Skip to content

Soon we could see the Greens second in the polls to Reform – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,758
edited 7:53AM in General
Soon we could see the Greens second in the polls to Reform – politicalbetting.com

Our latest Westminster voting intention (26-27 Oct) has Labour on their lowest figure ever recorded by YouGov, with the Greens on their highestReform UK: 27% (+1 from 19-20 Oct)Labour: 17% (-3)Conservatives: 17% (=)Greens: 16% (+1)Lib Dems: 15% (=)SNP: 3% (-1)yougov.co.uk/topics/polit…

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,893
    edited 7:55AM
    Shows how hopeless the rest of the left is that Whacky Zacky is flying so high
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,595

    Shows how hopeless the rest of the left is that Whacky Zack is flying so high

    Its the None of the Above vote or back in college days, RON could be a very popular chap.....

    RON - (Re-Open Nominations)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,595
    Those "speeches of their lives" at party conferences seem a long time ago....
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 500
    More than any other party, the mis-match between the Greens' members and their voters is vast. If/when the media start to analyse exactly what the Greens are proposing, their opinion polling numbers will start to fall.

    However, as the media has shown no interest whatsoever in critiqueing RefUk, then I expect the Greens wil continue to have an easy rde - so I forecast them in second place before Christmas.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,595
    edited 8:02AM
    O/T - Did they change the writers for Slow Horses this season, because it f##king shit. Cringeworthy bollocks.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,367
    I think the main thing here is that, despite the vast number of previous NOTA coming out for Reform, the left is still picking up cumulatively 50%+ of the vote.

    If we assume that the SNP and Plaid will sweep Scotland and Wales, and the Lib Dems will maintain their current seats, a rainbow coalition has a base of 150 seats. That leaves Labour the challenge of winning about 150 of their 350 seats in England which seems pretty doable to me.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,837
    If the Greens were a clear second, in 2029, I think Reform would win comfortably,

    More voters would opt for Reform than for a party of the far left.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,665
    The Senate voted 52–48 to overturn Donald Trump’s 50% tariffs on Brazil. Five Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the measure:

    Mitch McConnell
    Rand Paul
    Thom Tillis
    Susan Collins
    Lisa Murkowski

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1983310301253775700

    Interesting.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,927

    More than any other party, the mis-match between the Greens' members and their voters is vast. If/when the media start to analyse exactly what the Greens are proposing, their opinion polling numbers will start to fall.

    However, as the media has shown no interest whatsoever in critiqueing RefUk, then I expect the Greens wil continue to have an easy rde - so I forecast them in second place before Christmas.

    I recall a Green Spasm from years ago. Which died when their policies started getting more exposure.

    Will be interesting, this time
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,837
    Eabhal said:

    I think the main thing here is that, despite the vast number of previous NOTA coming out for Reform, the left is still picking up cumulatively 50%+ of the vote.

    If we assume that the SNP and Plaid will sweep Scotland and Wales, and the Lib Dems will maintain their current seats, a rainbow coalition has a base of 150 seats. That leaves Labour the challenge of winning about 150 of their 350 seats in England which seems pretty doable to me.

    Plaid won’t sweep Wales. Even if we repeat the Caerphilly result across the country, Reform and Plaid finish on 32% each.

    Nor am I convinced that the SNP will sweep Scotland, either.

    A lot of polling puts the parties of the right on .50%.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,396
    edited 8:11AM

    Shows how hopeless the rest of the left is that Whacky Zacky is flying so high

    The one thing everyone knows about hypnoboobs is that he is very good at persuading people, even when it's about things that just aren't so.

    (Not sure if persuading is always the right word- isn't part of the model of hypnosis relaxing people to believe things that they want to believe but can't?)

    In this case, that there's a way out of our problems that only hurts people who deserve it. But pretty much everyone else in politics is doing that as well.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,164
    Nigelb said:

    The Senate voted 52–48 to overturn Donald Trump’s 50% tariffs on Brazil. Five Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the measure:

    Mitch McConnell
    Rand Paul
    Thom Tillis
    Susan Collins
    Lisa Murkowski

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1983310301253775700

    Interesting.

    Feels like it might be the start of something.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,367

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    Agree - frankly it would be a bit pathetic for the country to vote a Green or Reform government in given just how good things are. And I don't think they will - we are a property-owning country and with (on average) low housing costs - I don't think most people will vote to disrupt that.

    The Greens will do well with a minority of people deeply frustrated by a lack of a left-wing agenda. Reform could do well with a majority of people if the Channel remains a big issue in 2029. Otherwise...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,827

    Shows how hopeless the rest of the left is that Whacky Zack is flying so high

    Its the None of the Above vote or back in college days, RON could be a very popular chap.....

    RON - (Re-Open Nominations)
    When I was on the RAG Week committee, we used to go around all the hustings campaigning for RON, reminding the electorate that they had every right to reject all of the candidates (in slightly less polite language!).

    The others didn’t like us much.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,893
    Foxy said:

    More than any other party, the mis-match between the Greens' members and their voters is vast. If/when the media start to analyse exactly what the Greens are proposing, their opinion polling numbers will start to fall.

    However, as the media has shown no interest whatsoever in critiqueing RefUk, then I expect the Greens wil continue to have an easy rde - so I forecast them in second place before Christmas.

    On the contrary, I think the Greens are doing so well in the polling because Polanski clearly communicates what he stands for.

    He is an excellent communicator and willingly to go into bat to defend immigrants, Transfolk, and to speak out against rising inequality, genocide in Gaza and the Oligarchs. These may well be minority views on PB but go down well with the wider public. Our right wing press barons and twisted Social Media alogorithims are not representative.

    Polanski is mining a substantial seam of support, helped by a strong anti-Starmer and anti-Farage feeling in much of the country.
    Does he stand for anything Green?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,927

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    The real problem is total sclerosis in the system of the governing class. Which makes change next to impossible. It’s also their utter incompetence and lack of knowledge about what they are doing -

    - the bat tunnel. No, not the cost. The specification, according to the chap who commissioned it, was “no bats could be allowed to be injured”. That is impossible. You could reduce the *probability* to 1 in a million. But eliminating risk completely requires infinite money.
    - The farce over the Small Reactors. Demanding that a percentage of the employees are asylum seekers? When asylum seekers can’t work, by law.
    - renting the asylum hotels at rates *above* the cost of block booking rooms.
    - Wanting more homes built, then piling up contradictory regulations until they manage to stop flats being built. And then wanting to increase landfill costs….
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,367
    Foxy said:

    More than any other party, the mis-match between the Greens' members and their voters is vast. If/when the media start to analyse exactly what the Greens are proposing, their opinion polling numbers will start to fall.

    However, as the media has shown no interest whatsoever in critiqueing RefUk, then I expect the Greens wil continue to have an easy rde - so I forecast them in second place before Christmas.

    On the contrary, I think the Greens are doing so well in the polling because Polanski clearly communicates what he stands for.

    He is an excellent communicator and willingly to go into bat to defend immigrants, Transfolk, and to speak out against rising inequality, genocide in Gaza and the Oligarchs. These may well be minority views on PB but go down well with the wider public. Our right wing press barons and twisted Social Media alogorithims are not representative.

    Polanski is mining a substantial seam of support, helped by a strong anti-Starmer and anti-Farage feeling in much of the country.
    His social media is excellent. He's got the knack of sounding reasonable on things - of course we should oppose genocide - and not coming across as overly strident.

    (It occurs to me that Farage is good at the common sense vibe too...)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,686
    edited 8:23AM

    Shows how hopeless the rest of the left is that Whacky Zacky is flying so high

    I guess the same could be said about the rest of the right and fashy Nige with his hapless band of fruitcakes, loons and closet racists.

    Edit: or not so closeted.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,927
    Sandpit said:

    Shows how hopeless the rest of the left is that Whacky Zack is flying so high

    Its the None of the Above vote or back in college days, RON could be a very popular chap.....

    RON - (Re-Open Nominations)
    When I was on the RAG Week committee, we used to go around all the hustings campaigning for RON, reminding the electorate that they had every right to reject all of the candidates (in slightly less polite language!).

    The others didn’t like us much.
    At UCL, on one occasion, the ballots got slightly screwed up. RON was printed as Ron. Ron won by a huge margin.

    The process (at the time) was that a new election would be called. All the previous candidates could not stand. We had a long queue of people whinging about their devastated political careers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,768

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,164

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    The real problem is total sclerosis in the system of the governing class. Which makes change next to impossible. It’s also their utter incompetence and lack of knowledge about what they are doing -

    - the bat tunnel. No, not the cost. The specification, according to the chap who commissioned it, was “no bats could be allowed to be injured”. That is impossible. You could reduce the *probability* to 1 in a million. But eliminating risk completely requires infinite money.
    - The farce over the Small Reactors. Demanding that a percentage of the employees are asylum seekers? When asylum seekers can’t work, by law.
    - renting the asylum hotels at rates *above* the cost of block booking rooms.
    - Wanting more homes built, then piling up contradictory regulations until they manage to stop flats being built. And then wanting to increase landfill costs….
    If you look back through history I am not convinced that this level of incompetence is any greater than it was before. Human beings always do stupid stuff, especially when they work for the government. If anything, your examples seem rather petty when held up against the idiocy and incompetence of the past. Why does it suddenly require recourse to extreme solutions?
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,893

    Shows how hopeless the rest of the left is that Whacky Zacky is flying so high

    I guess the same could be said about the rest of the right and fashy Nige with his hapless band of fruitcakes, loons and closet racists.

    Edit: or not so closeted.
    Some truth in that, but the "rest of the right" has just been in government for fourteen years before a huge election loss

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,768
    Sandpit said:

    Shows how hopeless the rest of the left is that Whacky Zack is flying so high

    Its the None of the Above vote or back in college days, RON could be a very popular chap.....

    RON - (Re-Open Nominations)
    When I was on the RAG Week committee, we used to go around all the hustings campaigning for RON, reminding the electorate that they had every right to reject all of the candidates (in slightly less polite language!).

    The others didn’t like us much.
    Why be so negative?

    Why not run yourself if you think you could do any better?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,396
    Eabhal said:

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    Agree - frankly it would be a bit pathetic for the country to vote a Green or Reform government in given just how good things are. And I don't think they will - we are a property-owning country and with (on average) low housing costs - I don't think most people will vote to disrupt that.

    The Greens will do well with a minority of people deeply frustrated by a lack of a left-wing agenda. Reform could do well with a majority of people if the Channel remains a big issue in 2029. Otherwise...
    Part of the problem is a lack of big new ideas. But maybe there aren't any... or no big ideas that are likely to be better than fine-tuning the status quo.

    Partly that leads to frustration (improvement from here will be hard work to extract two percent a year if we're lucky). But also, it's boring. Some people do incredibly stupid things when they are bored.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,669

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    The real problem is total sclerosis in the system of the governing class. Which makes change next to impossible. It’s also their utter incompetence and lack of knowledge about what they are doing -

    - the bat tunnel. No, not the cost. The specification, according to the chap who commissioned it, was “no bats could be allowed to be injured”. That is impossible. You could reduce the *probability* to 1 in a million. But eliminating risk completely requires infinite money.
    - The farce over the Small Reactors. Demanding that a percentage of the employees are asylum seekers? When asylum seekers can’t work, by law.
    - renting the asylum hotels at rates *above* the cost of block booking rooms.
    - Wanting more homes built, then piling up contradictory regulations until they manage to stop flats being built. And then wanting to increase landfill costs….
    If you look back through history I am not convinced that this level of incompetence is any greater than it was before. Human beings always do stupid stuff, especially when they work for the government. If anything, your examples seem rather petty when held up against the idiocy and incompetence of the past. Why does it suddenly require recourse to extreme solutions?
    +1 none of those issues are ones that wouldn’t occur elsewhere if people are under pressure or think they can sneak something in.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,876

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    People expect things to get better though, and that progress has stalled for 10-15 years.
    I do have some sympathy with your point though. My hope is we will see enough gradual progress and tactical voting to see a Labour government continue.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,768
    Eabhal said:

    Foxy said:

    More than any other party, the mis-match between the Greens' members and their voters is vast. If/when the media start to analyse exactly what the Greens are proposing, their opinion polling numbers will start to fall.

    However, as the media has shown no interest whatsoever in critiqueing RefUk, then I expect the Greens wil continue to have an easy rde - so I forecast them in second place before Christmas.

    On the contrary, I think the Greens are doing so well in the polling because Polanski clearly communicates what he stands for.

    He is an excellent communicator and willingly to go into bat to defend immigrants, Transfolk, and to speak out against rising inequality, genocide in Gaza and the Oligarchs. These may well be minority views on PB but go down well with the wider public. Our right wing press barons and twisted Social Media alogorithims are not representative.

    Polanski is mining a substantial seam of support, helped by a strong anti-Starmer and anti-Farage feeling in much of the country.
    His social media is excellent. He's got the knack of sounding reasonable on things - of course we should oppose genocide - and not coming across as overly strident.

    (It occurs to me that Farage is good at the common sense vibe too...)
    Yes, both have charisma, and good rhetorical skills, as well as an ability to chime with feelings of dissatisfaction. Their policies are often under-developed and even self-defeating, but that is Populism for you. People want something to believe in, and simple solutions to complex problems.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,106
    The Edinburgh bypass is absolutely dogshit. That is all.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,808
    edited 8:36AM
    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    He physically assaulted her and another woman. It was not just on one day either.

    The Judge who heard the evidence deemed it appropriate.

    Why do people mitigate these offences on women by predatory men ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3w04jwjzo

    ‘ A judge at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court also found him guilty of harassing the girl, inciting her to engage in sexual activity and an attempted sexual assault, and warned him to expect a prison sentence.

    Kebatu attempted to kiss the girl and placed his hand on her thigh, as well as asking her to kiss another child in front of him, the court heard.

    When a woman intervened he also placed his hand on her thigh, which she said made her feel "shocked, uncomfortable", before she called the police.’
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,794
    FPP(and maybe P)T: @Casino_Royale you flummox me, you do.

    In most ways I have you pegged as a thoughtful, patriotic, right of centre astute political analyst.

    But I don't get this. You say you'd pick Trump over Corbyn. Granted, it's a terrible, terrible forced choice (and I can admit that even despite an instinctive desire for a leader who will dismantle the more egregious aspects of our current vulture capitalism; Corbyn is not that man).

    But I would pick a right-of-centre incompetent over someone intent on pulling apart democracy every time. Can you show your working for picking Trump over Corbyn please?

    (Not a dig, I'm genuinely interested. It feels to me like an emotional reaction to Corbyn causing some cognitive dissonance about quite how catastrophic Trump 2's actions are for global democracy and the relative supremacy of the West Vs China.)

    maxh said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 27%(+1),
    CON 17%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    GRN 16%(+1)
    LDEM 15%(nc),

    According to YouGov, the 17% for Labour is, they believe believe, the lowest we have shown them on and the Green score is their highest.

    Needless to say, it's an unusual result with four parties within 2 points of each other.


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1983053821849817502

    Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.

    Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
    It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
    You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
    I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
    Radical Left would be apocalyptic.

    No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
    Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?

    I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
    I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.

    So would most of the country.
    Then most of the country are wrong, as are you.
    I don't think so. Plenty of people on here (many reading this now, and even posting) would handwring about it publicly, and then still vote for them in the voting booth.

    Farage is a pub bore and a bit of an ass, but I'd far rather him in power than Corbyn/Foot.

    My concern with him isn't his shtick, it's that I don't think he could manage a team or do the job and his economics are fantasy land.
    I did vote for Corbyn in 2016 (for the regional vote in the Holyrood elections), but I couldn't now vote for anyone who doesn't take the threat from Russia seriously. Not for Corbyn. Not for Polanski. Not for Farage.

    I'm surprised at the number of PB Righties prepared to overlook Farage's support for Putin.
    I think the conflation of Farage and Trump here is unhelpful.

    @Casino_Royale I'd be interested in whether you'd go for Trump over Corbyn. I can understand you choosing Farage (populist right, roughly in line with Trump's first term perhaps). But Trump now?

    Imv we all need to carefully consider which of the options at our next election are best placed to preserve and strengthen democracy in the face of a pretty crap set of political choices that will need to be made in the next generation or two.

    One can have a sensible argument over whether Farage (playing to the gallery, keeping people engaged in politics) or Starmer (stolid respect of the rule of law) are best placed to keep our democracy healthy (neither is a great choice). But Trump is way out on the extremes on this.
    Yes, I'd go for Trump over Corbyn.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,418
    Sean_F said:

    If the Greens were a clear second, in 2029, I think Reform would win comfortably,

    More voters would opt for Reform than for a party of the far left.

    According to the polls, most voters are opting for Reform over every other party. That's the point. But Caerphilly taught us there will be a tactical vote against Reform. If the Greens get that (and it's a big if) then they get lots of seats.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,494
    Morning all :)

    On the YouGov numbers, you basically have four parties in a statistical tie for second place currently which is unprecedented in my time. If you want to see how much further you could go, the Dutch are going to the polls today.

    The last IPSOS poll puts D66 (the Dutch equivalent of the LDs) in the lead but with the PVV and the Labour/Green Alliance only just behind (and I mean within 0.6%).

    Imagine if we went into a polling day with the LDs just ahead of Labour, the Greens and Reform but with all four parties split by about one or two points...might happen, probably won't.

    Once again, however, we have the traditional raging against the machine and the traditional vitriol against "politicians". First, and speaking purely personally, I doubt I could do any better. Second, we are in the midst of a significant demographic and societal shift unlike anything we've ever seen. All the economic and social models from the 20th century, which fitted well to typical pyramid population structures with lots of younger people working and most older people dying, no longer work.

    Alternative governance to fit this emerging societal structure is yet to develop (it will). On top of that, technological and geopolitical shifts are wiping out the certainties of past eras - arguably, this began in 1989 with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the ramifications of which, I'd argue, still resonate.

    In the face of all this volatility, there's a natural desire to withdraw, to isolate, to surround oneself with the familiar, to seek solace in certainties of identity and culture (and you'd better believe that doesn't just apply to indigenous peoples.)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,768
    edited 8:40AM
    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    He physically assaulted her and another woman.

    The Judge who heard the evidence deemed it appropriate.

    Why do people mitigate these offences on women by predatory men ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3w04jwjzo

    ‘ A judge at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court also found him guilty of harassing the girl, inciting her to engage in sexual activity and an attempted sexual assault, and warned him to expect a prison sentence.

    Kebatu attempted to kiss the girl and placed his hand on her thigh, as well as asking her to kiss another child in front of him, the court heard.

    When a woman intervened he also placed his hand on her thigh, which she said made her feel "shocked, uncomfortable", before she called the police.’
    Like I said, it is an offense and should be dealt with by the police, but to make him out to be a violent sex offender is exagerrating things.

    I suspect a white offender with similar actions would have got off with a caution.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,827
    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    According to the BBC, there were two sexual assaults on two different women. It wasn’t just a clumsy attempt at a kiss.

    In September, Chelmsford Magistrates' Court heard Kebatu tried to kiss a 14-year-old girl on a bench and made numerous sexually explicit comments on 7 July.
    The following day, he encountered the same girl and tried to kiss her before sexually assaulting her. He also sexually assaulted a woman who had offered to help him create a CV to find work.


    https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c17pez0pl57t
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,686
    Poor old Greens, people who wouldn’t vote for them in a million years not happy when they were all about just stop oil, now the same people aren’t happy when Zack criticises 20000 Gazan kids being slaughtered. They just can’t win! (TBC)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,665

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    The real problem is total sclerosis in the system of the governing class. Which makes change next to impossible. It’s also their utter incompetence and lack of knowledge about what they are doing -

    - the bat tunnel. No, not the cost. The specification, according to the chap who commissioned it, was “no bats could be allowed to be injured”. That is impossible. You could reduce the *probability* to 1 in a million. But eliminating risk completely requires infinite money.
    - The farce over the Small Reactors. Demanding that a percentage of the employees are asylum seekers? When asylum seekers can’t work, by law.
    - renting the asylum hotels at rates *above* the cost of block booking rooms.
    - Wanting more homes built, then piling up contradictory regulations until they manage to stop flats being built. And then wanting to increase landfill costs….
    If you look back through history I am not convinced that this level of incompetence is any greater than it was before. Human beings always do stupid stuff, especially when they work for the government. If anything, your examples seem rather petty when held up against the idiocy and incompetence of the past. Why does it suddenly require recourse to extreme solutions?
    It doesn't.
    But stuff like overly restrictive and onerous planning/building regs isn't particularly petty in its effects. Rather, it's a massive drag on the economy.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,669
    rkrkrk said:

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    People expect things to get better though, and that progress has stalled for 10-15 years.
    I do have some sympathy with your point though. My hope is we will see enough gradual progress and tactical voting to see a Labour government continue.
    Stalled for 15 years - so roughly round about when austerity kicked in and budgets were reduced to just try keeping things running levels with no money to invest in trying to improve things
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,137
    It is certainly possible if the Greens squeeze voters from Labour more as Reform squeezed voters from the Tories we could see Reform first from the Nationalist right and the Greens second from the hard left. The LDs could then even take third or even move up to second themselves by taking centrist voters from Labour and the Conservatives in turn.

    It looks like Reeves will have a budget raising tax on the rich and high earners in part to squeeze back the Greens via a shift of Labour to the left
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,811
    So translating to US speak we have the Dems leading the GOP by 51 to 44.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,794
    viewcode said:

    Sean_F said:

    If the Greens were a clear second, in 2029, I think Reform would win comfortably,

    More voters would opt for Reform than for a party of the far left.

    According to the polls, most voters are opting for Reform over every other party. That's the point. But Caerphilly taught us there will be a tactical vote against Reform. If the Greens get that (and it's a big if) then they get lots of seats.
    But that doesn't mean Sean is wrong. Greens are an acceptable tactical vote for many if they are not actually going to win (both because you can signal a desire for a movement in a particular political direction without signing up to the specifics of the end point, and also because they will get less scrutiny if people don't think they'll actually win).

    Once there is a realistic prospect of Greens leading a government, many will stay at home rather than vote for them. So tactical voting will weaken considerably.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,713
    Foxy said:

    More than any other party, the mis-match between the Greens' members and their voters is vast. If/when the media start to analyse exactly what the Greens are proposing, their opinion polling numbers will start to fall.

    However, as the media has shown no interest whatsoever in critiqueing RefUk, then I expect the Greens wil continue to have an easy rde - so I forecast them in second place before Christmas.

    On the contrary, I think the Greens are doing so well in the polling because Polanski clearly communicates what he stands for.

    He is an excellent communicator and willingly to go into bat to defend immigrants, Transfolk, and to speak out against rising inequality, genocide in Gaza and the Oligarchs. These may well be minority views on PB but go down well with the wider public. Our right wing press barons and twisted Social Media alogorithims are not representative.

    Polanski is mining a substantial seam of support, helped by a strong anti-Starmer and anti-Farage feeling in much of the country.
    "He is an excellent communicator and willingly to go into bat to defend immigrants, Transfolk, and to speak out against rising inequality, genocide in Gaza and the Oligarchs."

    Climate change? Habitat loss? Species extinction? Nah, none of that boring eco-shit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,827
    edited 8:45AM
    HYUFD said:

    It is certainly possible if the Greens squeeze voters from Labour more as Reform squeezed voters from the Tories we could see Reform first from the Nationalist right and the Greens second from the hard left. The LDs could then even take third or even move up to second themselves by taking centrist voters from Labour and the Conservatives in turn.

    It looks like Reeves will have a budget raising tax on the rich and high earners in part to squeeze back the Greens via a shift of Labour to the left

    Great news for Dubai, Singapore, Monaco, US (ex NY and CA).

    Not so great news for UK tax revenues.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,686

    The Edinburgh bypass is absolutely dogshit. That is all.

    You’ll get no argument from me. Slightly mystified as to why it’s so bad apart from the obvious reason of volume of traffic, stationary queues and tailbacks even in the non rush hours.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,768
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    According to the BBC, there were two sexual assaults on two different women. It wasn’t just a clumsy attempt at a kiss.

    In September, Chelmsford Magistrates' Court heard Kebatu tried to kiss a 14-year-old girl on a bench and made numerous sexually explicit comments on 7 July.
    The following day, he encountered the same girl and tried to kiss her before sexually assaulting her. He also sexually assaulted a woman who had offered to help him create a CV to find work.


    https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c17pez0pl57t
    Do you think all such behaviour merits a 12/12 custodial sentence?

    If so we are going to need vastly larger prisons, and not just here but in the Sandpit too, where any woman will describe such behaviour as common.

    I have never denied the facts of the offence, just the disproportionate sentence.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,808
    edited 8:49AM
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    He physically assaulted her and another woman.

    The Judge who heard the evidence deemed it appropriate.

    Why do people mitigate these offences on women by predatory men ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3w04jwjzo

    ‘ A judge at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court also found him guilty of harassing the girl, inciting her to engage in sexual activity and an attempted sexual assault, and warned him to expect a prison sentence.

    Kebatu attempted to kiss the girl and placed his hand on her thigh, as well as asking her to kiss another child in front of him, the court heard.

    When a woman intervened he also placed his hand on her thigh, which she said made her feel "shocked, uncomfortable", before she called the police.’
    Like I said, it is an offense and should be dealt with by the police, but to make him out to be a violent sex offender is exagerrating things.

    I suspect a white offender with similar actions would have got off with a caution.
    He placed his hands on them both. He physically assaulted them.

    Your last sentence is where you are coming from. I suspect mitigating for him because of his being an asylum seeker. Just like Roger did. You just called him a lecherous man, he’s a convicted sex offender. Think of the victims.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,827
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Shows how hopeless the rest of the left is that Whacky Zack is flying so high

    Its the None of the Above vote or back in college days, RON could be a very popular chap.....

    RON - (Re-Open Nominations)
    When I was on the RAG Week committee, we used to go around all the hustings campaigning for RON, reminding the electorate that they had every right to reject all of the candidates (in slightly less polite language!).

    The others didn’t like us much.
    Why be so negative?

    Why not run yourself if you think you could do any better?
    RON was running, but no-one else was campaigning for him.

    In real life I was friends with many of the candidates, and the RAG Week committee campaigning for RON was the equivalanet of Screaming Lord Sutch or Count Binface running against the sitting Prime Minister. All’s fun in love and politics.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,106

    The Edinburgh bypass is absolutely dogshit. That is all.

    You’ll get no argument from me. Slightly mystified as to why it’s so bad apart from the obvious reason of volume of traffic, stationary queues and tailbacks even in the non rush hours.

    Took me over 1 hour this morning to get from Dunbar to Ingliston at 7:00. Ridiculous.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,137
    edited 8:51AM
    Sean_F said:

    If the Greens were a clear second, in 2029, I think Reform would win comfortably,

    More voters would opt for Reform than for a party of the far left.

    Yes Polanski would put the fear of God in the property owning middle class and pensioners even more than Corbyn did. Farage would be the moderate option on that scenario for swing voters who might otherwise swing back to Starmer or Burnham led Labour, the LDs or even a Cleverly led Conservatives
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,827
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    According to the BBC, there were two sexual assaults on two different women. It wasn’t just a clumsy attempt at a kiss.

    In September, Chelmsford Magistrates' Court heard Kebatu tried to kiss a 14-year-old girl on a bench and made numerous sexually explicit comments on 7 July.
    The following day, he encountered the same girl and tried to kiss her before sexually assaulting her. He also sexually assaulted a woman who had offered to help him create a CV to find work.


    https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c17pez0pl57t
    Do you think all such behaviour merits a 12/12 custodial sentence?

    If so we are going to need vastly larger prisons, and not just here but in the Sandpit too, where any woman will describe such behaviour as common.

    I have never denied the facts of the offence, just the disproportionate sentence.
    On there’s much advice given to young ladies out here.

    You would think it horrifically racist.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,794
    Foxy said:

    More than any other party, the mis-match between the Greens' members and their voters is vast. If/when the media start to analyse exactly what the Greens are proposing, their opinion polling numbers will start to fall.

    However, as the media has shown no interest whatsoever in critiqueing RefUk, then I expect the Greens wil continue to have an easy rde - so I forecast them in second place before Christmas.

    On the contrary, I think the Greens are doing so well in the polling because Polanski clearly communicates what he stands for.

    He is an excellent communicator and willingly to go into bat to defend immigrants, Transfolk, and to speak out against rising inequality, genocide in Gaza and the Oligarchs. These may well be minority views on PB but go down well with the wider public. Our right wing press barons and twisted Social Media alogorithims are not representative.

    Polanski is mining a substantial seam of support, helped by a strong anti-Starmer and anti-Farage feeling in much of the country.
    I don't disagree that Polanski communicates well, but I think you are assuming most voters are as politically engaged as you are.

    Maybe you're right. But I'm reasonably politically engaged (who am I kidding, I'm a nerd) and have a vague sense that Polanski is 'on the right side' but a bit bonkers economically. I couldn't give you specifics on his policies. Nor, I think, could the vast majority of people who tick 'Green' in the opinion poll.

    Imv the green vote simply reflects distaste with Starmer's Labour, combined with lingering distrust of the Lib Dems, combined with the country's general childish desire to tear everything down and make it anew.

    He is benefitting from precisely the same paucity of political debate in the media as Farage is.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,837
    maxh said:

    viewcode said:

    Sean_F said:

    If the Greens were a clear second, in 2029, I think Reform would win comfortably,

    More voters would opt for Reform than for a party of the far left.

    According to the polls, most voters are opting for Reform over every other party. That's the point. But Caerphilly taught us there will be a tactical vote against Reform. If the Greens get that (and it's a big if) then they get lots of seats.
    But that doesn't mean Sean is wrong. Greens are an acceptable tactical vote for many if they are not actually going to win (both because you can signal a desire for a movement in a particular political direction without signing up to the specifics of the end point, and also because they will get less scrutiny if people don't think they'll actually win).

    Once there is a realistic prospect of Greens leading a government, many will stay at home rather than vote for them. So tactical voting will weaken considerably.
    You’re starting with an overall Right vote of 31% in Caerphilly, from 2024, and 20%, from 2021. The median constituency has a Right vote of 40%, from 2024.

    The Conservative vote in Caerphilly switched en masse to Reform, while the Labour vote switched en masse to Plaid, and both parties gained previous non-voters. The Right vote rose to 38%.

    In a more Right-leaning constituency, those sorts of vote shifts would favour Reform over its left wing challenger.

    WRT the Greens, I don’t see a platform of leaving NATO, unilateral disarmament, and big tax rises gaining traction in a median constituency.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,426
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Shows how hopeless the rest of the left is that Whacky Zack is flying so high

    Its the None of the Above vote or back in college days, RON could be a very popular chap.....

    RON - (Re-Open Nominations)
    When I was on the RAG Week committee, we used to go around all the hustings campaigning for RON, reminding the electorate that they had every right to reject all of the candidates (in slightly less polite language!).

    The others didn’t like us much.
    Why be so negative?

    Why not run yourself if you think you could do any better?
    From memory, most of the top jobs went to people climbing the greasy pole in the various party political societies. They tended to have the resources - an entire Labour Society campaigning for them, for example. Only if RON won would would independents join the fray on the second ballots
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,776
    I think the interesting thing will be the reaction to the Greens polling second. One of the things that held up the duopoly was the argument that only x can stop y, and so, once that breaks, once Labour are not best placed to stop Reform/Tories, they could fall further.

    This is one reason why I think the Lib Dems are missing a historic opportunity. They're so scarred by the experience of the 80s, that they appear to be focusing on a 100-seat strategy, incremental progress on their existing gains, but the opportunity exists to become a national party that competes for a majority.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,927

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    The real problem is total sclerosis in the system of the governing class. Which makes change next to impossible. It’s also their utter incompetence and lack of knowledge about what they are doing -

    - the bat tunnel. No, not the cost. The specification, according to the chap who commissioned it, was “no bats could be allowed to be injured”. That is impossible. You could reduce the *probability* to 1 in a million. But eliminating risk completely requires infinite money.
    - The farce over the Small Reactors. Demanding that a percentage of the employees are asylum seekers? When asylum seekers can’t work, by law.
    - renting the asylum hotels at rates *above* the cost of block booking rooms.
    - Wanting more homes built, then piling up contradictory regulations until they manage to stop flats being built. And then wanting to increase landfill costs….
    If you look back through history I am not convinced that this level of incompetence is any greater than it was before. Human beings always do stupid stuff, especially when they work for the government. If anything, your examples seem rather petty when held up against the idiocy and incompetence of the past. Why does it suddenly require recourse to extreme solutions?
    No, it hasn’t always been like this.

    Some time ago I was reading the House of Lords debate on the adoption of the Lee Enfield rifle.

    What was striking was the balance of arguments from both sides - “infinite accuracy” vs “rugged”
    Both acknowledged that there were limits to their ideas - quoting actually experts and tests.

    There was also personal experience - but even there, the value of personal experience vs systematic testing was discussed.

    The whole thing came across as people tried to make a reasoned choice based on knowledge.

    If the pre-1911 House of Lords could manage that, surely our meritocracy could do better?

    Well, the specialist ammunition buying unit in the MOD was shutdown under Blair. And replaced by generalists. Who bought the cheapest ammunition they could find. Then tried to claim that the M2 machine-gun was unreliable..,
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,893
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    According to the BBC, there were two sexual assaults on two different women. It wasn’t just a clumsy attempt at a kiss.

    In September, Chelmsford Magistrates' Court heard Kebatu tried to kiss a 14-year-old girl on a bench and made numerous sexually explicit comments on 7 July.
    The following day, he encountered the same girl and tried to kiss her before sexually assaulting her. He also sexually assaulted a woman who had offered to help him create a CV to find work.


    https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c17pez0pl57t
    Do you think all such behaviour merits a 12/12 custodial sentence?

    If so we are going to need vastly larger prisons, and not just here but in the Sandpit too, where any woman will describe such behaviour as common.

    I have never denied the facts of the offence, just the disproportionate sentence.
    We don't need vastly larger prisons to send these filthy fuckers home
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,396
    Nigelb said:

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    The real problem is total sclerosis in the system of the governing class. Which makes change next to impossible. It’s also their utter incompetence and lack of knowledge about what they are doing -

    - the bat tunnel. No, not the cost. The specification, according to the chap who commissioned it, was “no bats could be allowed to be injured”. That is impossible. You could reduce the *probability* to 1 in a million. But eliminating risk completely requires infinite money.
    - The farce over the Small Reactors. Demanding that a percentage of the employees are asylum seekers? When asylum seekers can’t work, by law.
    - renting the asylum hotels at rates *above* the cost of block booking rooms.
    - Wanting more homes built, then piling up contradictory regulations until they manage to stop flats being built. And then wanting to increase landfill costs….
    If you look back through history I am not convinced that this level of incompetence is any greater than it was before. Human beings always do stupid stuff, especially when they work for the government. If anything, your examples seem rather petty when held up against the idiocy and incompetence of the past. Why does it suddenly require recourse to extreme solutions?
    It doesn't.
    But stuff like overly restrictive and onerous planning/building regs isn't particularly petty in its effects. Rather, it's a massive drag on the economy.
    The trouble, especially with onerous planning, is that it's popular. The Will of the People, one might say.

    It's like that lady said in the 2016 debates- it may reduce your GDP, but that's not my GDP. If you already have a nice house, building more causes you more pain than you get from one percent more of GDP.

    The Wealth of Nations made a lot out of the way that individual selfishness adds up to collective improvement. And that's true a lot of the time. But there are situations where that doesn't work, and we don't really have a good answer for those.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,837
    Sean_F said:

    maxh said:

    viewcode said:

    Sean_F said:

    If the Greens were a clear second, in 2029, I think Reform would win comfortably,

    More voters would opt for Reform than for a party of the far left.

    According to the polls, most voters are opting for Reform over every other party. That's the point. But Caerphilly taught us there will be a tactical vote against Reform. If the Greens get that (and it's a big if) then they get lots of seats.
    But that doesn't mean Sean is wrong. Greens are an acceptable tactical vote for many if they are not actually going to win (both because you can signal a desire for a movement in a particular political direction without signing up to the specifics of the end point, and also because they will get less scrutiny if people don't think they'll actually win).

    Once there is a realistic prospect of Greens leading a government, many will stay at home rather than vote for them. So tactical voting will weaken considerably.
    You’re starting with an overall Right vote of 31% in Caerphilly, from 2024, and 20%, from 2021. The median constituency has a Right vote of 40%, from 2024.

    The Conservative vote in Caerphilly switched en masse to Reform, while the Labour vote switched en masse to Plaid, and both parties gained previous non-voters. The Right vote rose to 38%.

    In a more Right-leaning constituency, those sorts of vote shifts would favour Reform over its left wing challenger.

    WRT the Greens, I don’t see a platform of leaving NATO, unilateral disarmament, and big tax rises gaining traction in a median constituency.
    To continue, those policies are incredibly popular, among a fair-size minority of voters, and constituencies, but they are a minority.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,137
    Sean_F said:

    maxh said:

    viewcode said:

    Sean_F said:

    If the Greens were a clear second, in 2029, I think Reform would win comfortably,

    More voters would opt for Reform than for a party of the far left.

    According to the polls, most voters are opting for Reform over every other party. That's the point. But Caerphilly taught us there will be a tactical vote against Reform. If the Greens get that (and it's a big if) then they get lots of seats.
    But that doesn't mean Sean is wrong. Greens are an acceptable tactical vote for many if they are not actually going to win (both because you can signal a desire for a movement in a particular political direction without signing up to the specifics of the end point, and also because they will get less scrutiny if people don't think they'll actually win).

    Once there is a realistic prospect of Greens leading a government, many will stay at home rather than vote for them. So tactical voting will weaken considerably.
    You’re starting with an overall Right vote of 31% in Caerphilly, from 2024, and 20%, from 2021. The median constituency has a Right vote of 40%, from 2024.

    The Conservative vote in Caerphilly switched en masse to Reform, while the Labour vote switched en masse to Plaid, and both parties gained previous non-voters. The Right vote rose to 38%.

    In a more Right-leaning constituency, those sorts of vote shifts would favour Reform over its left wing challenger.

    WRT the Greens, I don’t see a platform of leaving NATO, unilateral disarmament, and big tax rises gaining traction in a median constituency.
    Yes Polanski has a platform designed to win inner city and university town seats from Labour.

    Beyond that it is a platform designed to send swing voters in marginal seats in the suburbs and commuter belt, seaside and industrial towns to Farage and rural areas too would overall strongly vote Reform over a Polanski led Greens
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,494
    Hard not to have some trepidation over what the morning will being in Jamaica.

    Probably the worst storm to have ever hit the island (though that's unknowable) and Melissa is now ravaging eastern Cuba though it has diminished somewhat albeit still a dangerous storm.

    Melissa ranks alongside Wilma and Milton in terms of intensity though typhoons in the Pacific can be even stronger.

    I hope the international community stands ready to assist Jamaica if required.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,426
    maxh said:

    Foxy said:

    More than any other party, the mis-match between the Greens' members and their voters is vast. If/when the media start to analyse exactly what the Greens are proposing, their opinion polling numbers will start to fall.

    However, as the media has shown no interest whatsoever in critiqueing RefUk, then I expect the Greens wil continue to have an easy rde - so I forecast them in second place before Christmas.

    On the contrary, I think the Greens are doing so well in the polling because Polanski clearly communicates what he stands for.

    He is an excellent communicator and willingly to go into bat to defend immigrants, Transfolk, and to speak out against rising inequality, genocide in Gaza and the Oligarchs. These may well be minority views on PB but go down well with the wider public. Our right wing press barons and twisted Social Media alogorithims are not representative.

    Polanski is mining a substantial seam of support, helped by a strong anti-Starmer and anti-Farage feeling in much of the country.
    I don't disagree that Polanski communicates well, but I think you are assuming most voters are as politically engaged as you are.

    Maybe you're right. But I'm reasonably politically engaged (who am I kidding, I'm a nerd) and have a vague sense that Polanski is 'on the right side' but a bit bonkers economically. I couldn't give you specifics on his policies. Nor, I think, could the vast majority of people who tick 'Green' in the opinion poll.

    Imv the green vote simply reflects distaste with Starmer's Labour, combined with lingering distrust of the Lib Dems, combined with the country's general childish desire to tear everything down and make it anew.

    He is benefitting from precisely the same paucity of political debate in the media as Farage is.
    Similarly, I haven't heard much from Polanski. I did know there was an election for the leader of the Green party, which is more than most of the population probably did, but I am not sure where the Greens are getting their traction from.

    But then I don't actually follow much political social media, and certainly not on the left.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,318
    maxh said:

    FPP(and maybe P)T: @Casino_Royale you flummox me, you do.

    In most ways I have you pegged as a thoughtful, patriotic, right of centre astute political analyst.

    But I don't get this. You say you'd pick Trump over Corbyn. Granted, it's a terrible, terrible forced choice (and I can admit that even despite an instinctive desire for a leader who will dismantle the more egregious aspects of our current vulture capitalism; Corbyn is not that man).

    But I would pick a right-of-centre incompetent over someone intent on pulling apart democracy every time. Can you show your working for picking Trump over Corbyn please?

    (Not a dig, I'm genuinely interested. It feels to me like an emotional reaction to Corbyn causing some cognitive dissonance about quite how catastrophic Trump 2's actions are for global democracy and the relative supremacy of the West Vs China.)

    maxh said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 27%(+1),
    CON 17%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    GRN 16%(+1)
    LDEM 15%(nc),

    According to YouGov, the 17% for Labour is, they believe believe, the lowest we have shown them on and the Green score is their highest.

    Needless to say, it's an unusual result with four parties within 2 points of each other.


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1983053821849817502

    Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.

    Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
    It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
    You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
    I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
    Radical Left would be apocalyptic.

    No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
    Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?

    I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
    I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.

    So would most of the country.
    Then most of the country are wrong, as are you.
    I don't think so. Plenty of people on here (many reading this now, and even posting) would handwring about it publicly, and then still vote for them in the voting booth.

    Farage is a pub bore and a bit of an ass, but I'd far rather him in power than Corbyn/Foot.

    My concern with him isn't his shtick, it's that I don't think he could manage a team or do the job and his economics are fantasy land.
    I did vote for Corbyn in 2016 (for the regional vote in the Holyrood elections), but I couldn't now vote for anyone who doesn't take the threat from Russia seriously. Not for Corbyn. Not for Polanski. Not for Farage.

    I'm surprised at the number of PB Righties prepared to overlook Farage's support for Putin.
    I think the conflation of Farage and Trump here is unhelpful.

    @Casino_Royale I'd be interested in whether you'd go for Trump over Corbyn. I can understand you choosing Farage (populist right, roughly in line with Trump's first term perhaps). But Trump now?

    Imv we all need to carefully consider which of the options at our next election are best placed to preserve and strengthen democracy in the face of a pretty crap set of political choices that will need to be made in the next generation or two.

    One can have a sensible argument over whether Farage (playing to the gallery, keeping people engaged in politics) or Starmer (stolid respect of the rule of law) are best placed to keep our democracy healthy (neither is a great choice). But Trump is way out on the extremes on this.
    Yes, I'd go for Trump over Corbyn.
    I'm not convinced democracy is any safer under Corbyn than Trump. If he isn't a communist himself he's certainly very comfortabke in the company of communists. And terrorists.
    And Corbyn's friendship with the west's enemies seems rather stronger than Trump's.
    So politically, they are at worst level pegging. Meanwhile despite politicak misgivings, America actually seems to be doing relatively well economically. Which a Corbyn led UK certainly would not.
    So, forced choice, for the above reasons, UK-Trump over Corbyn.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,705

    You’ll get no argument from me. Slightly mystified as to why it’s so bad apart from the obvious reason of volume of traffic, stationary queues and tailbacks even in the non rush hours.

    The original on ramp at Dreghorn was designed in such a way that you couldn't see merging traffic. The number of accidents at that spot was insane
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,876
    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    People expect things to get better though, and that progress has stalled for 10-15 years.
    I do have some sympathy with your point though. My hope is we will see enough gradual progress and tactical voting to see a Labour government continue.
    Stalled for 15 years - so roughly round about when austerity kicked in and budgets were reduced to just try keeping things running levels with no money to invest in trying to improve things
    Yes i agree. We are reaping our failure to invest.
    And to be fair, I suspect Labour would probably have made many of the same mistakes...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,768

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    He physically assaulted her and another woman.

    The Judge who heard the evidence deemed it appropriate.

    Why do people mitigate these offences on women by predatory men ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3w04jwjzo

    ‘ A judge at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court also found him guilty of harassing the girl, inciting her to engage in sexual activity and an attempted sexual assault, and warned him to expect a prison sentence.

    Kebatu attempted to kiss the girl and placed his hand on her thigh, as well as asking her to kiss another child in front of him, the court heard.

    When a woman intervened he also placed his hand on her thigh, which she said made her feel "shocked, uncomfortable", before she called the police.’
    Like I said, it is an offense and should be dealt with by the police, but to make him out to be a violent sex offender is exagerrating things.

    I suspect a white offender with similar actions would have got off with a caution.
    If you go and read the sentencing remarks it is clear 6 months in jail was the absolute minimum he could have been given by following the sentencing guidelines. So black, white, yellow, purple, its was going to 6 months and that is before the judge gets to the fact one victom was 14 year old, repeated offences, no admission of guilt or willingness to really engage or show remorse etc etc etc. It could easilly have been even more serious sentence.

    So no, a white offender who acted exactly this way wasn't getting a caution.
    With that source of sentencing guidelines we need vastly larger prisons, if anyone tries to enforce the law evenly.

    Speak to any 14 year old girl, or woman who remembers being 14. Such creepy behaviour by older men is very common.

  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,794

    maxh said:

    Foxy said:

    More than any other party, the mis-match between the Greens' members and their voters is vast. If/when the media start to analyse exactly what the Greens are proposing, their opinion polling numbers will start to fall.

    However, as the media has shown no interest whatsoever in critiqueing RefUk, then I expect the Greens wil continue to have an easy rde - so I forecast them in second place before Christmas.

    On the contrary, I think the Greens are doing so well in the polling because Polanski clearly communicates what he stands for.

    He is an excellent communicator and willingly to go into bat to defend immigrants, Transfolk, and to speak out against rising inequality, genocide in Gaza and the Oligarchs. These may well be minority views on PB but go down well with the wider public. Our right wing press barons and twisted Social Media alogorithims are not representative.

    Polanski is mining a substantial seam of support, helped by a strong anti-Starmer and anti-Farage feeling in much of the country.
    I don't disagree that Polanski communicates well, but I think you are assuming most voters are as politically engaged as you are.

    Maybe you're right. But I'm reasonably politically engaged (who am I kidding, I'm a nerd) and have a vague sense that Polanski is 'on the right side' but a bit bonkers economically. I couldn't give you specifics on his policies. Nor, I think, could the vast majority of people who tick 'Green' in the opinion poll.

    Imv the green vote simply reflects distaste with Starmer's Labour, combined with lingering distrust of the Lib Dems, combined with the country's general childish desire to tear everything down and make it anew.

    He is benefitting from precisely the same paucity of political debate in the media as Farage is.
    Similarly, I haven't heard much from Polanski. I did know there was an election for the leader of the Green party, which is more than most of the population probably did, but I am not sure where the Greens are getting their traction from.

    But then I don't actually follow much political social media, and certainly not on the left.
    Good point, and I meant to include that in my post. I am not on social media at all, so maybe I am missing widespread Polanski-ism.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,494

    I think the interesting thing will be the reaction to the Greens polling second. One of the things that held up the duopoly was the argument that only x can stop y, and so, once that breaks, once Labour are not best placed to stop Reform/Tories, they could fall further.

    This is one reason why I think the Lib Dems are missing a historic opportunity. They're so scarred by the experience of the 80s, that they appear to be focusing on a 100-seat strategy, incremental progress on their existing gains, but the opportunity exists to become a national party that competes for a majority.

    I disagree (as you might expect) to an extent.

    We are three and a half years off an election - at the moment, the shouty extremes are making all the noise while those parties advocating less interesting but arguably more sensible and realistic policies (in my view and I'd include the Conservatives in this) are not getting much of a hearing.

    That will change as the election approaches and minds are focused and three years is a political eternity. It's all fun for the political anoraks at this time but of meaningful long-term significance, unlikely though not impossible.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,137
    edited 9:08AM
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is certainly possible if the Greens squeeze voters from Labour more as Reform squeezed voters from the Tories we could see Reform first from the Nationalist right and the Greens second from the hard left. The LDs could then even take third or even move up to second themselves by taking centrist voters from Labour and the Conservatives in turn.

    It looks like Reeves will have a budget raising tax on the rich and high earners in part to squeeze back the Greens via a shift of Labour to the left

    Great news for Dubai, Singapore, Monaco, US (ex NY and CA).

    Not so great news for UK tax revenues.
    Indeed though as you suggest a Mamdani win in the NYC Mayoral election next week would see New York too moving in a more populist left direction, striking the Big Apple off the list of areas rich high
    earning Londoners might flee
    to after the Reeves budget.
    France too has a leftist block with most seats in its
    parliament pushing for higher
    taxes on the rich.

    Argentina might also be an option for those high earners and wealthy seeking Thatcherite and Reaganite economics after Milei's party won the midterms
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,396
    Cookie said:

    maxh said:

    FPP(and maybe P)T: @Casino_Royale you flummox me, you do.

    In most ways I have you pegged as a thoughtful, patriotic, right of centre astute political analyst.

    But I don't get this. You say you'd pick Trump over Corbyn. Granted, it's a terrible, terrible forced choice (and I can admit that even despite an instinctive desire for a leader who will dismantle the more egregious aspects of our current vulture capitalism; Corbyn is not that man).

    But I would pick a right-of-centre incompetent over someone intent on pulling apart democracy every time. Can you show your working for picking Trump over Corbyn please?

    (Not a dig, I'm genuinely interested. It feels to me like an emotional reaction to Corbyn causing some cognitive dissonance about quite how catastrophic Trump 2's actions are for global democracy and the relative supremacy of the West Vs China.)

    maxh said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 27%(+1),
    CON 17%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    GRN 16%(+1)
    LDEM 15%(nc),

    According to YouGov, the 17% for Labour is, they believe believe, the lowest we have shown them on and the Green score is their highest.

    Needless to say, it's an unusual result with four parties within 2 points of each other.


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1983053821849817502

    Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.

    Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
    It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
    You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
    I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
    Radical Left would be apocalyptic.

    No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
    Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?

    I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
    I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.

    So would most of the country.
    Then most of the country are wrong, as are you.
    I don't think so. Plenty of people on here (many reading this now, and even posting) would handwring about it publicly, and then still vote for them in the voting booth.

    Farage is a pub bore and a bit of an ass, but I'd far rather him in power than Corbyn/Foot.

    My concern with him isn't his shtick, it's that I don't think he could manage a team or do the job and his economics are fantasy land.
    I did vote for Corbyn in 2016 (for the regional vote in the Holyrood elections), but I couldn't now vote for anyone who doesn't take the threat from Russia seriously. Not for Corbyn. Not for Polanski. Not for Farage.

    I'm surprised at the number of PB Righties prepared to overlook Farage's support for Putin.
    I think the conflation of Farage and Trump here is unhelpful.

    @Casino_Royale I'd be interested in whether you'd go for Trump over Corbyn. I can understand you choosing Farage (populist right, roughly in line with Trump's first term perhaps). But Trump now?

    Imv we all need to carefully consider which of the options at our next election are best placed to preserve and strengthen democracy in the face of a pretty crap set of political choices that will need to be made in the next generation or two.

    One can have a sensible argument over whether Farage (playing to the gallery, keeping people engaged in politics) or Starmer (stolid respect of the rule of law) are best placed to keep our democracy healthy (neither is a great choice). But Trump is way out on the extremes on this.
    Yes, I'd go for Trump over Corbyn.
    I'm not convinced democracy is any safer under Corbyn than Trump. If he isn't a communist himself he's certainly very comfortabke in the company of communists. And terrorists.
    And Corbyn's friendship with the west's enemies seems rather stronger than Trump's.
    So politically, they are at worst level pegging. Meanwhile despite politicak misgivings, America actually seems to be doing relatively well economically. Which a Corbyn led UK certainly would not.
    So, forced choice, for the above reasons, UK-Trump over Corbyn.
    How do you regard the events of January 6, 2021?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,595
    edited 9:11AM
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    He physically assaulted her and another woman.

    The Judge who heard the evidence deemed it appropriate.

    Why do people mitigate these offences on women by predatory men ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3w04jwjzo

    ‘ A judge at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court also found him guilty of harassing the girl, inciting her to engage in sexual activity and an attempted sexual assault, and warned him to expect a prison sentence.

    Kebatu attempted to kiss the girl and placed his hand on her thigh, as well as asking her to kiss another child in front of him, the court heard.

    When a woman intervened he also placed his hand on her thigh, which she said made her feel "shocked, uncomfortable", before she called the police.’
    Like I said, it is an offense and should be dealt with by the police, but to make him out to be a violent sex offender is exagerrating things.

    I suspect a white offender with similar actions would have got off with a caution.
    If you go and read the sentencing remarks it is clear 6 months in jail was the absolute minimum he could have been given by following the sentencing guidelines. So black, white, yellow, purple, its was going to 6 months and that is before the judge gets to the fact one victom was 14 year old, repeated offences, no admission of guilt or willingness to really engage or show remorse etc etc etc. It could easilly have been even more serious sentence.

    So no, a white offender who acted exactly this way wasn't getting a caution.
    With that source of sentencing guidelines we need vastly larger prisons, if anyone tries to enforce the law evenly.

    Speak to any 14 year old girl, or woman who remembers being 14. Such creepy behaviour by older men is very common.

    I really don't know why you continually down play this, it wasn't just "creepy behaviour" e.g. his crime wasn't wolf whistling at a girl he didn't know to be 14 as she wandered by and that was the extent of all his wrong doings. He assaulted multiple people multiple times and the under aged victim, he was told repeatedly she was only 14. And the other was trying to help him. No admission of guilt, no remorse. You sound very much like those who kept trying to minimise the likes of Lucy Connolly behaviour.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,794
    Cookie said:

    maxh said:

    FPP(and maybe P)T: @Casino_Royale you flummox me, you do.

    In most ways I have you pegged as a thoughtful, patriotic, right of centre astute political analyst.

    But I don't get this. You say you'd pick Trump over Corbyn. Granted, it's a terrible, terrible forced choice (and I can admit that even despite an instinctive desire for a leader who will dismantle the more egregious aspects of our current vulture capitalism; Corbyn is not that man).

    But I would pick a right-of-centre incompetent over someone intent on pulling apart democracy every time. Can you show your working for picking Trump over Corbyn please?

    (Not a dig, I'm genuinely interested. It feels to me like an emotional reaction to Corbyn causing some cognitive dissonance about quite how catastrophic Trump 2's actions are for global democracy and the relative supremacy of the West Vs China.)

    maxh said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 27%(+1),
    CON 17%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    GRN 16%(+1)
    LDEM 15%(nc),

    According to YouGov, the 17% for Labour is, they believe believe, the lowest we have shown them on and the Green score is their highest.

    Needless to say, it's an unusual result with four parties within 2 points of each other.


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1983053821849817502

    Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.

    Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
    It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
    You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
    I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
    Radical Left would be apocalyptic.

    No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
    Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?

    I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
    I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.

    So would most of the country.
    Then most of the country are wrong, as are you.
    I don't think so. Plenty of people on here (many reading this now, and even posting) would handwring about it publicly, and then still vote for them in the voting booth.

    Farage is a pub bore and a bit of an ass, but I'd far rather him in power than Corbyn/Foot.

    My concern with him isn't his shtick, it's that I don't think he could manage a team or do the job and his economics are fantasy land.
    I did vote for Corbyn in 2016 (for the regional vote in the Holyrood elections), but I couldn't now vote for anyone who doesn't take the threat from Russia seriously. Not for Corbyn. Not for Polanski. Not for Farage.

    I'm surprised at the number of PB Righties prepared to overlook Farage's support for Putin.
    I think the conflation of Farage and Trump here is unhelpful.

    @Casino_Royale I'd be interested in whether you'd go for Trump over Corbyn. I can understand you choosing Farage (populist right, roughly in line with Trump's first term perhaps). But Trump now?

    Imv we all need to carefully consider which of the options at our next election are best placed to preserve and strengthen democracy in the face of a pretty crap set of political choices that will need to be made in the next generation or two.

    One can have a sensible argument over whether Farage (playing to the gallery, keeping people engaged in politics) or Starmer (stolid respect of the rule of law) are best placed to keep our democracy healthy (neither is a great choice). But Trump is way out on the extremes on this.
    Yes, I'd go for Trump over Corbyn.
    I'm not convinced democracy is any safer under Corbyn than Trump. If he isn't a communist himself he's certainly very comfortabke in the company of communists. And terrorists.
    And Corbyn's friendship with the west's enemies seems rather stronger than Trump's.
    So politically, they are at worst level pegging. Meanwhile despite politicak misgivings, America actually seems to be doing relatively well economically. Which a Corbyn led UK certainly would not.
    So, forced choice, for the above reasons, UK-Trump over Corbyn.
    Thanks Cookie, I can always rely on you for a sensible right-of-centre view.

    You make good points. I would counter that Corbyn's actions as an MP (he was mine for a while) suggest a strong commitment to democracy. But I don't have a counter for his seeming inability to make politically astute decisions about which foreign leaders are friends of democracy and which are not, and hence I agree he is dangerous (just not as dangerous as Trump).

    Hopefully we are never faced with such a choice.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,893
    Is Roger holding public, open auditions for Free The Paedos membership?
  • bobbobbobbob Posts: 137

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    Might not be for you but other peoples lived experience is different

    Sky high deductions leading to low take home pay, expensive housing, cost of everything up, wages not keeping up and fewer job opportunities

    People’s quality of life has gone down

    Or in clear terms imagine earning the uk average salary and trying to live in London today vs 20 years ago

    It’s a real problem. And that’s just the private economic stuff without all the other stuff that pisses people off
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,494
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    maxh said:

    viewcode said:

    Sean_F said:

    If the Greens were a clear second, in 2029, I think Reform would win comfortably,

    More voters would opt for Reform than for a party of the far left.

    According to the polls, most voters are opting for Reform over every other party. That's the point. But Caerphilly taught us there will be a tactical vote against Reform. If the Greens get that (and it's a big if) then they get lots of seats.
    But that doesn't mean Sean is wrong. Greens are an acceptable tactical vote for many if they are not actually going to win (both because you can signal a desire for a movement in a particular political direction without signing up to the specifics of the end point, and also because they will get less scrutiny if people don't think they'll actually win).

    Once there is a realistic prospect of Greens leading a government, many will stay at home rather than vote for them. So tactical voting will weaken considerably.
    You’re starting with an overall Right vote of 31% in Caerphilly, from 2024, and 20%, from 2021. The median constituency has a Right vote of 40%, from 2024.

    The Conservative vote in Caerphilly switched en masse to Reform, while the Labour vote switched en masse to Plaid, and both parties gained previous non-voters. The Right vote rose to 38%.

    In a more Right-leaning constituency, those sorts of vote shifts would favour Reform over its left wing challenger.

    WRT the Greens, I don’t see a platform of leaving NATO, unilateral disarmament, and big tax rises gaining traction in a median constituency.
    Yes Polanski has a platform designed to win inner city and university town seats from Labour.

    Beyond that it is a platform designed to send swing voters in marginal seats in the suburbs and commuter belt, seaside and industrial towns to Farage and rural areas too would overall strongly vote Reform over a Polanski led Greens
    I could see the Greens doing well in parts of Inner London next year as long as they aren't competing with "Your Party" slates.

    In my part of the world, the Greens are likely to run third behind Labour and the Newham Indepdendents - they'll hold the Stratford seat they already have and might pick up some more if there is a tacit electoral arrangement with the Newham Independents whereby the latter work the Muslim dominated Wards and the former the other Wards.

    The tantalising question is whether the Independents and the Greens are capable of taking down the Labour majority on Newham Council - it's a big ask, they basically need to take 30 seats off Labour. I can see the Newham Independents winning 20 and the Greens certainly 4-6 but beyond that, I'm much less certain.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,312
    The Greens are becoming the left wing NOTA, while Reform are the right wing NOTA.

    I think they probably have a much lower ceiling than Reform but it’s testament to the government’s current uselessness that they are losing so many votes in so many directions.

    It’s not implausible that Labour will soon be facing their own existential crisis alongside the Tories.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,367
    edited 9:13AM

    The Edinburgh bypass is absolutely dogshit. That is all.

    It's not a bypass. It's a commuter lane for people heading to the business parks in the west of city from the 10s of thousands of car-dependent low density suburbs built in Mid and East Lothian.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,534
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    He physically assaulted her and another woman.

    The Judge who heard the evidence deemed it appropriate.

    Why do people mitigate these offences on women by predatory men ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3w04jwjzo

    ‘ A judge at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court also found him guilty of harassing the girl, inciting her to engage in sexual activity and an attempted sexual assault, and warned him to expect a prison sentence.

    Kebatu attempted to kiss the girl and placed his hand on her thigh, as well as asking her to kiss another child in front of him, the court heard.

    When a woman intervened he also placed his hand on her thigh, which she said made her feel "shocked, uncomfortable", before she called the police.’
    Like I said, it is an offense and should be dealt with by the police, but to make him out to be a violent sex offender is exagerrating things.

    I suspect a white offender with similar actions would have got off with a caution.
    Others have posted the details.

    But fundamentally you regard it as a “low level” offence rather than a case of repeated attempts to sexually assault a minor over multiple days, physical assault of a minor and of a women who attempted to intervene, and no admission of guilt or contrition.

    So no, it was not “low level”.

    And it’s shameful that you try to make it about race.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,534

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    The real problem is total sclerosis in the system of the governing class. Which makes change next to impossible. It’s also their utter incompetence and lack of knowledge about what they are doing -

    - the bat tunnel. No, not the cost. The specification, according to the chap who commissioned it, was “no bats could be allowed to be injured”. That is impossible. You could reduce the *probability* to 1 in a million. But eliminating risk completely requires infinite money.
    - The farce over the Small Reactors. Demanding that a percentage of the employees are asylum seekers? When asylum seekers can’t work, by law.
    - renting the asylum hotels at rates *above* the cost of block booking rooms.
    - Wanting more homes built, then piling up contradictory regulations until they manage to stop flats being built. And then wanting to
    - increase landfill costs….
    The issue is fragmentation of responsibility.

    You have someone who has a target to reduce landfill and believes pricing is the way to do it. They have no target related to house building.

    You have someone whose objective is to build houses and has no incentive to reduce landfill.

    They don’t talk and their objectives set them in competition with each other.

    Ministers should set priorities but have lost control of the mechanism of government
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,318

    Cookie said:

    maxh said:

    FPP(and maybe P)T: @Casino_Royale you flummox me, you do.

    In most ways I have you pegged as a thoughtful, patriotic, right of centre astute political analyst.

    But I don't get this. You say you'd pick Trump over Corbyn. Granted, it's a terrible, terrible forced choice (and I can admit that even despite an instinctive desire for a leader who will dismantle the more egregious aspects of our current vulture capitalism; Corbyn is not that man).

    But I would pick a right-of-centre incompetent over someone intent on pulling apart democracy every time. Can you show your working for picking Trump over Corbyn please?

    (Not a dig, I'm genuinely interested. It feels to me like an emotional reaction to Corbyn causing some cognitive dissonance about quite how catastrophic Trump 2's actions are for global democracy and the relative supremacy of the West Vs China.)

    maxh said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov / Sky / Times voting intention

    RefUK 27%(+1),
    CON 17%(nc),
    LAB 17%(-3),
    GRN 16%(+1)
    LDEM 15%(nc),

    According to YouGov, the 17% for Labour is, they believe believe, the lowest we have shown them on and the Green score is their highest.

    Needless to say, it's an unusual result with four parties within 2 points of each other.


    https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1983053821849817502

    Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.

    Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
    It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
    You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
    I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
    Radical Left would be apocalyptic.

    No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
    Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?

    I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
    I'd go for Farage/Trump every time, and it's not even close.

    So would most of the country.
    Then most of the country are wrong, as are you.
    I don't think so. Plenty of people on here (many reading this now, and even posting) would handwring about it publicly, and then still vote for them in the voting booth.

    Farage is a pub bore and a bit of an ass, but I'd far rather him in power than Corbyn/Foot.

    My concern with him isn't his shtick, it's that I don't think he could manage a team or do the job and his economics are fantasy land.
    I did vote for Corbyn in 2016 (for the regional vote in the Holyrood elections), but I couldn't now vote for anyone who doesn't take the threat from Russia seriously. Not for Corbyn. Not for Polanski. Not for Farage.

    I'm surprised at the number of PB Righties prepared to overlook Farage's support for Putin.
    I think the conflation of Farage and Trump here is unhelpful.

    @Casino_Royale I'd be interested in whether you'd go for Trump over Corbyn. I can understand you choosing Farage (populist right, roughly in line with Trump's first term perhaps). But Trump now?

    Imv we all need to carefully consider which of the options at our next election are best placed to preserve and strengthen democracy in the face of a pretty crap set of political choices that will need to be made in the next generation or two.

    One can have a sensible argument over whether Farage (playing to the gallery, keeping people engaged in politics) or Starmer (stolid respect of the rule of law) are best placed to keep our democracy healthy (neither is a great choice). But Trump is way out on the extremes on this.
    Yes, I'd go for Trump over Corbyn.
    I'm not convinced democracy is any safer under Corbyn than Trump. If he isn't a communist himself he's certainly very comfortabke in the company of communists. And terrorists.
    And Corbyn's friendship with the west's enemies seems rather stronger than Trump's.
    So politically, they are at worst level pegging. Meanwhile despite politicak misgivings, America actually seems to be doing relatively well economically. Which a Corbyn led UK certainly would not.
    So, forced choice, for the above reasons, UK-Trump over Corbyn.
    How do you regard the events of January 6, 2021?
    Well obviously with alarm at what it implies for Trump and his associates' commitnent to democratic norms.

    I'm clearly not saying Trump is ok. I'm saying I have no reason to believe the British far left are any better in their commitment to democratic norms.
    Corbyn associates with communists and terrorists. It doesn't seem in any way improbable to me that if the far left were in power here and lost an election we would see a similar reaction, with similarly equivocal responses from a Corbyn.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,426

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    He physically assaulted her and another woman.

    The Judge who heard the evidence deemed it appropriate.

    Why do people mitigate these offences on women by predatory men ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3w04jwjzo

    ‘ A judge at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court also found him guilty of harassing the girl, inciting her to engage in sexual activity and an attempted sexual assault, and warned him to expect a prison sentence.

    Kebatu attempted to kiss the girl and placed his hand on her thigh, as well as asking her to kiss another child in front of him, the court heard.

    When a woman intervened he also placed his hand on her thigh, which she said made her feel "shocked, uncomfortable", before she called the police.’
    Like I said, it is an offense and should be dealt with by the police, but to make him out to be a violent sex offender is exagerrating things.

    I suspect a white offender with similar actions would have got off with a caution.
    Others have posted the details.

    But fundamentally you regard it as a “low level” offence rather than a case of repeated attempts to sexually assault a minor over multiple days, physical assault of a minor and of a women who attempted to intervene, and no admission of guilt or contrition.

    So no, it was not “low level”.

    And it’s shameful that you try to make it about race.
    Surely it is "low level" when compared with, say, rape of a minor. "Sex offender" covers a lot of bases, and this was *relatively* low level.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,595
    edited 9:17AM

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    He physically assaulted her and another woman.

    The Judge who heard the evidence deemed it appropriate.

    Why do people mitigate these offences on women by predatory men ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3w04jwjzo

    ‘ A judge at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court also found him guilty of harassing the girl, inciting her to engage in sexual activity and an attempted sexual assault, and warned him to expect a prison sentence.

    Kebatu attempted to kiss the girl and placed his hand on her thigh, as well as asking her to kiss another child in front of him, the court heard.

    When a woman intervened he also placed his hand on her thigh, which she said made her feel "shocked, uncomfortable", before she called the police.’
    Like I said, it is an offense and should be dealt with by the police, but to make him out to be a violent sex offender is exagerrating things.

    I suspect a white offender with similar actions would have got off with a caution.
    Others have posted the details.

    But fundamentally you regard it as a “low level” offence rather than a case of repeated attempts to sexually assault a minor over multiple days, physical assault of a minor and of a women who attempted to intervene, and no admission of guilt or contrition.

    So no, it was not “low level”.

    And it’s shameful that you try to make it about race.
    The judges comments in many regards were really rather daming. They deemed there was no realistic prospect of rehabiliation and posed an ongoing danger.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,458
    Your Party has just launched a "Crowd Editing Tool" that allows Your Party members to suggest edits and additions to their four founding documents —
    Political Statement; Year 1 Organisational Strategy; Constitution; and Standing Orders.

    The Online Editing complements the regional assemblies being held around the country, where members are discussing the documents face-to-face. The draft documents will be updated as they go, before being debated by attendees at their founding conference, with all members given the final say in online, one-member-one-vote ballots.

    This is very impressive and ambitious! I wonder who is the driving force behind this.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,924
    ...

    The Greens are becoming the left wing NOTA, while Reform are the right wing NOTA.

    I think they probably have a much lower ceiling than Reform but it’s testament to the government’s current uselessness that they are losing so many votes in so many directions.

    It’s not implausible that Labour will soon be facing their own existential crisis alongside the Tories.

    YouGov have Labour in 5th place with women. It's only the male vote holding them up. If the Greens run a few male friendly, female neutral polices then Labour could slip back quite quickly.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,542
    There’s a danger that you make women feel like victims who then go onto internalize an incident to the point that real damage is done emotionally. This is the view of several female friends who think there’s a danger that by over inflating low level offences , and telling women they have been violated you’re almost forcing them to feel that way .

    Women should feel how they feel and not to be told to feel a certain thing .

    Of course no man should without consent put his hands on a woman and suggest they have sex but really some of the reporting over the Kebatu case was over the top .
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,929
    stodge said:

    Hard not to have some trepidation over what the morning will being in Jamaica.

    Probably the worst storm to have ever hit the island (though that's unknowable) and Melissa is now ravaging eastern Cuba though it has diminished somewhat albeit still a dangerous storm.

    Melissa ranks alongside Wilma and Milton in terms of intensity though typhoons in the Pacific can be even stronger.

    I hope the international community stands ready to assist Jamaica if required.

    As we speak, the Foreign Office are discussing setting up a sub-committee to decide what cost free help we can offer.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,367
    Eabhal said:

    The Edinburgh bypass is absolutely dogshit. That is all.

    It's not a bypass. It's a commuter lane for people heading to the business parks in the west of city from the 10s of thousands of car-dependent low density suburbs built in Mid and East Lothian.
    Now out of date but click on South Gyle for an explanation of why the bypass is a disaster:

    https://scotlandcommute.datashine.org.uk/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,768
    Barnesian said:

    Your Party has just launched a "Crowd Editing Tool" that allows Your Party members to suggest edits and additions to their four founding documents —
    Political Statement; Year 1 Organisational Strategy; Constitution; and Standing Orders.

    The Online Editing complements the regional assemblies being held around the country, where members are discussing the documents face-to-face. The draft documents will be updated as they go, before being debated by attendees at their founding conference, with all members given the final say in online, one-member-one-vote ballots.

    This is very impressive and ambitious! I wonder who is the driving force behind this.

    I see it as typical of the far left to get bogged down in such procedural stuff of interest only to the most obsessive activists.

    Meanwhile Polanskis Greens are sweeping up their supporters. Your Party are still on the starting blocks while Zack storms ahead.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,776

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    The real problem is total sclerosis in the system of the governing class. Which makes change next to impossible. It’s also their utter incompetence and lack of knowledge about what they are doing -

    - the bat tunnel. No, not the cost. The specification, according to the chap who commissioned it, was “no bats could be allowed to be injured”. That is impossible. You could reduce the *probability* to 1 in a million. But eliminating risk completely requires infinite money.
    - The farce over the Small Reactors. Demanding that a percentage of the employees are asylum seekers? When asylum seekers can’t work, by law.
    - renting the asylum hotels at rates *above* the cost of block booking rooms.
    - Wanting more homes built, then piling up contradictory regulations until they manage to stop flats being built. And then wanting to increase landfill costs….
    There's a lot of competition, but I think the release of the Epping sex assaulter will come to be emblematic of this government. It's a very British fuck-up. Any other country this sort of prison crisis would be a mass breakout from a prison as the criminals from within and without overwhelm the prison guards. But in Britain, the wrongfully released prisoner tries FIVE TIMES to get back into prison and is turned away.

    You can't get a clearer sign that the people in charge are not in charge at all, and have no clue what they are doing.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,164
    bobbob said:

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    Might not be for you but other peoples lived experience is different

    Sky high deductions leading to low take home pay, expensive housing, cost of everything up, wages not keeping up and fewer job opportunities

    People’s quality of life has gone down

    Or in clear terms imagine earning the uk average salary and trying to live in London today vs 20 years ago

    It’s a real problem. And that’s just the private economic stuff without all the other stuff that pisses people off
    When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s on my dad's average kind of salary we could never have afforded to live in London either. So what? We didn't want to live in London. Unemployment was much higher then, as was inflation for much of the time. House prices are higher than in the 80s but haven’t gone up in real terms for twenty years. Marginal tax rates are lower for most people than they were then, too.
    I don't want to play down others' lived experience. But I do wonder whether as a country we have become a little bit spoilt. Sometimes things are tough - that's life. We've just been through the biggest pandemic since 1918 and we have the biggest war in Europe since 1945. We also literally voted to make ourselves poorer in 2016. Maybe we just to suck it up and stop moaning. Voting for chancers offering moon on the stick nonsense isn't going to help. I thought we were better than this.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,925
    edited 9:27AM
    FPT:
    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Still trying to understand how the governing party can be on 17% with one of the best pollsters 15 months after winning a 170 seat majority.

    Havde you got a sheet of foolscap.......but if you want the essentials

    Labour supporters want their party to have a heart. If they showed they had one many of their problems would disappear. Specifically Mahmood seems like Farage in a frock and Starmer and Kemi are pretty indistinguishable.If he wants to ape someone he should be aping Zack.
    "Having a heart" as you call it, presumably involves either wasting even more of other people's money, and there's none left, or importing yet more of the third world and dumping them in our inner cities, which would destroy what's left of our social cohesion. So both would be counter-productive politically even in the short term.

    The truth is that the left-liberal path that both main parties have followed since 1997 has run out of road, We've dodged hard choices for a generation, and may be able to do so for the rest of this decade, but there's no room to make things actively worse without accelerating the reckoning.
    The sort of Labour Party that Roger wants is one that would be unelectable.

    It would be anti-NATO, but pro-EU; anti-Israel, in favour of open borders, and in favour of huge increases in taxes and public spending.
    That was always the mainstream assumption, and a couple of decades ago it might have been true, but the electorate has been so unpredictable over the last decade that I'm not sure it is these days. Remember that Jeremy Corbyn got 40% in 2017 on roughly that programme (whatever his manifesto said, everybody know that's what he and John McDonnell would have done in government anyway). So there's a serious danger of it actually happening - if, say, Reform are elected and disappoint, who knows where their voters will go?

    So we need to draw attention to the danger repeatedly, and not be too complacent.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,927

    The crazy thing about the rise of populism in this country is that things aren't actually that bad. The economy is growing, unemployment is low, real incomes are rising again after being squeezed by a series of global economic shocks, and we face an international migration problem that is small by the standard of many countries and fixable with time and effort. Imagine the state of our politics if we were to face a real crisis! Pardon my lack of political correctness, but perhaps we just need to man up a bit?
    Plus of course, on the slow moving but very real problem the country is facing around the fiscal costs of ageing, the populists and mainstream politicians alike have nothing to say.

    The real problem is total sclerosis in the system of the governing class. Which makes change next to impossible. It’s also their utter incompetence and lack of knowledge about what they are doing -

    - the bat tunnel. No, not the cost. The specification, according to the chap who commissioned it, was “no bats could be allowed to be injured”. That is impossible. You could reduce the *probability* to 1 in a million. But eliminating risk completely requires infinite money.
    - The farce over the Small Reactors. Demanding that a percentage of the employees are asylum seekers? When asylum seekers can’t work, by law.
    - renting the asylum hotels at rates *above* the cost of block booking rooms.
    - Wanting more homes built, then piling up contradictory regulations until they manage to stop flats being built. And then wanting to
    - increase landfill costs….
    The issue is fragmentation of responsibility.

    You have someone who has a target to reduce landfill and believes pricing is the way to do it. They have no target related to house building.

    You have someone whose objective is to build houses and has no incentive to reduce landfill.

    They don’t talk and their objectives set them in competition with each other.

    Ministers should set priorities but have lost control of the mechanism of government
    It’s almost as if we should have a top minister at the top of government (First Minister??) who could appoint a series of sub ministers - one each for major tasks of the state. With more junior ministers below them.

    They would handle their delegated tasks and deal with the aggregation of priorities at a national level.

    Perhaps this should be Starmer’s reworking of government?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,686
    For all the lads preferring Trump to Corbyn, are they also willing to take the throbbing haemorrhoid of Musk on the giant orange arsehole as part of the deal?

    Elon Musk
    @elonmusk
    ·
    1h
    Civil war in Britain is inevitable.

    Just a question of when.

    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1983444964848873569
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,164
    stodge said:

    Hard not to have some trepidation over what the morning will being in Jamaica.

    Probably the worst storm to have ever hit the island (though that's unknowable) and Melissa is now ravaging eastern Cuba though it has diminished somewhat albeit still a dangerous storm.

    Melissa ranks alongside Wilma and Milton in terms of intensity though typhoons in the Pacific can be even stronger.

    I hope the international community stands ready to assist Jamaica if required.

    I'm sure USAID will be leading the efforts. Oh wait, what?
    DfID then? Oh, I see, it's been merged with the foreign office and had its budget slashed.
    I'm sure China is ready to help.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,730
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    @Foxy FPT

    He tried to kiss her, said he wanted to make babies with her and invited her back to his flat.

    I don’t know what world you live in but that’s a long way past the line as far as I am concerned.

    She’s a 14 year old child for goodness sake.

    Yes, I agree, as I made clear in my post.

    It should be dealt with by the police, but is a 12/12 custodial sentence appropriate for such a low level non-violent offence? And one that most teenage girls will have experienced since time immemorial?

    If so, then no wonder our prisons are bursting at the seams.

    Maybe it had to be custodial because of his housing situation, but locking up every lecherous man is just impossible.
    He physically assaulted her and another woman.

    The Judge who heard the evidence deemed it appropriate.

    Why do people mitigate these offences on women by predatory men ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde3w04jwjzo

    ‘ A judge at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court also found him guilty of harassing the girl, inciting her to engage in sexual activity and an attempted sexual assault, and warned him to expect a prison sentence.

    Kebatu attempted to kiss the girl and placed his hand on her thigh, as well as asking her to kiss another child in front of him, the court heard.

    When a woman intervened he also placed his hand on her thigh, which she said made her feel "shocked, uncomfortable", before she called the police.’
    Like I said, it is an offense and should be dealt with by the police, but to make him out to be a violent sex offender is exagerrating things.

    I suspect a white offender with similar actions would have got off with a caution.
    If you go and read the sentencing remarks it is clear 6 months in jail was the absolute minimum he could have been given by following the sentencing guidelines. So black, white, yellow, purple, its was going to 6 months and that is before the judge gets to the fact one victom was 14 year old, repeated offences, no admission of guilt or willingness to really engage or show remorse etc etc etc. It could easilly have been even more serious sentence.

    So no, a white offender who acted exactly this way wasn't getting a caution.
    With that source of sentencing guidelines we need vastly larger prisons, if anyone tries to enforce the law evenly.

    Speak to any 14 year old girl, or woman who remembers being 14. Such creepy behaviour by older men is very common.

    I find your position on this utterly baffling. You are clearly intelligent but you are very “right-on” in old money and I know you have mentioned your religious side but there is zero excuse for this and any sort of physical harassment such as this on a woman who does not want to be touched, yet alone a child.

    “ Speak to any 14 year old girl, or woman who remembers being 14. Such creepy behaviour by older men is very common.” does that mean we just shrug and accept it? Of course it doesn’t and I can’t believe you really believe this.

    I honestly think you are so down a rabbit hole where because this offender is a minority, an asylum seeker and was facing deportation it has coloured your judgement to be nonsensical.

    Ask your sons’ girlfriends if they think that any man who gropes a 14 year old girl shouldn’t have the book thrown at them.
Sign In or Register to comment.