simple to understand.

    Something Rachel Reeves will be thinking about.

    Secondly, WRT the LDs, what are the 'reasons for the reasons' for not voting LD? These are more interesting and don't show up in polling.

    The answer is somewhere in social studies. Their appeal is multiple: to people who are wanting (1) to vote against the Tories (2) like to think they are reasonably bright (3) are fairly well off and a bit guilty about it (4) don't want to stop Labour forming a government at any cost (5) don't like performative cruelty (6) don't do the language - left or right - of class conflict.

    Nice people, but not the stuff of majorities or government.

    Most people know secretly that governments have to do things we would hate to do personally. Reform, labour and Tories can all do this and we know it.

    Its likely not a good thing that the LibDems leading liar on tuition fees has raked in tens of millions as a lackey of Zuckerberg.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,095
    algarkirk said:

    Two points.

    The number of people against the LDs because of something something 15-10 years ago in a different universe is revealing. IMO the only specific thing anyone remembers about the LDs in coalition is the reverse on tuition fees.

    Which means that it is astonishingly fatal to do something which is all of these things: appears to break a pledge; costs actual money to actual people; is memorable; is stand alone and simple to understand.

    Something Rachel Reeves will be thinking about.

    Secondly, WRT the LDs, what are the 'reasons for the reasons' for not voting LD? These are more interesting and don't show up in polling.

    The answer is somewhere in social studies. Their appeal is multiple: to people who are wanting (1) to vote against the Tories (2) like to think they are reasonably bright (3) are fairly well off and a bit guilty about it (4) don't want to stop Labour forming a government at any cost (5) don't like performative cruelty (6) don't do the language - left or right - of class conflict.

    Nice people, but not the stuff of majorities or government.

    Most people know secretly that governments have to do things we would hate to do personally. Reform, labour and Tories can all do this and we know it.

    On your first point, the reputation improves like recovery from a punctured credit rating. It takes a few years.

    On TSE's comment on no one remembering stunts as a cause for not voting Lib Dem, is that a sign that it worked.

    Do people (ands especially our newspaper chumps) still burbling about stunts actually have anything to say? Or do they think that their readers might perhaps like the policies if they talked about them? *

    * I'm inclined towards hardly any of our "newspapers" being "newspapers".
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,681
    edited September 24
    Leon said:

    Battlebus said:

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    Good morning Leon. How was your meeting with MI6?

    You're one of their ideal candidates as you travel the world by invitation of host countries; meet some interesting people and talk to them; and you never seem to have any restrictions on who you meet and where. Is the Groucho Club where you are debriefed?
    It was a good meeting. I learned that the *third risk* for MI6 and MI5 is surging up “the grid”. The first and second risks are Islamism and The Far Right, respectively
    The third being budget cuts ?
    (Given you're banned from discussing the other thing.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,717

    Leon said:

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Hmm. I wonder if that’s a reaction to Reform’s “deport the settled” proposal. If so, you called it correctly. Farage went too far

    Tho they’re still in the lead
    I don't think so tbf, the fieldwork only catches the announcement at the very end.
    We will call it noise unless further polling confirms a trend
    Yes in that case perhaps just a rogue. Hard to see anything that could cause Lab and Con to both ascend
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,021
    Foxy said:

    Hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems have had one shot at government in the last hundred years and they used it to put David Cameron and George Osborne in power. They won't be getting my vote. Like, ever.

    What was the alternative?

    An unstable rainbow coalition that would torn itself asunder within weeks and likely been Liz Truss on speed.

    Plus you forget the legacy Labour bequeathed them, as I point Labour went into that election promising bigger cuts than Thatcher.
    The coalition's badly thought out austerity policies (with the triple lock as the cherry on top) created the breeding ground of resentment that gave us Brexit. Worst government ever - until the even worse Tory clusterfucks tht followed. Talk about a legacy! Brexit, NHS in the toilet, asylum system fucked, debt way higher than in 2010, no progress on fixing social care, major infrastructure projects mismanaged and canceled, corrupt Covid projects pouring money down the drain, the triple lock bankrupting working people... it will take a generation to fix the mess the Tories have made of this country. All stemming from that posh boy love fest in the Rose Garden. No thanks.
    "... debt way higher than in 2010 ..."

    Could you explain the means by which, either in 2015 or 2024, the debt could reasonably be expected to be lower than it was in 2010, after the worst recession in British history and a colossal deficit inherited by the Coalition?
    The Coalition government's first budget envisioned debt to GDP rising from 62% to 67% by 2015. Fair enough, they inherited a big deficit in the wake of the global financial crisis. But because their policies were a failure, debt actually rose to 84% of GDP by 2015. So yeah, I do blame them, sorry.
    Presumably you condemn the current government's failure to get debt and deficit under control, alongside their ham fisted austerity policies?
    Give me a shout when debt overshoots by 17pp of GDP. They've got a way to go still.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,781
    Leon said:

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Hmm. I wonder if that’s a reaction to Reform’s “deport the settled” proposal. If so, you called it correctly. Farage went too far

    Tho they’re still in the lead
    It is More In Common. Last I remember they used a fake Likert scale with only four points 'Do you like this, really like it, not care, or HATE IT' as a way of boosting some point they wanted to make - I can't even remember what it was.

    I know we're not meant to criticise them, but if they're quite willing to misuse polling that way, I don't see that I can put complete trust their VI polling on a week like this.

    It could (for example) have been tacked on the end of some topic specific polling that said 'What do you make of the news that Farage likes to eat babies?' - then do the VI poll.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,663
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Hmm. I wonder if that’s a reaction to Reform’s “deport the settled” proposal. If so, you called it correctly. Farage went too far

    Tho they’re still in the lead
    I don't think so tbf, the fieldwork only catches the announcement at the very end.
    We will call it noise unless further polling confirms a trend
    Yes in that case perhaps just a rogue. Hard to see anything that could cause Lab and Con to both ascend
    "Penny dropping with voters about Reform and Farage" would be the glaringly obvious reason lit up in 3m high neon
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,492

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Not what I expected. I thought Sir Keir's Rayner / Mandy horror show and Nigel's deportations + the Front in Trafalgar Square would have a cancelling-out effect. But perhaps the latter had more salience. Or did the public view Sir Keir's handling of Trump as masterly?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,021
    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    Oh dear. Whatever long standing doubts I have over Starmer are dispelled. If the Daily Mail hate him this much he must be doing something right.
  • Leon said:

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Hmm. I wonder if that’s a reaction to Reform’s “deport the settled” proposal. If so, you called it correctly. Farage went too far

    Tho they’re still in the lead
    It is More In Common. Last I remember they used a fake Likert scale with only four points 'Do you like this, really like it, not care, or HATE IT' as a way of boosting some point they wanted to make - I can't even remember what it was.

    I know we're not meant to criticise them, but if they're quite willing to misuse polling that way, I don't see that I can put complete trust their VI polling on a week like this.

    It could (for example) have been tacked on the end of some topic specific polling that said 'What do you make of the news that Farage likes to eat babies?' - then do the VI poll.
    Shut up.

    They ask the VI questions first.

    You are treading on thin ice with your approach slagging off pollsters who give answers you don’t like, you did it with YouGov last night thinking they’ve suddenly started downweighting habitual non voters, which is something they’ve done since their founding in 2000.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,584
    Leon said:

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Hmm. I wonder if that’s a reaction to Reform’s “deport the settled” proposal. If so, you called it correctly. Farage went too far

    Tho they’re still in the lead
    There is an absolute opinion gulf between (1) not allowing people in and deporting illegals/non nationals who commit significant crimes and (2) questioning even slightly the status of ILRs, genuine spouses, children, working people with visas, pre Brexit EUs with settled status.

    Opinion formers and the middle class (even here in whitest Cumberland) all know them personally. They are our friends. We would do anything to protect them.
  • Foxy said:

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Yes, its a bit weird following Labour's 2 weeks of misery and rebellion.

    I hope that it is a reaction to Farages mass deportation of legal immigrants, otherwise known as my friends and colleagues?
    Successful state visit by Trump plus Farage toxic policy on immigration and deportations turning the dial ?

    I genuinely hope this is the start of the public waking up to Farage and Reform's divisive far right policies
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,636
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Morning all,
    More in Common with a bit of an 'interesting' weekly poll. A tightening
    Some shifts in this week's voting intention as Reform’s lead over Labour narrows again: now down to just 3pts. With both Labour and Tories up

    ➡️ REF UK 28% (-3)
    🌹 LAB 25% (+3)
    🌳 CON 20% (+2)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
    🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
    🟡 SNP 3% (nc)

    N=2055 |19-22/9|Change w 15/9

    Hmm. I wonder if that’s a reaction to Reform’s “deport the settled” proposal. If so, you called it correctly. Farage went too far

    Tho they’re still in the lead
    I don't think so tbf, the fieldwork only catches the announcement at the very end.
    We will call it noise unless further polling confirms a trend
    Yes in that case perhaps just a rogue. Hard to see anything that could cause Lab and Con to both ascend
    In the personal ratings Starmer gas had a small bounce and MiCs focus groups had good feedback on the state visit so that might be behind Labour's rise. Tories are just swimming around their long term MiC mean, as are Reform really.
    Its margin of error and within long term trend but we are bamboozled by 'multiple margins of error' perhaps
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,663
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Battlebus said:

    Leon said:

    I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

    “I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

    “But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

    “I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

    “Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

    It goes on. And on

    Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

    Good morning Leon. How was your meeting with MI6?

    You're one of their ideal candidates as you travel the world by invitation of host countries; meet some interesting people and talk to them; and you never seem to have any restrictions on who you meet and where. Is the Groucho Club where you are debriefed?
    It was a good meeting. I learned that the *third risk* for MI6 and MI5 is surging up “the grid”. The first and second risks are Islamism and The Far Right, respectively
    The third being budget cuts ?
    (Given you're banned from discussing the other thing.)
    Probably support for the "moderate green left" endangering the chance of a Far Right govt if the security services are reverting to type.
Sign In or Register to comment.