Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
Labour are dead anyway. The inertia, the Starmerwave, Starmer's genocide in Gaza and the hostile media have killed them. No one shed a tear. They might as well use their dying breath to do the right thing.
We are a right wing nation and we always have been. I suspect the nature of media ownership has made us so. Remember what Hitler and Goebbels said about propaganda? The sooner the Tories get back into the saddle, the sooner the media can go back to writing and broadcasting about Coronation Street. And those scumbag filth voters who don't vote Ref or Con can carp on about how nasty the Tories are to their heart's content.
Labour are *probably* dead. I don't think we can presume anything right now because the sands are shifting quickly. Remember that impossible things seem to happen every few years in our politics, so just because Labour winning in 2029 feels impossible now doesn't mean it is impossible.
Have the economy actually start to recover, have Refuk continue to fracture with a hard right battle between Farage and Tommeh Tiny-Dick about how many muslims they can deport and who knows where we go. Labour may seem like the least worst option.
The Labour Party are Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Even if the economy recovers they are done.
I am assuming the Tories go full Jenrick and steal the vile stinking rags worn by Farage and Yaxley-Lennon ( why are we even considering these ****s as mainstream?). That is probably the least worst option going forward. Jenrick is a ruthless opportunist so once at the top of the greasy poll he might calm the rhetoric down.
I believe the nation is ungovernable by a party that antagonises the press and now the broadcast media like Labour did in 1964 to 70, in 74 to 79 and now from 2024. I have missed out the New Labour Government because hostility was limited, because initially Blair courted the Press Barons and sought approval from Mrs Thatcher, before then embarking on a US Republican led war against people the Press Barons didn't like and which the media were four square behind.
This time around the Telegraph's Allister Heath and Allison Pearson have been in the vanguard of unhinged headline after unhinged headline. On here too, we get a "scandal" a day. A "scandal" that wouldn't even have registered between 2010 and just prior to Johnson's defenestration.That said media hostility has gone hand in hand this time with appalling comms from the Government and an inertia that few would have forecast. So it's not entirely the media's fault.
If only the Tories (or Reform?) are allowed to govern unhindered by the Fourth Estate, why should anyone else bother trying?
Politics like nature abhors a vacuum. An election that is Tory v Reform for first place is not at the moment thinkable. The next election is going to be some version of Reformtory v The Not Reform party for first and second place, and for leadership of the next government.
Labour are likely to be the lead player in the Not Reform group, there being no other broad enough candidate in both policy (which excludes Green leadership) and demographics (LDs problem).
Labour are value, if any value is to be had. DYOR.
I am not convinced that Reform won't implode under the stress of Jenrick Tories.
I agree it's possible. But the general election will be a contest between ReformTory or ToryReform v Not ReformTory. Which places Labour in probable pole position as the main party which isn't Reform or Tory. About 50%+ of voters are going to vote for a party that isn't Tory or Reform. Their votes have to go somewhere. Most will go to Labour.
I am still not convinced by this theory.
At the moment the next GE looks to be shaping up as a fight between lots of parties that each have large numbers of opponents. But one of them has got to win.
Tactical voting will play a part, but I don’t buy the idea that there will be a huge Labour-voting alliance as a way to stop Reform. Labour will be battling a strong anti-incumbency feeling and a lot of people who will be voting against them too. To tactically vote, people also have to be aware of who in their constituency is most likely to beat the lead candidate. That might be easy in some places, but it’s going to be far from clear in a lot of the country if this political fragmentation continues.
As it stands, I still see a HP as a far more likely outcome, as this jumble of voting patterns fails to see anyone do enough to win. The jury is out on whether that means a Reform led government or some progressive alliance.
This is all based on the current landscape though. There’s over 3 years to go yet.
I very much agree with this analysis of the problem in general. In trying to read the next election - impossible but PB is about predicting that which can't be predicted and assessing probabilities well before it is rational to do so - we are dealing with irresistible forces and immovable objects.
Tactical voting - which I guess will be large, meets two immovable objects: in 400+ seats Labour is the tactical anti Reform vote because they are the incumbent. But in 400+ seats Labour being the incumbent is unpopular and execrated.
My seat (Penrith and Solway) is a lovely example. New boundaries. Clearly Tory leaning in the ancient era up to 2019. Labour in 2024. Projected to be clearly Reform in 2029. LDs never figure. Who do you vote for in 2029 if you want to vote against Reform? Labour are the only choice. Many seats are like that.
This is going to become fascinating in both political and betting terms. I still say that great forces will be in play to keep the Labour vote much higher than it currently appears.
Full disclosure: I am a dinosaur One Nation Tory. My MP was Rory. I therefore don't have a party. Voted Labour in 2024. Through gritted teeth would do so again as things stand.
I have some tales to tell about that MP, who was also mine. But isnt "one nation" just something Conservative supporters say when they are trying to hide away from the tough fiscal decisions that all governments make? "dont blame me, im a different kind of Tory".
No.
One Nation Toryism (RIP) stood for a conscious adherence to the traditional Tory stuff of sound finance, free enterprise and free trade, money making, Burkean views on organic development in society, individual responsibility, small platoons, family, monarchy and established religion, sound defence but also did not regard the post WWII social democratic state as something to be derided, marginalised and neglected but as a central part of the social deal in a wealthy nation.
There are bits of it in Labour, LD and of course some Tories. Occasionally Farage shows flashes of understanding what it is all about too. But no party consistently does enough to keep that interesting and difficult balance of free enterprise, fiscal responsibility and the welfare state.
But who would you say moved away from that, in terms of major figures in the party? Thatcher? Major? Hague? IDS? Cameron? May? Johnson? Truss? Sunak?
They all fitted that mould in different ways. Remember Truss was brought down by an unfunded expansion of a fuel support system to stop people going into poverty.
Thatcher. It's always Thatcher...
The implied regret for the passing of the post-war consensus, which incidentally (not incidentally) was the last time the country was driven into the shitter, is extraordinarily fatuous.
Rather than spending hugely on willy waving aircraft carriers that need US permission to work we should have spent a lot of money on smaller coastal protection vessels. Just sayin’
Whilst I agree with you on the folly of the aircraft carriers I’m not sure what you think the extra coastal patrol vessels will do as they can tow back so all they will be doing is escorting in more small boat migrants
So an island nation that gives up on Sea Control?
Excellent.
How can a very expensive pair of carriers, with barely enough of a support fleet control the seas around the UK in a way that can’t be done by subs, other surface vessels and land based aircraft from the UK and Europe?
The potential enemy is Russia and I’m not sure an aircraft carrier will make a huge positive, especially based on the state of theor military.
As for other seas, we can’t stretch to defending them on either cost or kit. We can’t be a world policeman anymore so the money should be spent on what is most useful for our sector of NATO territory.
The use of carriers in exercises with Northern European nations might be of interest to you
You should also consider the number of other countries expanding their carrier programs. And why.
Global warming, means rising seas levels, means more sea?
They want to control the seas around their countries.
Carriers wouldn’t really help with that. They are about force projection. You need cruisers to control domestic waters
I’m talking blue water here. Not fisheries protection.
Though given the efficiency of carriers for helicopter operations, they certainly are useful for inshore ASW work
Most countries that can afford carriers don’t have blue water around their countries
This is the precise wording of the tax promise from the Labour Manifesto in 2024:
We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible. Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.
There's wriggle room, but not much.
Just extend NIC to unearned income then. That is definitely 'not an increase in taxes on working people'
Pension contributions are paid after national insurance has been deducted (unless salary sacrifice is used) so extending national insurance to income from pensions will mean it is imposed twice and nobody will then voluntarily contribute to pensions.
Which means that they only viable way of extending the scope of national insurance is to get rid of it and simultaneously increase income tax by the same amount.
Well maybe. But if I save my net of ICT income outside of an ISA I will be paying ICT on the interest, so I don't see your objection as cast iron, or even gilt-edged.
You will be paying income tax on the interest gained not on any capital withdrawals.
Sure but what's the logic for not paying NIC on that interest?
To incentivise saving. We'd like people to arrive at the point where they are too old to work with enough savings that we don't end up bailing them out.
Amazing how all the losers who live on freebies always want to take money off people who work their butts off.
Hard agree. And it's so ethically troubling too.
How do the Scots live with themselves?
Nonsense, the ‘huge number’ of Scots working in jobs provided by GB Energy are working their butts off to provide cheap energy for yon southrons.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
Firstly, it is the opposite of dogma when a member takes time to relate his actual experience.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
Compared with the United States in the past 20 years or so, we have had Osborne's failed austerity but more subtle is the Covid response where Britain subsidised companies while America subsidised workers. It also of course has had a shedload of government investment which our faux free marketeers decry as ‘picking winners’.
We did not have 'failed austerity', we had an extremely modest attempt to rein in spending which led to a couple of years when Government spending didn't rise - it certainly didn't fall by much, and it soon continued its upward trajectory. There was no serious attempt to reduce the size of the state.
A tip for you, don’t say size of state, say cost. When you say size, people’s minds think you will be taking something from them - pip payments now that they are ill, swapping out NHS for US style system etc. instead say it as cost, like do you need that mayonnaise,or that pot cream, or that coffee brand, when for half the price or less you can get something that performs just as well. At the same time, reform processes. Digital and AI is not releasing bad criminals early by mistake, eighteenth century systems based on pen and paper and fax machines is actually the more expensive way of governing a country.
I see what you're saying, but as I think that most PBers are fairly decided folk politically, I'm not campaigning, I'm saying what I think should happen.
I really do mean the size of the state, or perhaps more accurately the scope of the state. It needs to get out of many areas it's stepped into, and become cheaper as a result of that process, not just 'skimp' on what it does for a while and then turn the taps back on when the public inevitably complains.
A microcosm of this would be Labour's botched welfare cuts. They didn't cut the welfare budget by removing the anxious and the acne sufferers from PIP eligibility and reserving it for those with serious issues - they top-sliced it for everyone, meaning those with more serious conditions would have felt the cuts, and even if successfully implemented, inevitably the cuts would soon have been reversed when a few sob stories had come out.
“ Labour's botched welfare cuts”
Yes. The moment Labours huge majority couldn’t not prune welfare at all was the moment this Labour government died, and made it certain to be a one term government. And idiot Labour MPs who killed this Labour government and lost their own seat in the process, wear the fact a new, serious, slash and burn government is formed in May 2029 like a badge showing the world just so utterly thick they are.
So you are now forecasting PM Kemi in 2029 then Moon? Interesting
If the alternative is PM Farage and Labour are nowhere, then...
Where it's the NHS, PIPs, adult social care or mental health, individually and all together it's just extremely expensive and it risks our bankruptcy.
My take on this is, unsurprisingly, different to yours.
My thinking is that as the standard of living increases (as it continues to do, just) we should indeed devote an ever-increasing proportion on health. Because after the basics of food, clothes and shelter, nothing is more important than health.
The alternative is that personal income gets frittered away on ever more 'stuff' (as outlined by @stodge in his 2:45pm post).
I appreciate we are probably diametrically opposed on this, as on a lot of things, but that's my feeling.
Devoting an ever increasing proportion on health results in an ever decreasing marginal return.
The resources spent on extending an octogenarian's life for another few low quality weeks could make a material difference to someone if spent in their twenties or thirties.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
"Tax rise for growth" lol do you have even a basic understanding of how the economy functions?
Yes. Raise x. Invest it. Return xx
Cash needs to flow or the economy contracts. Do YOU understand how the economy works? Rich people aren't letting the cash even trickle down any more - most people feel broke and the economy contracts which makes more people broke.
THis is what happens when you don't invest. Could be a major story next year, to put it mildly, if it doesn't start pishing it down. Edit: NB mooted restrictions affecting businesses.
This is the guardian equivalent of the regular Daily Express winter stories about massive snowfalls due soon.
I wouldn't put it that way. For one thing, DE is about future point events. THis is about an ongoing phenomenon.
Edit: and the state of the water mains is a known issue. Replacing them is (a) investment and (b) saves water, a lot of it.
Isn’t that what most of the punitive water bill increases is supposed to cover.
Building a few more reservoirs would help too. Sadly NIMBYism has nixed that more than once.
I'm inclined to suspect the latter was just an excuse for the water companies to do FA. If they really worried about the water supply rather than stockholder dividends they'd have done more to deal with ageing mains to the same effect.
They've been able to do it in the past - Rutland Water in relatively recent years. Relatively recent admittedly taking a lot of load there, it was 1980s IIRC, but Rutlandshire even then was not your average Welsh valley with about 50 people and a trillion sheep.
And as a bonus they got lots of birds and a giant ichthyosaur. What's not to like?
Certainly your first paragraph is the NIMBY argument for stopping new reservoirs being built.
However they are not mutually exclusive. They could do both.
Now the water companies are getting a large cash injection through front loaded increases, and some have been back to the regulator for a little more and got it, let’s see what happens.
First para is not a Nimby argument in itself - it is something they needed to do anyway (contamination, bursts, damage to roads, stoppage to supplies). And because that really is where a lot of water is wasted. It's only a Nimby argument insofar as the water companies were so badly managed it was an open goal for the Nimbies to ask why they wanted to build reservoirs to pump the equivalent straignt into the ground.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. The first paragraph is a NIMBY argument in the sense I’ve seen it proferred as an excuse not to build reservoirs. If you solve the leaks you don’t need a reservoir.
With a growing poluplation I’d say we need both, especially where the population is growing in the south.
But we need it controlled tightly. That's why strong scrutiny of plans is so important.
In the late 70s water providers were attempting to ram reservoirs into Dartmoor and Exmoor.
Here's Kate Ashbrook's account of fighting to protect the Dartmoor National Park when the Roadford Rerservoir Scheme was proposed on top of all kind of historical remains etc, and involved made up claims. The enquiry resulted in a presumption that future reservoirs would not swallow parts of Dartmoor. https://campaignerkate.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/the-dartmoor-reservoir-saga-40-years-ago/
One of the more pernicious aspects is that local authorities sometimes want to pander to Water Companies (as they are now) or landowners *, rather than the local community.
There's another one where a water provider wanted to bury a valley under their spoil, because it was convenient for them.
* They tried to do this in the Hoogstraten case, so it was necessary to get a law passed that allowed Local Authorities to be compelled to perform their statutory duties.
Barty will be along soon to declare that anyone should be allowed to build anything anywhere.
They should certainly have built a vast amount more reservoirs than European regulations allowed. The last major reservoir project completed in the UK was in 1992. Do you think that is in any way defensible given that we have nearly 10 million more people living here?
Maybe the water companies could have focused a bit more on fixing leaks (3 billion litres per day - 20% of total demand) and reducing sewage spills instead of syphoning off profits (£83bn) much of it to foreign owners (70%).
Water privatisation was a huge mistake.
Same old broken record - nothing can be blamed on the EU, everything is the result of the evul Tories.
AI:
The Habitats Directive 1992 (implemented in UK law through the Habitats Regulations) had a significant impact on reservoir building by introducing rigorous environmental assessments, particularly the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) (or Appropriate Assessment), which made it much harder to build large infrastructure projects in or near protected nature sites.
Key Impacts
-Mandatory Assessment: Any proposed reservoir project likely to have a significant effect on a "European site" (Special Areas of Conservation or Special Protection Areas, now part of the UK's national site network) requires a formal HRA. This assessment must determine if the project will have an "adverse effect on the integrity" of the site.
-Precautionary Principle: The assessment process requires a precautionary approach. If there is a mere possibility of a significant effect, an HRA is needed.
-Strict Protection: The legislation provides a high level of protection for designated sites and species. Unlike development on other sites (e.g., Sites of Special Scientific Interest), development on a European site generally cannot proceed if it causes harm unless there are "imperative reasons of overriding public interest" (IROPI) and compensatory measures are provided. This high bar has significantly restricted development in such areas.
-Focus on Alternatives and Mitigation: The directive forces developers and planning authorities to consider alternative solutions and ensure any proposed mitigation measures are effective and certain at the time of the assessment, rather than relying on future possibilities.
-Increased Scrutiny and Legal Challenges: The stringent requirements mean that any proposed reservoir project faces significant scrutiny from environmental bodies and the public, often leading to legal challenges if the proper procedures are not followed or if the environmental impact is deemed unacceptable. This has increased complexity, costs, and potential delays for developers.
-Strategic Planning: The directive's principles have been integrated into high-level planning, such as National Policy Statements for Water Resources, requiring water companies to consider environmental sustainability in their long-term water management plans and assess potential impacts on protected sites.
So in common language - after 1992 (or 94 in the case of UK statute), there was a de facto ban on new reservoir development. Yes, I am sure our regulators and planning authorities on a power trip didn't help, and nor did well-meaning idiots protesting that 368 square miles of Dartmoor would be submerged under a mega-reservoir, and nor did the water companies, who would have used the regulations as an excuse to do nothing and bank profits.
However, the fundamental reason for the situation is not greedy water companies, it is EU regulation.
Did you even bother to read my post? As an alternative to trashing the environment with new reservoirs how about firstly fixing the leaks that cause 20% of supply to be literally pissed away.
Pipes are for transporting water, not storing water. When you have a lot of wet weather over winter, and some fairly hot and dry summers, you need to store the water in reservoirs, hence the name. These twin weather conditions would be taken in every other country's stride - only the British public are being sold the stor that a dry summer and a wet winter are calamitous affairs, and it's purely because we no longer have the water infrastructure to serve our population, due to deliberate EU policies.
*Edit
It's also complete toss to say that reservoirs trash the environment - filling quarry pits to create meres is creating a new environment not trashing the environment.
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
Where it's the NHS, PIPs, adult social care or mental health, individually and all together it's just extremely expensive and it risks our bankruptcy.
My take on this is, unsurprisingly, different to yours.
My thinking is that as the standard of living increases (as it continues to do, just) we should indeed devote an ever-increasing proportion on health. Because after the basics of food, clothes and shelter, nothing is more important than health.
The alternative is that personal income gets frittered away on ever more 'stuff' (as outlined by @stodge in his 2:45pm post).
I appreciate we are probably diametrically opposed on this, as on a lot of things, but that's my feeling.
Devoting an ever increasing proportion on health results in an ever decreasing marginal return.
The resources spent on extending an octogenarian's life for another few low quality weeks could make a material difference to someone if spent in their twenties or thirties.
That's true of pretty much any spending, isn't it?
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
You beg the question of whether tax rises will lead to economic growth. Why not cut taxes for growth? The Chancellor can't just tack “for growth” on the end of whatever the Treasury brainstormed and guarantee it will happen.
Sure! Its an option, but I'm not sure its one they can do.
Cut taxes to entrepreneurs like me to go generate economic growth. OK, infrastructure is bad and getting worse, my potential customers feel broke and aren't spending and now feel even worse as you've cut expenditure on vital stuff again.
Government could borrow to pay for the tax cuts for growth. No, hang on that was the Truss Delusion.
Whilst I agree that taxes are too high, they can't cut them now. But what they could do is unveil a completely revised tax code - change the game completely by rolling welfare into a universal payment and scrapping all the tax loopholes by abolishing the taxes they avoid.
You can't drive growth by taxing less. But you could drive growth by taxing differently...
You certainly could drive growth by taxing less.
Here's an example:
I'm currently running a business with a full order book out to 2028. I want to do more work, employ more people, maybe even make a larger profit and pay more tax.
My biggest constraint at the moment is premises. I basically need a steel framed shed with a decent sized overhead crane in it. I'm renting one that's 5k sq ft, I to grow really need 10-15k sq ft. I nearly bought a 21k sq ft site, the bit that kiboshed the deal was that it came with a £32k pa business rates bill, and covering that, and the stamp duty was just too much dead money to overcome straight after moving.
There are several things you could do which would enable me to grow. You could abolish planning permission, and let me build a suitable building on farmland (I'm in a rural area, and quite geographically constrained if I don't want to lose my existing staff). The site I was trying to buy was £850k, I could buy some land and build everything I want for about £250k.
Alternatively, imagine a scheme where when a business moves into a more expensive rateable premises, the difference in business rates is phased in over 5 years - that would have given me time to get over the "hump" of moving, and let me start expanding and taking on staff to get turnover up before I was hit for the rates.
Incidentally, the site I wanted to buy has been sold to a haulage firm. They are going to knock down the buildings to get out of the rates, and use the hardstanding to park lorries. So the council will lose the rates anyway, and there will be one less small industrial site out there for a manufacturing or engineering business.
Taxes, especially badly designed ones, destroy growth. The only route to meaningful growth is reducing taxes and/or regulation. Until we have a government which understands this, we will remain stuck in this doom loop of ever higher taxes and lower growth.
The idea that a high tax burden destroys growth just doesn't reconcile with the experience of the rest of Europe, where we see both economic growth and significantly higher standards of living in countries with higher tax burdens.
You might be right that the correct route for the UK is lower taxes, lower regulations. But it does come across as dogmatic when you assert in this way. You can make a strong argument that the 40% burden in Germany and the Netherlands, 45% in France has delivered more for their populations than the 33% in the UK.
Firstly, it is the opposite of dogma when a member takes time to relate his actual experience.
Secondly, Europe's growth has been stagnant vs. the USA over the last 20 years. Few countries have done quite as badly as the UK, with its toxic mix of high tax and regulation with an oddly laissez faire attitude to the family silver being sold off, but the overall trend is clearly shown in the relative growth figures. That absolutely reconciles with the theory that a high tax, high regulation environment kills growth, and it's absurd denialism to say otherwise.
Compared with the United States in the past 20 years or so, we have had Osborne's failed austerity but more subtle is the Covid response where Britain subsidised companies while America subsidised workers. It also of course has had a shedload of government investment which our faux free marketeers decry as ‘picking winners’.
We did not have 'failed austerity', we had an extremely modest attempt to rein in spending which led to a couple of years when Government spending didn't rise - it certainly didn't fall by much, and it soon continued its upward trajectory. There was no serious attempt to reduce the size of the state.
It was one of those situations where looking at the aggregate figures was misleading. The Tories increased the rate at which the state pension increased in value. To an extent they protected Health and Education spending. Therefore, to achieve only a modest overall attempt to rein in spending the austerity axe had to fall very heavily on other areas of government spending, such as the criminal justice system, local government, social care and elsewhere.
That is why Britain is now characterised as a country of two societies. We have a large number of affluent pensioners, and we have a criminal justice system on the verge of breaking down. The country was not "all in it together".
Indeed, one million posts were lost from local Government during the time of the coalition - the impact of those losses still resonates through many councils.
As I recall, Osborne's plan was £5 of spending cuts matched by £1 in tax rises - I suspect Reeves will do something very different. The failures in areas like criminal justice began with the Coalition but were compounded by the failure of later Conservative administrations to tackle the issues.
This is the precise wording of the tax promise from the Labour Manifesto in 2024:
We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible. Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.
There's wriggle room, but not much.
Just extend NIC to unearned income then. That is definitely 'not an increase in taxes on working people'
Pension contributions are paid after national insurance has been deducted (unless salary sacrifice is used) so extending national insurance to income from pensions will mean it is imposed twice and nobody will then voluntarily contribute to pensions.
Which means that they only viable way of extending the scope of national insurance is to get rid of it and simultaneously increase income tax by the same amount.
Well maybe. But if I save my net of ICT income outside of an ISA I will be paying ICT on the interest, so I don't see your objection as cast iron, or even gilt-edged.
You will be paying income tax on the interest gained not on any capital withdrawals.
Sure but what's the logic for not paying NIC on that interest?
To incentivise saving. We'd like people to arrive at the point where they are too old to work with enough savings that we don't end up bailing them out.
Amazing how all the losers who live on freebies always want to take money off people who work their butts off.
Hard agree. And it's so ethically troubling too.
How do the Scots live with themselves?
Nonsense, the ‘huge number’ of Scots working in jobs provided by GB Energy are working their butts off to provide cheap energy for yon southrons.
I don't support the deliberately provocative framing of the Scots taking freebies. But the energy situation isn't that simple. Some of Scotland's renewable energy farms are making more in subsidies in the form of constraint payments than they are in selling energy. It's a big scam. Sadly, it isn't actually 'Scots' who are making that money off the bill payers though - the wind farms are mostly foreign-owned, and Scots are lucky if they benefit from some of the grants available as such companies 'do their bit' for the local community with a tiny proportion of their millions.
Where it's the NHS, PIPs, adult social care or mental health, individually and all together it's just extremely expensive and it risks our bankruptcy.
My take on this is, unsurprisingly, different to yours.
My thinking is that as the standard of living increases (as it continues to do, just) we should indeed devote an ever-increasing proportion on health. Because after the basics of food, clothes and shelter, nothing is more important than health.
The alternative is that personal income gets frittered away on ever more 'stuff' (as outlined by @stodge in his 2:45pm post).
I appreciate we are probably diametrically opposed on this, as on a lot of things, but that's my feeling.
Devoting an ever increasing proportion on health results in an ever decreasing marginal return.
The resources spent on extending an octogenarian's life for another few low quality weeks could make a material difference to someone if spent in their twenties or thirties.
That's true of pretty much any spending, isn't it?
Yes, the law of diminishing returns applies to everything.
But for some reason we've chosen to ratchet ever-higher levels of spending on diminishing returns for health, while cutting to the bones everything else.
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
"Tax rise for growth" lol do you have even a basic understanding of how the economy functions?
Yes. Raise x. Invest it. Return xx
Cash needs to flow or the economy contracts. Do YOU understand how the economy works? Rich people aren't letting the cash even trickle down any more - most people feel broke and the economy contracts which makes more people broke.
THis is what happens when you don't invest. Could be a major story next year, to put it mildly, if it doesn't start pishing it down. Edit: NB mooted restrictions affecting businesses.
This is the guardian equivalent of the regular Daily Express winter stories about massive snowfalls due soon.
I wouldn't put it that way. For one thing, DE is about future point events. THis is about an ongoing phenomenon.
Edit: and the state of the water mains is a known issue. Replacing them is (a) investment and (b) saves water, a lot of it.
Isn’t that what most of the punitive water bill increases is supposed to cover.
Building a few more reservoirs would help too. Sadly NIMBYism has nixed that more than once.
I'm inclined to suspect the latter was just an excuse for the water companies to do FA. If they really worried about the water supply rather than stockholder dividends they'd have done more to deal with ageing mains to the same effect.
They've been able to do it in the past - Rutland Water in relatively recent years. Relatively recent admittedly taking a lot of load there, it was 1980s IIRC, but Rutlandshire even then was not your average Welsh valley with about 50 people and a trillion sheep.
And as a bonus they got lots of birds and a giant ichthyosaur. What's not to like?
Certainly your first paragraph is the NIMBY argument for stopping new reservoirs being built.
However they are not mutually exclusive. They could do both.
Now the water companies are getting a large cash injection through front loaded increases, and some have been back to the regulator for a little more and got it, let’s see what happens.
First para is not a Nimby argument in itself - it is something they needed to do anyway (contamination, bursts, damage to roads, stoppage to supplies). And because that really is where a lot of water is wasted. It's only a Nimby argument insofar as the water companies were so badly managed it was an open goal for the Nimbies to ask why they wanted to build reservoirs to pump the equivalent straignt into the ground.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. The first paragraph is a NIMBY argument in the sense I’ve seen it proferred as an excuse not to build reservoirs. If you solve the leaks you don’t need a reservoir.
With a growing poluplation I’d say we need both, especially where the population is growing in the south.
But we need it controlled tightly. That's why strong scrutiny of plans is so important.
In the late 70s water providers were attempting to ram reservoirs into Dartmoor and Exmoor.
Here's Kate Ashbrook's account of fighting to protect the Dartmoor National Park when the Roadford Rerservoir Scheme was proposed on top of all kind of historical remains etc, and involved made up claims. The enquiry resulted in a presumption that future reservoirs would not swallow parts of Dartmoor. https://campaignerkate.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/the-dartmoor-reservoir-saga-40-years-ago/
One of the more pernicious aspects is that local authorities sometimes want to pander to Water Companies (as they are now) or landowners *, rather than the local community.
There's another one where a water provider wanted to bury a valley under their spoil, because it was convenient for them.
* They tried to do this in the Hoogstraten case, so it was necessary to get a law passed that allowed Local Authorities to be compelled to perform their statutory duties.
Barty will be along soon to declare that anyone should be allowed to build anything anywhere.
They should certainly have built a vast amount more reservoirs than European regulations allowed. The last major reservoir project completed in the UK was in 1992. Do you think that is in any way defensible given that we have nearly 10 million more people living here?
Maybe the water companies could have focused a bit more on fixing leaks (3 billion litres per day - 20% of total demand) and reducing sewage spills instead of syphoning off profits (£83bn) much of it to foreign owners (70%).
Water privatisation was a huge mistake.
Same old broken record - nothing can be blamed on the EU, everything is the result of the evul Tories.
AI:
The Habitats Directive 1992 (implemented in UK law through the Habitats Regulations) had a significant impact on reservoir building by introducing rigorous environmental assessments, particularly the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) (or Appropriate Assessment), which made it much harder to build large infrastructure projects in or near protected nature sites.
Key Impacts
-Mandatory Assessment: Any proposed reservoir project likely to have a significant effect on a "European site" (Special Areas of Conservation or Special Protection Areas, now part of the UK's national site network) requires a formal HRA. This assessment must determine if the project will have an "adverse effect on the integrity" of the site.
-Precautionary Principle: The assessment process requires a precautionary approach. If there is a mere possibility of a significant effect, an HRA is needed.
-Strict Protection: The legislation provides a high level of protection for designated sites and species. Unlike development on other sites (e.g., Sites of Special Scientific Interest), development on a European site generally cannot proceed if it causes harm unless there are "imperative reasons of overriding public interest" (IROPI) and compensatory measures are provided. This high bar has significantly restricted development in such areas.
-Focus on Alternatives and Mitigation: The directive forces developers and planning authorities to consider alternative solutions and ensure any proposed mitigation measures are effective and certain at the time of the assessment, rather than relying on future possibilities.
-Increased Scrutiny and Legal Challenges: The stringent requirements mean that any proposed reservoir project faces significant scrutiny from environmental bodies and the public, often leading to legal challenges if the proper procedures are not followed or if the environmental impact is deemed unacceptable. This has increased complexity, costs, and potential delays for developers.
-Strategic Planning: The directive's principles have been integrated into high-level planning, such as National Policy Statements for Water Resources, requiring water companies to consider environmental sustainability in their long-term water management plans and assess potential impacts on protected sites.
So in common language - after 1992 (or 94 in the case of UK statute), there was a de facto ban on new reservoir development. Yes, I am sure our regulators and planning authorities on a power trip didn't help, and nor did well-meaning idiots protesting that 368 square miles of Dartmoor would be submerged under a mega-reservoir, and nor did the water companies, who would have used the regulations as an excuse to do nothing and bank profits.
However, the fundamental reason for the situation is not greedy water companies, it is EU regulation.
Did you even bother to read my post? As an alternative to trashing the environment with new reservoirs how about firstly fixing the leaks that cause 20% of supply to be literally pissed away.
Pipes are for transporting water, not storing water. When you have a lot of wet weather over winter, and some fairly hot and dry summers, you need to store the water in reservoirs, hence the name. These twin weather conditions would be taken in every other country's stride - only the British public are being sold the stor that a dry summer and a wet winter are calamitous affairs, and it's purely because we no longer have the water infrastructure to serve our population, due to deliberate EU policies.
*Edit
It's also complete toss to say that reservoirs trash the environment - filling quarry pits to create meres is creating a new environment not trashing the environment.
The volume of water in the pipes is irrelevant, as it is - or should be - always being refilled from the reservoirs. It's the net leakage that doesn't end up with the user that counts.
If 20% of water is wasted, then 20% of reservoir capacity is wasted. That doesn't matter in wet areas in rainy seasons (apart from the damage leakages cause) but is a big deal in a dry year when actual annual consumption is comparable in magnitude to reservoir capacity [edit] when the latter isn't being refulled. .
Also: in the dry areas a lot of water is abstracted from those rivers which are not recharged from reservoirs, and from ground water (not able to be artificially recharged AFAIK). Reservoirs don't do any good in those instances.
Reservoirs do a great deal of damage by replacing the preexisting ecosystem with an artificial and rapidly oscillating lake. That includes converting a lake to a reservoir: vide the oscillating shorelines of Loch Treig.
Where it's the NHS, PIPs, adult social care or mental health, individually and all together it's just extremely expensive and it risks our bankruptcy.
My take on this is, unsurprisingly, different to yours.
My thinking is that as the standard of living increases (as it continues to do, just) we should indeed devote an ever-increasing proportion on health. Because after the basics of food, clothes and shelter, nothing is more important than health.
The alternative is that personal income gets frittered away on ever more 'stuff' (as outlined by @stodge in his 2:45pm post).
I appreciate we are probably diametrically opposed on this, as on a lot of things, but that's my feeling.
Devoting an ever increasing proportion on health results in an ever decreasing marginal return.
The resources spent on extending an octogenarian's life for another few low quality weeks could make a material difference to someone if spent in their twenties or thirties.
That's true of pretty much any spending, isn't it?
Not necessarily. Sometimes where there are large fixed costs you get increasing returns to scale - classically in manufacturing processes but also sometimes in government. NHS drug procurement is an oft-cited example. The government can use its monopsonistic buyer power to hold down medicine prices much lower than the much more fragmented US system.
But, generally, yes, there are diminishing returns to scale in many aspects of government activity.
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
Nah, I dont think he is particularly motivated by money. He will never be poor, but he does crave recognition
He enjoys the glad-handing of other leaders on the world stage, and that is the bit of the job that he does well.
That makes him rather stickier of course. He can't be bribed to leave.
Rather than spending hugely on willy waving aircraft carriers that need US permission to work we should have spent a lot of money on smaller coastal protection vessels. Just sayin’
Whilst I agree with you on the folly of the aircraft carriers I’m not sure what you think the extra coastal patrol vessels will do as they can tow back so all they will be doing is escorting in more small boat migrants
So an island nation that gives up on Sea Control?
Excellent.
How can a very expensive pair of carriers, with barely enough of a support fleet control the seas around the UK in a way that can’t be done by subs, other surface vessels and land based aircraft from the UK and Europe?
The potential enemy is Russia and I’m not sure an aircraft carrier will make a huge positive, especially based on the state of theor military.
As for other seas, we can’t stretch to defending them on either cost or kit. We can’t be a world policeman anymore so the money should be spent on what is most useful for our sector of NATO territory.
The use of carriers in exercises with Northern European nations might be of interest to you
You should also consider the number of other countries expanding their carrier programs. And why.
Global warming, means rising seas levels, means more sea?
They want to control the seas around their countries.
Carriers wouldn’t really help with that. They are about force projection. You need cruisers to control domestic waters
I’m talking blue water here. Not fisheries protection.
Though given the efficiency of carriers for helicopter operations, they certainly are useful for inshore ASW work
Most countries that can afford carriers don’t have blue water around their countries
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
This always happens with unpopular Prime Ministers and even with popular ones.
An unattributed quote by a "backbencher" - seriously?
Tim Shipman in this weekend's Speccie says private polling circulating in the higher reaches of GOP says Dems win the House by one seat but that continued redistricting plans should just pull Trump through.
Tim Shipman in this weekend's Speccie says private polling circulating in the higher reaches of GOP says Dems win the House by one seat but that continued redistricting plans should just pull Trump through.
Given that its a year to the actual elections that polling is pretty irrelevant.
But any actual result that close would represent a near zero swing since 2024,
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
The only reason you can see why a PM who won a huge majority in a GE just over a year ago has not given up and resigned is that he's corrupt to the core and needs to pass some policies to enrich himself?
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
Nah, I dont think he is particularly motivated by money. He will never be poor, but he does crave recognition
He enjoys the glad-handing of other leaders on the world stage, and that is the bit of the job that he does well.
That makes him rather stickier of course. He can't be bribed to leave.
Being extremely wealthy didn't stop Sunak taking decisions that benefitted his own finances, so I certainly don't think having a good pension is going to mean that Starmer wouldn't do the same.
The glittering international circuit of praise and toadying - which he has always loved by comparison to the hurly burly of British politics (see his comments on Davos) has a very high price of entry. A nice house and being able to afford a couple of Saga cruises a year isn't it.
Where it's the NHS, PIPs, adult social care or mental health, individually and all together it's just extremely expensive and it risks our bankruptcy.
My take on this is, unsurprisingly, different to yours.
My thinking is that as the standard of living increases (as it continues to do, just) we should indeed devote an ever-increasing proportion on health. Because after the basics of food, clothes and shelter, nothing is more important than health.
The alternative is that personal income gets frittered away on ever more 'stuff' (as outlined by @stodge in his 2:45pm post).
I appreciate we are probably diametrically opposed on this, as on a lot of things, but that's my feeling.
Devoting an ever increasing proportion on health results in an ever decreasing marginal return.
The resources spent on extending an octogenarian's life for another few low quality weeks could make a material difference to someone if spent in their twenties or thirties.
That's true of pretty much any spending, isn't it?
It is.
But how many other sectors in the economy have had endless increases in spending such as the NHS has ?
And how many other sectors in the economy are so focused on oldies ?
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
The only reason you can see why a PM who won a huge majority in a GE just over a year ago has not given up and resigned is that he's corrupt to the core and needs to pass some policies to enrich himself?
Rather odd take if you don't mind me saying.
Labour are now at 15 in some polls. The scale of the majority only accentuates the scale of the failure. Starmer isn't a good communicator, isn't a good motivator of people, and doesn't have a vision that anyone in the UK wants any part of. Labour MPs are reporting that he is viscerally disliked on the doorstep, and I don't see that any sane party would want to fight an election with him at the helm.
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
The only reason you can see why a PM who won a huge majority in a GE just over a year ago has not given up and resigned is that he's corrupt to the core and needs to pass some policies to enrich himself?
Rather odd take if you don't mind me saying.
Labour are now at 15 in some polls. The scale of the majority only accentuates the scale of the failure. Starmer isn't a good communicator, isn't a good motivator of people, and doesn't have a vision that anyone in the UK wants any part of. Labour MPs are reporting that he is viscerally disliked on the doorstep, and I don't see that any sane party would want to fight an election with him at the helm.
Well that's a different question. Will the party ditch him before the next election if it becomes clear they can't win with him as leader. I think they will. But we're not there yet.
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
The only reason you can see why a PM who won a huge majority in a GE just over a year ago has not given up and resigned is that he's corrupt to the core and needs to pass some policies to enrich himself?
Rather odd take if you don't mind me saying.
Labour are now at 15 in some polls. The scale of the majority only accentuates the scale of the failure. Starmer isn't a good communicator, isn't a good motivator of people, and doesn't have a vision that anyone in the UK wants any part of. Labour MPs are reporting that he is viscerally disliked on the doorstep, and I don't see that any sane party would want to fight an election with him at the helm.
So what you’re saying is, you’re one of his biggest admirers (in relative terms)?
The word "extraordinary" in relation to British opinion polling does not mean what it once meant.
Success for greens I am going to say. Have we seen green crossover with Labour yet?
Yes...ish. The polling number for the Greens have exceeded the polling number for Labour twice. But in both cases it was from Find Out Now whose polling method is not the same as the others.
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
The only reason you can see why a PM who won a huge majority in a GE just over a year ago has not given up and resigned is that he's corrupt to the core and needs to pass some policies to enrich himself?
Rather odd take if you don't mind me saying.
Labour are now at 15 in some polls. The scale of the majority only accentuates the scale of the failure. Starmer isn't a good communicator, isn't a good motivator of people, and doesn't have a vision that anyone in the UK wants any part of. Labour MPs are reporting that he is viscerally disliked on the doorstep, and I don't see that any sane party would want to fight an election with him at the helm.
Well that's a different question. Will the party ditch him before the next election if it becomes clear they can't win with him as leader. I think they will. But we're not there yet.
I still think he’ll “retire” in 2027 if the polling continues to be bad.
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
The only reason you can see why a PM who won a huge majority in a GE just over a year ago has not given up and resigned is that he's corrupt to the core and needs to pass some policies to enrich himself?
Rather odd take if you don't mind me saying.
Labour are now at 15 in some polls. The scale of the majority only accentuates the scale of the failure. Starmer isn't a good communicator, isn't a good motivator of people, and doesn't have a vision that anyone in the UK wants any part of. Labour MPs are reporting that he is viscerally disliked on the doorstep, and I don't see that any sane party would want to fight an election with him at the helm.
I suspect if he stays on, Starmer will step down just before the next GE and try and hand over to Starmer loyalist Streeting and also try to keep Burnham out of Parliament in the meantime.
Much like Hollande stood down just before the 2017 presidential election in France and Macron replaced him as the anti Le Pen candidate and Trudeau stood down first thing this year and Carney replaced him before the Canadian election
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
I don't think he's corrupt (although he may have an inflated sense of entitlement, which may be close enough). But I do think he has a mental condition that makes it impossible for him to realise when he has changed his behaviour, and/or distinguish between when he is doing bad things or good things. Given that, and the lack of a moral core, leads him to switch positions arbitrarily or adopt positions (ID cards) that have no root in Labour values. He really shouldn't be Prime Minister in the same way Boris shouldn't have been.
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
The only reason you can see why a PM who won a huge majority in a GE just over a year ago has not given up and resigned is that he's corrupt to the core and needs to pass some policies to enrich himself?
Rather odd take if you don't mind me saying.
Labour are now at 15 in some polls. The scale of the majority only accentuates the scale of the failure. Starmer isn't a good communicator, isn't a good motivator of people, and doesn't have a vision that anyone in the UK wants any part of. Labour MPs are reporting that he is viscerally disliked on the doorstep, and I don't see that any sane party would want to fight an election with him at the helm.
I suspect if he stays on, Starmer will step down just before the next GE and hand over to Starmer loyalist Streeting and try to keep Burnham out of Parliament in the meantime.
Much like Hollande stood down just before the 2017 presidential election in France and Macron replaced him as the anti Le Pen candidate and Trudeau stood down first thing this year and Carney replaced him
Running the most unpopular administration since records began seems a somewhat drastic way of keeping Burnham out of Parliament, but it’s undeniably effective.
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
The rise of Hamas independents is one of the most depressing developments in recent years.
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
Posh wards, especially down the M3 and M4 corridors; university wards; Muslim wards; Welsh-speaking wards; Liverpool; will be resistant to Reform. As will some areas with strong and active Conservative associations.
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
Posh wards, especially down the M3 and M4 corridors; university wards; Muslim wards; Welsh-speaking wards; Liverpool; will be resistant to Reform. As will some areas with strong and active Conservative associations.
Everywhere else is very winnable.
Reform should win seats which were over 60% Leave, Reform won't win seats that voted Remain.
Seats that voted 50-60% Leave will determine the next general election, some of them have now turned against Brexit or at least want a softer Brexit than we now have and they will be the key marginals. On current polls without tactical voting Reform win most of them, however if most LD and Green voters vote Labour in Labour held seats in that category and most Tory voters vote Tory and don't tactically vote Reform then Labour hold hold most of them. Similarly if the Tories can get LD and Labour tactical votes in seats they hold in that category Reform may fail to gain those seats from the Conservatives as well and the Tory MPs will hold on
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
Posh wards, especially down the M3 and M4 corridors; university wards; Muslim wards; Welsh-speaking wards; Liverpool; will be resistant to Reform. As will some areas with strong and active Conservative associations.
Everywhere else is very winnable.
Reform should win seats which were over 60% Leave, Reform won't win seats that voted Remain.
Seats that voted 50-60% Leave will determine the next general election, some of them have now turned against Brexit or at least want a softer Brexit than we now have and they will be the key marginals. On current polls without tactical voting Reform win most of them, however if most LD and Green voters vote Labour in Labour held seats in that category and most Tory voters vote Tory and don't tactically vote Reform then Labour hold hold most of them. Similarly if the Tories can get LD and Labour tactical votes in seats they hold in that category Reform may fail to gain those seats from the Conservatives as well and the Tory MPs will hold on
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
I don't think he's corrupt (although he may have an inflated sense of entitlement, which may be close enough). But I do think he has a mental condition that makes it impossible for him to realise when he has changed his behaviour, and/or distinguish between when he is doing bad things or good things. Given that, and the lack of a moral core, leads him to switch positions arbitrarily or adopt positions (ID cards) that have no root in Labour values. He really shouldn't be Prime Minister in the same way Boris shouldn't have been.
ID cards and their development into a central database is EU policy - i would imagine Starmer wants to keep us in lock step with that.
On the wider point, I know that we should assume cock up and not conspiracy, but do you really think him being mental is a better explanation for his behaviour than being at it?
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
True. Polling remains as it has been in one respect. The Tory/Reform polling is about 47-50%, the Not Reform/Not Tory vote is about 50% as well. A general election remains light years away for all but proper anoraks. By the middle of 2028 at the latest minds will concentrate as to how to conduct a Rightish v Leftish (all inaccurate terms but you know what I mean) election in which either Reformtory will form government or Labour+'others as needed' will. More than usual people will be voting with government formation in mind. And only then, in 2028 can one start assessing Labour's chances. My guess is that Labour must improve as there is nowhere else coherent to go to in most seats.
"Reform UK now holds* a 33% lead (+3), followed by Labour on 20% (no change) and the Conservatives on 17% (-1).The Liberal Democrats remain on 12%, while the Greens slip slightly to 11% (-1). Farage also holds a three-point lead over Starmer on who would make the best Prime Minister."
* that is the quote. Not sure they mean a 33% LEAD....
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
I don't think he's corrupt (although he may have an inflated sense of entitlement, which may be close enough). But I do think he has a mental condition that makes it impossible for him to realise when he has changed his behaviour, and/or distinguish between when he is doing bad things or good things. Given that, and the lack of a moral core, leads him to switch positions arbitrarily or adopt positions (ID cards) that have no root in Labour values. He really shouldn't be Prime Minister in the same way Boris shouldn't have been.
ID cards and their development into a central database is EU policy - i would imagine Starmer wants to keep us in lock step with that.
On the wider point, I know that we should assume cock up and not conspiracy, but do you really think him being mental is a better explanation for his behaviour than being at it?
A couple of months back, two anecdotes led me to think so.
i) When his brother died, he cleaned the house himself top-to-bottom, rejecting offers of help
ii) When challenged about his changes of mind, he got emotionally upset and repeated his belief that he would not do such a thing
I think both anecdotes came from Tom McTague's article (earlier this year?). I'll try to dig it up.
This demonstrates his ability to fixate on an action beyond reasonableness, to ignore evidence of his changed behaviour, and to become emotionally upset when challenged. I think there's something missing in him. Not wrong per se, just absent.
Voting Intention Reform UK now holds a 33% lead (+3), followed by Labour on 20% (no change) and the Conservatives on 17% (-1). The Liberal Democrats remain on 12%, while the Greens slip slightly to 11% (-1).
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
Posh wards, especially down the M3 and M4 corridors; university wards; Muslim wards; Welsh-speaking wards; Liverpool; will be resistant to Reform. As will some areas with strong and active Conservative associations.
Everywhere else is very winnable.
Reform should win seats which were over 60% Leave, Reform won't win seats that voted Remain.
Seats that voted 50-60% Leave will determine the next general election, some of them have now turned against Brexit or at least want a softer Brexit than we now have and they will be the key marginals. On current polls without tactical voting Reform win most of them, however if most LD and Green voters vote Labour in Labour held seats in that category and most Tory voters vote Tory and don't tactically vote Reform then Labour hold hold most of them. Similarly if the Tories can get LD and Labour tactical votes in seats they hold in that category Reform may fail to gain those seats from the Conservatives as well and the Tory MPs will hold on
Brexit is history, its done, we've moved on.
Other issues matter now.
To an extent yes. Rejoin is certainly not on the horizon. But Reform are powered by essentially the same voter coalition that delivered Brexit. The Leave/Remain political divide is still highly relevant to our politics. Which is not at all surprising given it dominated everything for years and wasn't so long ago.
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
True. Polling remains as it has been in one respect. The Tory/Reform polling is about 47-50%, the Not Reform/Not Tory vote is about 50% as well. A general election remains light years away for all but proper anoraks. By the middle of 2028 at the latest minds will concentrate as to how to conduct a Rightish v Leftish (all inaccurate terms but you know what I mean) election in which either Reformtory will form government or Labour+'others as needed' will. More than usual people will be voting with government formation in mind. And only then, in 2028 can one start assessing Labour's chances. My guess is that Labour must improve as there is nowhere else coherent to go to in most seats.
The big question for me remains which way will the Conservatives choose to jump. The assumption on here seems to be they would support a minority Reform Government - I'm not so sure.
That does NOT mean they would support a minority Labour Government either but both the Conservative and the LDs (who between them could easily form the balance in the next Commons) have some hard thinking ahead on their positioning both before and after the election.
The LDs have form trying to mitigate between two opposing blocs - the Conservatives do not.
Voting Intention Reform UK now holds a 33% lead (+3), followed by Labour on 20% (no change) and the Conservatives on 17% (-1). The Liberal Democrats remain on 12%, while the Greens slip slightly to 11% (-1).
BiB: I bloody well hope they don't!
So looks like the Green surge was just a FIN phenomenon then
Tim Shipman in this weekend's Speccie says private polling circulating in the higher reaches of GOP says Dems win the House by one seat but that continued redistricting plans should just pull Trump through.
The idea that GOP private polling is better than (say) YouGov is laughable.
And... The idea that redistricting doesn't carry with it massive risks is for the birds.
Off topic: Just learned of the death -- and life -- of Anthony Grey. Who seems to have been a tough -- and very, uh, entertaining -- journalist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Grey
Tim Shipman in this weekend's Speccie says private polling circulating in the higher reaches of GOP says Dems win the House by one seat but that continued redistricting plans should just pull Trump through.
The idea that GOP private polling is better than (say) YouGov is laughable.
And... The idea that redistricting doesn't carry with it massive risks is for the birds.
And that's before the GOP cancel Thanksgiving and kill US healthcare
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
Posh wards, especially down the M3 and M4 corridors; university wards; Muslim wards; Welsh-speaking wards; Liverpool; will be resistant to Reform. As will some areas with strong and active Conservative associations.
Everywhere else is very winnable.
Reform should win seats which were over 60% Leave, Reform won't win seats that voted Remain.
Seats that voted 50-60% Leave will determine the next general election, some of them have now turned against Brexit or at least want a softer Brexit than we now have and they will be the key marginals. On current polls without tactical voting Reform win most of them, however if most LD and Green voters vote Labour in Labour held seats in that category and most Tory voters vote Tory and don't tactically vote Reform then Labour hold hold most of them. Similarly if the Tories can get LD and Labour tactical votes in seats they hold in that category Reform may fail to gain those seats from the Conservatives as well and the Tory MPs will hold on
Brexit is history, its done, we've moved on.
Other issues matter now.
They don't, at the last GE the Tories lost almost all their Remain seats to the LDs and Labour.
Labour regained their strong Leave redwall seats from the Tories but on current polls almost all those seats would be won by Reform.
To even win most seats Labour have to hold their softer Leave seats that voted Tory in 2019, they won back in 2019 and that lean Reform but not as strongly as the redwall seats do. To beat Reform the Tories need to hold most of their seats in this category and win a few from Labour as well.
To get a clear majority Labour need to hold the redwall as well again but that looks unlikely unless Reform collapse
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
True. Polling remains as it has been in one respect. The Tory/Reform polling is about 47-50%, the Not Reform/Not Tory vote is about 50% as well. A general election remains light years away for all but proper anoraks. By the middle of 2028 at the latest minds will concentrate as to how to conduct a Rightish v Leftish (all inaccurate terms but you know what I mean) election in which either Reformtory will form government or Labour+'others as needed' will. More than usual people will be voting with government formation in mind. And only then, in 2028 can one start assessing Labour's chances. My guess is that Labour must improve as there is nowhere else coherent to go to in most seats.
The big question for me remains which way will the Conservatives choose to jump. The assumption on here seems to be they would support a minority Reform Government - I'm not so sure.
That does NOT mean they would support a minority Labour Government either but both the Conservative and the LDs (who between them could easily form the balance in the next Commons) have some hard thinking ahead on their positioning both before and after the election.
The LDs have form trying to mitigate between two opposing blocs - the Conservatives do not.
If Jenrick ousted Kemi to become Tory leader the Conservatives would certainly prop up a minority Reform government and Farage would certainly make Jenrick his Deputy PM, Farage was effusive with praise at Jenrick's conference speech.
If Kemi remained Tory leader the Conservatives would likely prop up a minority Reform government but not certainly and Farage doesn't seem to respect her much so might at most make her Minister for Transport, with Tice his Deputy PM.
If Kemi resigned or lost a VONC and Cleverly replaced her than the Conservatives would not support a minority Reform government, nor would they support a minority Labour government but abstain and vote bill by bill.
The LDs though would certainly now prop up a minority Labour government to keep out Reform, in return for a few concessions like rejoining a Customs Union and scrapping the family farm tax
A Palestine Action activist is being hunted by police after skipping bail.
Sean Middleborough, 32, was being held on remand at HMP Wandsworth in south-west London when he was granted bail for a weekend to attend his brother’s wedding. But he never returned to the prison.
Mr Middleborough, who is charged over an alleged plot by Palestine Action activists to disrupt the London Stock Exchange by locking themselves on to the building and causing criminal damage, is now the subject of an “urgent” police search.
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
Posh wards, especially down the M3 and M4 corridors; university wards; Muslim wards; Welsh-speaking wards; Liverpool; will be resistant to Reform. As will some areas with strong and active Conservative associations.
Everywhere else is very winnable.
Reform should win seats which were over 60% Leave, Reform won't win seats that voted Remain.
Seats that voted 50-60% Leave will determine the next general election, some of them have now turned against Brexit or at least want a softer Brexit than we now have and they will be the key marginals. On current polls without tactical voting Reform win most of them, however if most LD and Green voters vote Labour in Labour held seats in that category and most Tory voters vote Tory and don't tactically vote Reform then Labour hold hold most of them. Similarly if the Tories can get LD and Labour tactical votes in seats they hold in that category Reform may fail to gain those seats from the Conservatives as well and the Tory MPs will hold on
Brexit is history, its done, we've moved on.
Other issues matter now.
They don't, at the last GE the Tories lost almost all their Remain seats to the LDs and Labour.
Labour regained their strong Leave redwall seats from the Tories but on current polls almost all those seats would be won by Reform.
To even win most seats Labour have to hold their softer Leave seats that voted Tory in 2019, they won back in 2019 and that lean Reform but not as strongly as the redwall seats do. To beat Reform the Tories need to hold most of their seats in this category and win a few from Labour as well.
To get a clear majority Labour need to hold the redwall as well again but that looks unlikely unless Reform collapse
Sorry 'To even win most seats Labour have to hold their softer Leave seats that voted Tory in 2019, they won back in 2024 and that lean Reform but not as strongly as the redwall seats do. To beat Reform the Tories need to hold most of their seats in this category and win a few from Labour as well.'
Voting Intention Reform UK now holds a 33% lead (+3), followed by Labour on 20% (no change) and the Conservatives on 17% (-1). The Liberal Democrats remain on 12%, while the Greens slip slightly to 11% (-1).
BiB: I bloody well hope they don't!
Staggering how bad Labours polling is. They might as well do whatever unpopular things are needed to get the economy doing well again.
But ultimately I think Keir needs to turn the next election into a referendum on Farage and Reform.
A Palestine Action activist is being hunted by police after skipping bail.
Sean Middleborough, 32, was being held on remand at HMP Wandsworth in south-west London when he was granted bail for a weekend to attend his brother’s wedding. But he never returned to the prison.
Mr Middleborough, who is charged over an alleged plot by Palestine Action activists to disrupt the London Stock Exchange by locking themselves on to the building and causing criminal damage, is now the subject of an “urgent” police search.
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
True. Polling remains as it has been in one respect. The Tory/Reform polling is about 47-50%, the Not Reform/Not Tory vote is about 50% as well. A general election remains light years away for all but proper anoraks. By the middle of 2028 at the latest minds will concentrate as to how to conduct a Rightish v Leftish (all inaccurate terms but you know what I mean) election in which either Reformtory will form government or Labour+'others as needed' will. More than usual people will be voting with government formation in mind. And only then, in 2028 can one start assessing Labour's chances. My guess is that Labour must improve as there is nowhere else coherent to go to in most seats.
The big question for me remains which way will the Conservatives choose to jump. The assumption on here seems to be they would support a minority Reform Government - I'm not so sure.
That does NOT mean they would support a minority Labour Government either but both the Conservative and the LDs (who between them could easily form the balance in the next Commons) have some hard thinking ahead on their positioning both before and after the election.
The LDs have form trying to mitigate between two opposing blocs - the Conservatives do not.
If Jenrick ousted Kemi to become Tory leader the Conservatives would certainly prop up a minority Reform government and Farage would certainly make Jenrick his Deputy PM, Farage was effusive with praise at Jenrick's conference speech.
If Kemi remained Tory leader the Conservatives would likely prop up a minority Reform government but not certainly and Farage doesn't seem to respect her much so might at most make her Minister for Transport, with Tice his Deputy PM.
If Kemi resigned or lost a VONC and Cleverly replaced her than the Conservatives would not support a minority Reform government, nor would they support a minority Labour government but abstain and vote bill by bill.
The LDs though would certainly now prop up a minority Labour government to keep out Reform, in return for a few concessions like rejoining a Customs Union and scrapping the family farm tax
I'm sure your reading of Conservative possible intentions is accurate - I really couldn't tell you what Badenoch would do to be honest. As for LD intentions, you've made an assumption there but I think both parties have to work out the level of support or otherwise they might offer.
I could see Davey offering a minority Labour Government Confidence & Supply only and it may be a Cleverly-led Conservative Party will be similarly minded. I suspect the experience of the 2010-15 Government (as well as past dealings with Labour) will preclude any arrangement involving LD Ministers in a second term Labour Government and nor do I expect Cleverly to sit round the same Cabinet table as Starmer (or whoever).
I could see Jenrick occupying a senior Ministerial post in a Reform-led Government.
While not wishing to compromise your inate loyalty to the Party, do you not think history shows being the junior coalition partner is the epitome of the poisoned chalice?
The headline isn't the VI but the finding that an absolute majority think Starmer and Reeves should resign.
Over half (56%) of Britons think Keir Starmer should step down as Prime Minister, compared to 26% who want him to remain in post and 19% who are unsure. Even among 2024 Labour voters, a third (33%) believe he should resign, while just over half (52%) think he should stay.
A similar picture emerges for Rachel Reeves: 57% of the public think she should resign as Chancellor, with only 19% wanting her to continue and 24% undecided. Among 2024 Labour voters, 38% think she should go, while 42% want her to remain.
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
True. Polling remains as it has been in one respect. The Tory/Reform polling is about 47-50%, the Not Reform/Not Tory vote is about 50% as well. A general election remains light years away for all but proper anoraks. By the middle of 2028 at the latest minds will concentrate as to how to conduct a Rightish v Leftish (all inaccurate terms but you know what I mean) election in which either Reformtory will form government or Labour+'others as needed' will. More than usual people will be voting with government formation in mind. And only then, in 2028 can one start assessing Labour's chances. My guess is that Labour must improve as there is nowhere else coherent to go to in most seats.
The big question for me remains which way will the Conservatives choose to jump. The assumption on here seems to be they would support a minority Reform Government - I'm not so sure.
That does NOT mean they would support a minority Labour Government either but both the Conservative and the LDs (who between them could easily form the balance in the next Commons) have some hard thinking ahead on their positioning both before and after the election.
The LDs have form trying to mitigate between two opposing blocs - the Conservatives do not.
The uncertainty about which way Tories would jump is a crisis for everyone, not least the party. As election thinking approaches - 2028 - the questions will get asked beyond the land of anoraks occupied by us and Westminster. Who would vote Tory if Reform offer the real thing? Who would vote Tory if they may or may not join a Reform circus and won't tell you? What is the point of Tories if their job is to prop up a Labour led coalition?
To which the answers look like: Few, few and there isn't one.
Another reason why Labour will improve towards 2028/9 - they are the obvious challenger to Reform in +400 seats for the simple reason they are the incumbent.
Labour's crisis is major but not (yet) a threat to its existence. Unlike the Tories where the threat to their meaningful continuation is real and now.
"Reform UK now holds* a 33% lead (+3), followed by Labour on 20% (no change) and the Conservatives on 17% (-1).The Liberal Democrats remain on 12%, while the Greens slip slightly to 11% (-1). Farage also holds a three-point lead over Starmer on who would make the best Prime Minister."
* that is the quote. Not sure they mean a 33% LEAD....
Time to pop those "Reform have peaked" posts down the memory hole and say it again
Has anyone else got the working behind a bet so absolutely right (The public will never take to Sir Keir, and the more the see of him the more they'll dislike him) and lost 100% of their stake, as I did on GE24?
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
I don't think he's corrupt (although he may have an inflated sense of entitlement, which may be close enough). But I do think he has a mental condition that makes it impossible for him to realise when he has changed his behaviour, and/or distinguish between when he is doing bad things or good things. Given that, and the lack of a moral core, leads him to switch positions arbitrarily or adopt positions (ID cards) that have no root in Labour values. He really shouldn't be Prime Minister in the same way Boris shouldn't have been.
ID cards and their development into a central database is EU policy - i would imagine Starmer wants to keep us in lock step with that.
On the wider point, I know that we should assume cock up and not conspiracy, but do you really think him being mental is a better explanation for his behaviour than being at it?
A couple of months back, two anecdotes led me to think so.
i) When his brother died, he cleaned the house himself top-to-bottom, rejecting offers of help
ii) When challenged about his changes of mind, he got emotionally upset and repeated his belief that he would not do such a thing
I think both anecdotes came from Tom McTague's article (earlier this year?). I'll try to dig it up.
This demonstrates his ability to fixate on an action beyond reasonableness, to ignore evidence of his changed behaviour, and to become emotionally upset when challenged. I think there's something missing in him. Not wrong per se, just absent.
OK, the first part (Starmer cleaning his brother's house) is well-sourced[1]
The second part (getting emotionally upset when confronted with evidence of him changing his mind) is less well-sourced. There is some evidence according to perplexity.ai that it did happen during an interview with Nick Robinson [2], or during his flip-flopping on the "island of strangers" speech[3], but the best evidence for him being emotionally upset usually happens when his family is mentioned or offences to human dignity[1], as opposed to him changing his mind, which he sort of tosses off.
If you are using any kind of vehicle for a commercial purpose, you have to have a full license to use it (if any) *and* number plates.
Any powered bike of any kind will be considered a motor scooter, if used for commercial purposes. So you’ll need a full license for that as well
1) So delivery riders on scooters will have to pas their tests. No L plates. 2) electric bike delivery riders will have to display a plate otherwise their vehicle gets confiscated on the spot.
"Reform UK now holds* a 33% lead (+3), followed by Labour on 20% (no change) and the Conservatives on 17% (-1).The Liberal Democrats remain on 12%, while the Greens slip slightly to 11% (-1). Farage also holds a three-point lead over Starmer on who would make the best Prime Minister."
* that is the quote. Not sure they mean a 33% LEAD....
Time to pop those "Reform have peaked" posts down the memory hole and say it again
'He's a robot': Why Labour MPs want to ditch Starmer - and the plan to save him Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
It is possible that the reason he's hanging on could be because he stands to gain financially from some deal he has going (Chagos, selling off data, ID card contracts - take your pick) and must grimly hang on if he wishes to get those policies through and join Tony in the ranks of the super rich. It's really the only way I can make it make sense. He doesn't really care what happens to Labour because he's not really a politician.
I don't think he's corrupt (although he may have an inflated sense of entitlement, which may be close enough). But I do think he has a mental condition that makes it impossible for him to realise when he has changed his behaviour, and/or distinguish between when he is doing bad things or good things. Given that, and the lack of a moral core, leads him to switch positions arbitrarily or adopt positions (ID cards) that have no root in Labour values. He really shouldn't be Prime Minister in the same way Boris shouldn't have been.
ID cards and their development into a central database is EU policy - i would imagine Starmer wants to keep us in lock step with that.
On the wider point, I know that we should assume cock up and not conspiracy, but do you really think him being mental is a better explanation for his behaviour than being at it?
A couple of months back, two anecdotes led me to think so.
i) When his brother died, he cleaned the house himself top-to-bottom, rejecting offers of help
ii) When challenged about his changes of mind, he got emotionally upset and repeated his belief that he would not do such a thing
I think both anecdotes came from Tom McTague's article (earlier this year?). I'll try to dig it up.
This demonstrates his ability to fixate on an action beyond reasonableness, to ignore evidence of his changed behaviour, and to become emotionally upset when challenged. I think there's something missing in him. Not wrong per se, just absent.
OK, the first part (Starmer cleaning his brother's house) is well-sourced[1]
The second part (getting emotionally upset when confronted with evidence of him changing his mind) is less well-sourced. There is some evidence according to perplexity.ai that it did happen during an interview with Nick Robinson [2], or during his flip-flopping on the "island of strangers" speech[3], but the best evidence for him being emotionally upset usually happens when his family is mentioned or offences to human dignity[1], as opposed to him changing his mind, which he sort of tosses off.
"Reform UK now holds* a 33% lead (+3), followed by Labour on 20% (no change) and the Conservatives on 17% (-1).The Liberal Democrats remain on 12%, while the Greens slip slightly to 11% (-1). Farage also holds a three-point lead over Starmer on who would make the best Prime Minister."
* that is the quote. Not sure they mean a 33% LEAD....
Time to pop those "Reform have peaked" posts down the memory hole and say it again
Opinion had Reform at 32% the poll before last. Reform's polling position by my measure has been level over the last three months (to a quarter of a percent). Quite remarkable - and evidence Reform COULD be 'at their peak'. I'd say that rather than 'peaked' as there is no evidence they are now in decline. For that to happen either Lab or the Cons would have to develop some political ability and that ain't happening under Starmer and Badenoch.
BTW have a look at the US polls for 2025. A truly British-level of accuracy there!
"Reform UK now holds* a 33% lead (+3), followed by Labour on 20% (no change) and the Conservatives on 17% (-1).The Liberal Democrats remain on 12%, while the Greens slip slightly to 11% (-1). Farage also holds a three-point lead over Starmer on who would make the best Prime Minister."
* that is the quote. Not sure they mean a 33% LEAD....
Time to pop those "Reform have peaked" posts down the memory hole and say it again
For those who don’t know - this is equivalent to hold a BBQ on a bank holiday, during a Test Match, when @TSE is on holiday, while screaming “F£&k You Thor!” at the gathering clouds.
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
True. Polling remains as it has been in one respect. The Tory/Reform polling is about 47-50%, the Not Reform/Not Tory vote is about 50% as well. A general election remains light years away for all but proper anoraks. By the middle of 2028 at the latest minds will concentrate as to how to conduct a Rightish v Leftish (all inaccurate terms but you know what I mean) election in which either Reformtory will form government or Labour+'others as needed' will. More than usual people will be voting with government formation in mind. And only then, in 2028 can one start assessing Labour's chances. My guess is that Labour must improve as there is nowhere else coherent to go to in most seats.
The big question for me remains which way will the Conservatives choose to jump. The assumption on here seems to be they would support a minority Reform Government - I'm not so sure.
That does NOT mean they would support a minority Labour Government either but both the Conservative and the LDs (who between them could easily form the balance in the next Commons) have some hard thinking ahead on their positioning both before and after the election.
The LDs have form trying to mitigate between two opposing blocs - the Conservatives do not.
If Jenrick ousted Kemi to become Tory leader the Conservatives would certainly prop up a minority Reform government and Farage would certainly make Jenrick his Deputy PM, Farage was effusive with praise at Jenrick's conference speech.
If Kemi remained Tory leader the Conservatives would likely prop up a minority Reform government but not certainly and Farage doesn't seem to respect her much so might at most make her Minister for Transport, with Tice his Deputy PM.
If Kemi resigned or lost a VONC and Cleverly replaced her than the Conservatives would not support a minority Reform government, nor would they support a minority Labour government but abstain and vote bill by bill.
The LDs though would certainly now prop up a minority Labour government to keep out Reform, in return for a few concessions like rejoining a Customs Union and scrapping the family farm tax
I'm sure your reading of Conservative possible intentions is accurate - I really couldn't tell you what Badenoch would do to be honest. As for LD intentions, you've made an assumption there but I think both parties have to work out the level of support or otherwise they might offer.
I could see Davey offering a minority Labour Government Confidence & Supply only and it may be a Cleverly-led Conservative Party will be similarly minded. I suspect the experience of the 2010-15 Government (as well as past dealings with Labour) will preclude any arrangement involving LD Ministers in a second term Labour Government and nor do I expect Cleverly to sit round the same Cabinet table as Starmer (or whoever).
I could see Jenrick occupying a senior Ministerial post in a Reform-led Government.
While not wishing to compromise your inate loyalty to the Party, do you not think history shows being the junior coalition partner is the epitome of the poisoned chalice?
If it is with a party perceived as your usual opponents maybe, as the LDs found when Clegg did a deal with the Tories, hence Cleverly certainly would not prop up Labour even if he did no deal with Reform either.
Even then you can survive it under PR, as the SPD have in Germany but not with FPTP
EXCLUSIVE 🚨The founder of Ayanda Capital, investment company which won a controversial £255m PPE contract via the “VIP lane”, arrested in sweeping HMRC investigation into unpaid tax
Tim Horlick, whose firm had £155m of masks rejected on safety grounds, had home raided last year
Quentin Wilson, car fanatic, top gear presenter, and former strictly contestant has sadly joined nana and the angles,
He used to buy his Range Rovers from the dealership in Stratford, before they closed
Stratford on Avon? That would presumably be John Edwards's dealership. Edwards being a quarter of the Phoenix Four.
The Rover dealership was different I think. The Land Rover dealership was badged Guy Salmon at the time
John Edwards owned Edwards of Stratford. It had been both a Rover and a Land Rover dealer and then subsequently just a Land Rover dealer. I believe it was off loaded by Edwards not long after the Phoenix Four asset stripped MGRover. If my memory serves me right it might have been put into administration, although I can't remember.
A film that is oft referenced on PB is going to be on BBC 2 this coming Wednesday at 2.35 pm. The life an Death of Colonel Blimp.
Good to see that Reform are still on the up, 33% and counting and that's before Labour’s manifesto busting budget.
Electoral calculus now has places like Torbay as a 63% probability Reform gain. For those of us who want this retched Government and its useful idiot friends out, a Conservative vote is simply a wasted vote.
EXCLUSIVE 🚨The founder of Ayanda Capital, investment company which won a controversial £255m PPE contract via the “VIP lane”, arrested in sweeping HMRC investigation into unpaid tax
Tim Horlick, whose firm had £155m of masks rejected on safety grounds, had home raided last year
A film that is oft referenced on PB is going to be on BBC 2 this coming Wednesday at 2.35 pm. The life an Death of Colonel Blimp.
Good to see that Reform are still on the up, 33% and counting and that's before Labour’s manifesto busting budget.
Electoral calculus now has places like Torbay as a 63% probability Reform gain. For those of us who want this retched Government and its useful idiot friends out, a Conservative vote is simply a wasted vote.
Some Tories in Torbay would vote LD over Reform if they did not vote Tory
Labour have two choices: Stick with the manifesto pledges, fiddle round the edges, the economy stagnates, they get blattered at the election Man up, things are bad, tax rise for growth, economy performs, people feel better, nobody cares about the manifesto
They'll probably manage to splice the front half of the second one and the back half of the first one...
"Tax rise for growth" lol do you have even a basic understanding of how the economy functions?
Yes. Raise x. Invest it. Return xx
Cash needs to flow or the economy contracts. Do YOU understand how the economy works? Rich people aren't letting the cash even trickle down any more - most people feel broke and the economy contracts which makes more people broke.
THis is what happens when you don't invest. Could be a major story next year, to put it mildly, if it doesn't start pishing it down. Edit: NB mooted restrictions affecting businesses.
This is the guardian equivalent of the regular Daily Express winter stories about massive snowfalls due soon.
I wouldn't put it that way. For one thing, DE is about future point events. THis is about an ongoing phenomenon.
Edit: and the state of the water mains is a known issue. Replacing them is (a) investment and (b) saves water, a lot of it.
Isn’t that what most of the punitive water bill increases is supposed to cover.
Building a few more reservoirs would help too. Sadly NIMBYism has nixed that more than once.
I'm inclined to suspect the latter was just an excuse for the water companies to do FA. If they really worried about the water supply rather than stockholder dividends they'd have done more to deal with ageing mains to the same effect.
They've been able to do it in the past - Rutland Water in relatively recent years. Relatively recent admittedly taking a lot of load there, it was 1980s IIRC, but Rutlandshire even then was not your average Welsh valley with about 50 people and a trillion sheep.
And as a bonus they got lots of birds and a giant ichthyosaur. What's not to like?
Certainly your first paragraph is the NIMBY argument for stopping new reservoirs being built.
However they are not mutually exclusive. They could do both.
Now the water companies are getting a large cash injection through front loaded increases, and some have been back to the regulator for a little more and got it, let’s see what happens.
First para is not a Nimby argument in itself - it is something they needed to do anyway (contamination, bursts, damage to roads, stoppage to supplies). And because that really is where a lot of water is wasted. It's only a Nimby argument insofar as the water companies were so badly managed it was an open goal for the Nimbies to ask why they wanted to build reservoirs to pump the equivalent straignt into the ground.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. The first paragraph is a NIMBY argument in the sense I’ve seen it proferred as an excuse not to build reservoirs. If you solve the leaks you don’t need a reservoir.
With a growing poluplation I’d say we need both, especially where the population is growing in the south.
But we need it controlled tightly. That's why strong scrutiny of plans is so important.
In the late 70s water providers were attempting to ram reservoirs into Dartmoor and Exmoor.
Here's Kate Ashbrook's account of fighting to protect the Dartmoor National Park when the Roadford Rerservoir Scheme was proposed on top of all kind of historical remains etc, and involved made up claims. The enquiry resulted in a presumption that future reservoirs would not swallow parts of Dartmoor. https://campaignerkate.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/the-dartmoor-reservoir-saga-40-years-ago/
One of the more pernicious aspects is that local authorities sometimes want to pander to Water Companies (as they are now) or landowners *, rather than the local community.
There's another one where a water provider wanted to bury a valley under their spoil, because it was convenient for them.
* They tried to do this in the Hoogstraten case, so it was necessary to get a law passed that allowed Local Authorities to be compelled to perform their statutory duties.
Barty will be along soon to declare that anyone should be allowed to build anything anywhere.
Not literally, but adjusting the balance to be more liberal with such things generally would hardly render us at risk of getting away with everything.
If you are using any kind of vehicle for a commercial purpose, you have to have a full license to use it (if any) *and* number plates.
Any powered bike of any kind will be considered a motor scooter, if used for commercial purposes. So you’ll need a full license for that as well
1) So delivery riders on scooters will have to pas their tests. No L plates. 2) electric bike delivery riders will have to display a plate otherwise their vehicle gets confiscated on the spot.
2 I very much support, but 1 is completely impractical. The DVSA have nothing like the spare capacity to handle such an upsurge in tests - already many test centres get completely booked out at times, and most are very busy at best. Being a motorcycle test examiner is a monotonous, thankless and badly paid job, so recruiting is difficult. Getting any motorcycle licence also requires two practical tests, not one, doubling the load. A full unrestricted 'A' licence can require as many as *six* practical tests.
L plate riders get the right to be on the road by completing their CBT, which is a one day training course. In the motorcycle community it's widely supported that CBT riders should have to do their theory test, which at present they don't. That's very possible since that's done on a computer and the tests are already done by commercial contractors, not DVSA, so scaling for extra demand is easier.
But... none of this is going to happen.
The motorcycle licencing system has been broken for many years and is not fit for purpose, but not a single thing has been done about it. No government, Tory or Labour, has even proposed a single major change.
Voting Intention Reform UK now holds a 33% lead (+3), followed by Labour on 20% (no change) and the Conservatives on 17% (-1). The Liberal Democrats remain on 12%, while the Greens slip slightly to 11% (-1).
BiB: I bloody well hope they don't!
Staggering how bad Labours polling is. They might as well do whatever unpopular things are needed to get the economy doing well again.
They really need to do that before polling collapsed, as now they won't have the guts despite a huge majority - same thing happened with Boris, running scared of planning reform at the first hint of pushback. We get large majority governments acting like they are minority governments as a result, even before real unpopularity hits.
Even where Reform is being beaten, Labour seems to be absolutely nowhere in local elections being beaten by Greens, various independents and nationalist parties.
True. Polling remains as it has been in one respect. The Tory/Reform polling is about 47-50%, the Not Reform/Not Tory vote is about 50% as well. A general election remains light years away for all but proper anoraks. By the middle of 2028 at the latest minds will concentrate as to how to conduct a Rightish v Leftish (all inaccurate terms but you know what I mean) election in which either Reformtory will form government or Labour+'others as needed' will. More than usual people will be voting with government formation in mind. And only then, in 2028 can one start assessing Labour's chances. My guess is that Labour must improve as there is nowhere else coherent to go to in most seats.
The big question for me remains which way will the Conservatives choose to jump. The assumption on here seems to be they would support a minority Reform Government - I'm not so sure.
That does NOT mean they would support a minority Labour Government either but both the Conservative and the LDs (who between them could easily form the balance in the next Commons) have some hard thinking ahead on their positioning both before and after the election.
The LDs have form trying to mitigate between two opposing blocs - the Conservatives do not.
If Jenrick ousted Kemi to become Tory leader the Conservatives would certainly prop up a minority Reform government and Farage would certainly make Jenrick his Deputy PM, Farage was effusive with praise at Jenrick's conference speech.
If Kemi remained Tory leader the Conservatives would likely prop up a minority Reform government but not certainly and Farage doesn't seem to respect her much so might at most make her Minister for Transport, with Tice his Deputy PM.
If Kemi resigned or lost a VONC and Cleverly replaced her than the Conservatives would not support a minority Reform government, nor would they support a minority Labour government but abstain and vote bill by bill.
The LDs though would certainly now prop up a minority Labour government to keep out Reform, in return for a few concessions like rejoining a Customs Union and scrapping the family farm tax
I'm sure your reading of Conservative possible intentions is accurate - I really couldn't tell you what Badenoch would do to be honest. As for LD intentions, you've made an assumption there but I think both parties have to work out the level of support or otherwise they might offer.
I could see Davey offering a minority Labour Government Confidence & Supply only and it may be a Cleverly-led Conservative Party will be similarly minded. I suspect the experience of the 2010-15 Government (as well as past dealings with Labour) will preclude any arrangement involving LD Ministers in a second term Labour Government and nor do I expect Cleverly to sit round the same Cabinet table as Starmer (or whoever).
I could see Jenrick occupying a senior Ministerial post in a Reform-led Government.
While not wishing to compromise your inate loyalty to the Party, do you not think history shows being the junior coalition partner is the epitome of the poisoned chalice?
If it is with a party perceived as your usual opponents maybe, as the LDs found when Clegg did a deal with the Tories, hence Cleverly certainly would not prop up Labour even if he did no deal with Reform either.
Even then you can survive it under PR, as the SPD have in Germany but not with FPTP
Indeed. But if the two party system is now broken then we must have PR. And most likely an Irish type STV than a party list system.
Tim Shipman in this weekend's Speccie says private polling circulating in the higher reaches of GOP says Dems win the House by one seat but that continued redistricting plans should just pull Trump through.
The idea that GOP private polling is better than (say) YouGov is laughable.
And... The idea that redistricting doesn't carry with it massive risks is for the birds.
I'm sure sometimes private polling works out, but there is a weird tendency among journalists fed such information to believe private polling is inherently more trustworthy, at least that is how they often seem to report on such things over here.
I think it is a wish to believe that the powers that be must have more of a handle on things and know more than they appear to, that things are more controlled than they are, rather than the more dispiriting truth that most politics is bluster, guesswork, and the occasional solid move based on assessment of general vibes.
The public believe it because it is comforting, in a way, and politicians believe it because they want to believe politics is a quantifiable science, where they can add and substract elements in response to data points to achieve specific outcomes reliably.
Comments
New Opinium @ObserverUK polling drops tonight.
Some extraordinary numbers expected this weekend.
Stay tuned, this link will go live at 8pm
The resources spent on extending an octogenarian's life for another few low quality weeks could make a material difference to someone if spent in their twenties or thirties.
*Edit
It's also complete toss to say that reservoirs trash the environment - filling quarry pits to create meres is creating a new environment not trashing the environment.
Poor poll ratings, dislike on the doorstep and unpopular policies have left MPs thinking the unthinkable
As Sir Keir Starmer hob-nobbed with Prince William and pop royalty Kylie Minogue in Brazil this week, back in Westminster his MPs were feeling increasingly regicidal.
Before jetting off to Rio and Belem deep in the Amazon for the COP30 climate summit, the Prime Minister struggled to rouse his downcast troops with a pep talk to the Parliamentary Labour Party and in so doing left behind a vacuum for his backbenchers to fill with plans for a future without him.
Talk of toppling a leader, who just 18 months ago stormed to a historic landslide in a general election, may appear unthinkable. But stubbornly bad polling and the Prime Minister’s own dire approval ratings are making MPs’ trigger fingers ever more itchy...Another Labour backbencher said they now routinely pick up on “emotional hatred” from voters towards the Prime Minister and suggested that he would have to be replaced if that continued.
“I think Keir has been treated very unfairly over his first year. He is loathed, the hatred for him is really emotional hatred.”
The MP added that Starmer would face a leadership challenge if Labour’s position does not improve in the coming months, with May’s set of elections potentially a key turning point. They said: “If Wales goes as badly as it looks like it’s going to, and Scotland as well, and we do badly in council elections, then I think the PLP is not going to put up with that any longer after May. It could come even sooner than that – if the Budget isn’t a success then January could be very interesting.”
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robot-labour-mps-ditch-starmer-plan-save-4028887
As I recall, Osborne's plan was £5 of spending cuts matched by £1 in tax rises - I suspect Reeves will do something very different. The failures in areas like criminal justice began with the Coalition but were compounded by the failure of later Conservative administrations to tackle the issues.
But for some reason we've chosen to ratchet ever-higher levels of spending on diminishing returns for health, while cutting to the bones everything else.
If 20% of water is wasted, then 20% of reservoir capacity is wasted. That doesn't matter in wet areas in rainy seasons (apart from the damage leakages cause) but is a big deal in a dry year when actual annual consumption is comparable in magnitude to reservoir capacity [edit] when the latter isn't being refulled. .
Also: in the dry areas a lot of water is abstracted from those rivers which are not recharged from reservoirs, and from ground water (not able to be artificially recharged AFAIK). Reservoirs don't do any good in those instances.
Reservoirs do a great deal of damage by replacing the preexisting ecosystem with an artificial and rapidly oscillating lake. That includes converting a lake to a reservoir: vide the oscillating shorelines of Loch Treig.
But, generally, yes, there are diminishing returns to scale in many aspects of government activity.
He enjoys the glad-handing of other leaders on the world stage, and that is the bit of the job that he does well.
That makes him rather stickier of course. He can't be bribed to leave.
An unattributed quote by a "backbencher" - seriously?
Tim Shipman in this weekend's Speccie says private polling circulating in the higher reaches of GOP says Dems win the House by one seat but that continued redistricting plans should just pull Trump through.
Nor did his team mate.
Although I should note Liam Lawson did…
But any actual result that close would represent a near zero swing since 2024,
Rather odd take if you don't mind me saying.
The glittering international circuit of praise and toadying - which he has always loved by comparison to the hurly burly of British politics (see his comments on Davos) has a very high price of entry. A nice house and being able to afford a couple of Saga cruises a year isn't it.
But how many other sectors in the economy have had endless increases in spending such as the NHS has ?
And how many other sectors in the economy are so focused on oldies ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Much like Hollande stood down just before the 2017 presidential election in France and Macron replaced him as the anti Le Pen candidate and Trudeau stood down first thing this year and Carney replaced him before the Canadian election
Everywhere else is very winnable.
Seats that voted 50-60% Leave will determine the next general election, some of them have now turned against Brexit or at least want a softer Brexit than we now have and they will be the key marginals. On current polls without tactical voting Reform win most of them, however if most LD and Green voters vote Labour in Labour held seats in that category and most Tory voters vote Tory and don't tactically vote Reform then Labour hold hold most of them. Similarly if the Tories can get LD and Labour tactical votes in seats they hold in that category Reform may fail to gain those seats from the Conservatives as well and the Tory MPs will hold on
Other issues matter now.
On the wider point, I know that we should assume cock up and not conspiracy, but do you really think him being mental is a better explanation for his behaviour than being at it?
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/opinium-voting-intention-5th-november-2025/
* that is the quote. Not sure they mean a 33% LEAD....
- i) When his brother died, he cleaned the house himself top-to-bottom, rejecting offers of help
- ii) When challenged about his changes of mind, he got emotionally upset and repeated his belief that he would not do such a thing
I think both anecdotes came from Tom McTague's article (earlier this year?). I'll try to dig it up.This demonstrates his ability to fixate on an action beyond reasonableness, to ignore evidence of his changed behaviour, and to become emotionally upset when challenged. I think there's something missing in him. Not wrong per se, just absent.
Reform UK now holds a 33% lead (+3), followed by Labour on 20% (no change) and the Conservatives on 17% (-1).
The Liberal Democrats remain on 12%, while the Greens slip slightly to 11% (-1).
BiB: I bloody well hope they don't!
That does NOT mean they would support a minority Labour Government either but both the Conservative and the LDs (who between them could easily form the balance in the next Commons) have some hard thinking ahead on their positioning both before and after the election.
The LDs have form trying to mitigate between two opposing blocs - the Conservatives do not.
And... The idea that redistricting doesn't carry with it massive risks is for the birds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Grey
Labour regained their strong Leave redwall seats from the Tories but on current polls almost all those seats would be won by Reform.
To even win most seats Labour have to hold their softer Leave seats that voted Tory in 2019, they won back in 2019 and that lean Reform but not as strongly as the redwall seats do. To beat Reform the Tories need to hold most of their seats in this category and win a few from Labour as well.
To get a clear majority Labour need to hold the redwall as well again but that looks unlikely unless Reform collapse
If Kemi remained Tory leader the Conservatives would likely prop up a minority Reform government but not certainly and Farage doesn't seem to respect her much so might at most make her Minister for Transport, with Tice his Deputy PM.
If Kemi resigned or lost a VONC and Cleverly replaced her than the Conservatives would not support a minority Reform government, nor would they support a minority Labour government but abstain and vote bill by bill.
The LDs though would certainly now prop up a minority Labour government to keep out Reform, in return for a few concessions like rejoining a Customs Union and scrapping the family farm tax
Sean Middleborough, 32, was being held on remand at HMP Wandsworth in south-west London when he was granted bail for a weekend to attend his brother’s wedding. But he never returned to the prison.
Mr Middleborough, who is charged over an alleged plot by Palestine Action activists to disrupt the London Stock Exchange by locking themselves on to the building and causing criminal damage, is now the subject of an “urgent” police search.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/08/palestine-action-activist-on-the-run-after-jumping-bail/
They might as well do whatever unpopular things are needed to get the economy doing well again.
But ultimately I think Keir needs to turn the next election into a referendum on Farage and Reform.
Just have some former open outcry traders* waiting for the activists.
The time that was tried at the metals exchange, the police had to rescue the activists.
*I can think of some managers who would love to get back to the Good Old Days
I could see Davey offering a minority Labour Government Confidence & Supply only and it may be a Cleverly-led Conservative Party will be similarly minded. I suspect the experience of the 2010-15 Government (as well as past dealings with Labour) will preclude any arrangement involving LD Ministers in a second term Labour Government and nor do I expect Cleverly to sit round the same Cabinet table as Starmer (or whoever).
I could see Jenrick occupying a senior Ministerial post in a Reform-led Government.
While not wishing to compromise your inate loyalty to the Party, do you not think history shows being the junior coalition partner is the epitome of the poisoned chalice?
Brutal
Over half (56%) of Britons think Keir Starmer should step down as Prime Minister, compared to 26% who want him to remain in post and 19% who are unsure. Even among 2024 Labour voters, a third (33%) believe he should resign, while just over half (52%) think he should stay.
A similar picture emerges for Rachel Reeves: 57% of the public think she should resign as Chancellor, with only 19% wanting her to continue and 24% undecided. Among 2024 Labour voters, 38% think she should go, while 42% want her to remain.
To which the answers look like: Few, few and there isn't one.
Another reason why Labour will improve towards 2028/9 - they are the obvious challenger to Reform in +400 seats for the simple reason they are the incumbent.
Labour's crisis is major but not (yet) a threat to its existence. Unlike the Tories where the threat to their meaningful continuation
is real and now.
Italy beat Australia 26-19
They’re no mugs and haven’t been for a while
The second part (getting emotionally upset when confronted with evidence of him changing his mind) is less well-sourced. There is some evidence according to perplexity.ai that it did happen during an interview with Nick Robinson [2], or during his flip-flopping on the "island of strangers" speech[3], but the best evidence for him being emotionally upset usually happens when his family is mentioned or offences to human dignity[1], as opposed to him changing his mind, which he sort of tosses off.
Notes
If you are using any kind of vehicle for a commercial purpose, you have to have a full license to use it (if any) *and* number plates.
Any powered bike of any kind will be considered a motor scooter, if used for commercial purposes. So you’ll need a full license for that as well
1) So delivery riders on scooters will have to pas their tests. No L plates.
2) electric bike delivery riders will have to display a plate otherwise their vehicle gets confiscated on the spot.
Keir Starmer's lies, flip-flops and hypocrisy Pts 1-6
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1679103577795469315?s=20
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1679107793998032897?s=20
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1679112505182830592?s=20
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1681028179509559299?s=20
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1783670122340622821?s=20
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1866106824069370225?s=20
BTW have a look at the US polls for 2025. A truly British-level of accuracy there!
For those who don’t know - this is equivalent to hold a BBQ on a bank holiday, during a Test Match, when @TSE is on holiday, while screaming “F£&k You Thor!” at the gathering clouds.
Even then you can survive it under PR, as the SPD have in Germany but not with FPTP
EXCLUSIVE 🚨The founder of Ayanda Capital, investment company which won a controversial £255m PPE contract via the “VIP lane”, arrested in sweeping HMRC investigation into unpaid tax
Tim Horlick, whose firm had £155m of masks rejected on safety grounds, had home raided last year
https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1987267751409332634?s=20
Good to see that Reform are still on the up, 33% and counting and that's before Labour’s manifesto busting budget.
Electoral calculus now has places like Torbay as a 63% probability Reform gain. For those of us who want this retched Government and its useful idiot friends out, a Conservative vote is simply a wasted vote.
Wasn't he married to City Superwoman Nicola?
Nasty Labour persecuting good honest Tory donor opponents?
L plate riders get the right to be on the road by completing their CBT, which is a one day training course. In the motorcycle community it's widely supported that CBT riders should have to do their theory test, which at present they don't. That's very possible since that's done on a computer and the tests are already done by commercial contractors, not DVSA, so scaling for extra demand is easier.
But... none of this is going to happen.
The motorcycle licencing system has been broken for many years and is not fit for purpose, but not a single thing has been done about it. No government, Tory or Labour, has even proposed a single major change.
I think it is a wish to believe that the powers that be must have more of a handle on things and know more than they appear to, that things are more controlled than they are, rather than the more dispiriting truth that most politics is bluster, guesswork, and the occasional solid move based on assessment of general vibes.
The public believe it because it is comforting, in a way, and politicians believe it because they want to believe politics is a quantifiable science, where they can add and substract elements in response to data points to achieve specific outcomes reliably.
The mind boggles.