The ground rent policy and the vet bills policy are quite smart bits of politics.
Ground rent policy doesn’t come into effect until 2028 and does nothing, I can see, that tackles high service charges although it is not to say it is not a good step forward. It is.
The vet bills policy less so. I cannot see what the gain is. If they just list prices so people can shop around. People can do that anyway.
Btw hope you’re well. Nice to see you back
The Ground Rent policy could have some unforeseen impacts I think, because it reduces it to issues around single units rather than mixed blocks (meaning blocks ie areas rather than blocks of flats). I think it will be beneficial, but it should be imo CPI increases not a cash freeze.
One canary in the coalmine will be local independent shops where charges are currently held artificially low.
Time will tell.
On a separate note, I have not seen whether it is retrospective, or applies to commercial properties.
For vets, aiui the problem is that it is turning into an oligopolistic market. 60% of the market is owned by 6 corporate groups, with vertical integration. 15 year ago it was 10% of the market.
Private Equity likes to look at a market with significant barriers to entry and lots of small players that need rationalised. Have been PE adjacent for the last 20 years through family connections and see how they operate. They are very sharp though not always successful as they can choose the odd moneypit or two. Once you are a PE target you get pimped to another PE every 3-5 years.
Another family member is now involved with a PE backed company who interestingly are looking to exit in 2027 rather than 2028 as planned. The 2028 capital markers are looking a bit choppy. They are not sure interest rates will be stable enough to get their acquisition away successfully.
I think Ground Rent tends to be British financials and property rather than PE.
For vets at least a couple of the players are PE, I think.
The restructuring looks quite like the funeral market from the 1980s to me.
What are the barriers to entry for vets ?
Part of the problem seems to be a shortage of vets which helps drive the prices up.
There's a significant shortage of vets, with many practices refusing to take new patients, exacerbated by the significant jump in pet ownership during covid that has only slightly subsided. My own vets seems to have an ever-changing rota of young vets from Commonwealth countries coming here for the travel and experience.
But the real drivers of rising prices are a mixture of the same factors that are pushing up the costs of human healthcare - increasing costs of medication, increasing use of technology, use of ultrasound and MRI etc. - and the progressive capture of the veterinary sector by private equity, which buys up smaller and family owned practices and chains and ruthlessly sets about maximising profit, both by hard-selling scans and other tests that the pet doesn't really need, and through pricing - for example there's one drug my pet is currently on that costs twice as much from the vet as it does with a private prescription that I can collect and pay for at Boots.
As with human care we can (and vets offer) do more for our pets. When my dog had a cancer diagnosis a couple of years back, if I'd wanted we could have had an MRI. For a dog.
Now I loved that dog, but at the end of the day it might have lived a couple more years. In the end we blindly treated with chemotherapy (1000 a month for 4 doses) that actually put her into remission and gave her another 18 months.
Twenty years ago we would probably have managed pain until euthanasia.
Some years back, my Mum needed an MRI and the cat also could've benefitted from an MRI. My Mum (jokingly) suggested she go to her NHS appointment and just have the cat on her while she's in the machine. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak...
You see this is the kind of thinking outside the box we need!
The last thing the Tories want is for Reform to win the by-election so standing aside would be utterly stupid.
Why doesn’t he go and join Reform and continue his daily fellation of Farage !
I would prefer Reform to win it than Labour or the Greens.
That's putting your short-term merriment ahead of your party's strategic interests, though, isn't it? The optimal - indeed possibly only, excepting some sort of merger/takeover - scenario back to dominance for the Tories is that the Reform balloon either bursts or slowly deflates.
Reform were second behind Labour in Gorton and Denton even in 2024 when the Tories were 10% ahead of Reform UK wide.
The Tory candidate was a poor 5th, behind even Galloway's Party and the Greens. There is zero chance of the Tories winning the seat and the Tories didn't even win it in their 2019 landslide victory. Reform though have a shot and in seats where Tories can't win a Reform MP is more likely to back Kemi to be PM in a hung parliament whereas a Labour or Green MP would back a minority Labour government staying in office
As so often, you miss the point. The Tories are better off with Labour or the Greens winning, with Reform's widely touted prospects falling short, because if Reform wins those seat projections you so enjoy will push the projected Tory seat total lower still.
No they won't, Gorton and Denton has never elected a Tory MP, even under Boris and Thatcher
You can use the ONS to profile a constituency. Here is G&D. I can't see the appeal of Reform to the the voters there based on the ONS profile wrt ethnicity, working history and housing tenure. Goodwin is more and more looking like an odd choice. DYOR
Does the polling imply that voters believe Farage less able to deliver on policy than even Starmer ?😲
If it is like 2005 then implication is that if Farage supports it then enough voters think it must be a bad idea and they'll switch support for it to make a material difference.
The problem for Reform is Farage is marmite. Some love him but plenty despise him due to Brexit. They won’t overcome that and that will harm them.
I don't think they just despise him due to Brexit. It's also the racism and grifting.
Personally I think its his highly punchable face, but whatever.
Definitely something about his demeanour, mannerisms, and general oddness that puts people off imo.
I think 'national treasureness' is a quality too many politicians are missing. I am not saying successful political leaders need to be at Judi Dench, David Attenborough, levels of NT-ness but a bit more in that vein wouldn't go amiss.
Here's my score out of 10 of National Treasure-ness for various current and past politicians:
Churchill 9 (post 1940) Attlee 4 Macmillan 6 Wilson 3 Thatcher 4 Blair 6 Sturgeon 4 Corbyn 5 Johnson 6 before partygate, 2 after Truss 0 (just very odd) Sunak 3 Starmer 3 Badenoch 5 Davey 6 (maybe not a serious politician but likeable) Farage 2
I suspect others will disagree.
What we need is someone with Carney's or Arhern's level of appeal. But then again, Hitler was undoubtedly a '10' in 1930s Germany.
Corbyn's got to be a 10. You can't help but admire him. Here he's giving Blair and Trump and their parade of charlatans a well deserved kicking
Labour leapfrog into second in this week’s voting intention on 22%. Reform’s lead drops to 7 on 29%, with the Tories third on 20%.
➡️ REF UK 29% (-2) 🌹 LAB 22% (+2) 🌳 CON 20% (-1) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (nc) 🌍 GREEN 10% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3% (+1)
MoreInCommon N = 2,016 | 23 - 25/01| Change w 21/01
Leader approvals - it’s very close at the top with Davey on -12 and Badenoch and Farage on -14. Starmer is far behind on -41 though this is higher than he’s been since Autumn, which from qual seems to reflect a recurring international affairs bounce."
Good poll for Starmer, again shows a swing from Reform to Labour after the Jenrick and Rosindell defections and included a bit of the post Burnham blocking and Braverman defections which also don't seem to have damaged Labour much and not helped Reform either.
Greens down 1% as well will be positive for Labour ahead of Gorton and Tories will be concerned that Kemi is losing her pre Christmas bounce with the Conservatives falling to 3rd again behind Labour as well as Reform
Burnham has single handedly managed to arrest the improvement and further diminish Labour. What a tit!
Er...Labour up 2?
I think you credit Burnham with far more ability to make the political weather than he has.
Polling tends to lag behind reality. Labour were already circling the toilet bowl and Burnham has subsequently dumped in the bowl. Expect the uptick to reverse.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
The ground rent policy and the vet bills policy are quite smart bits of politics.
Ground rent policy doesn’t come into effect until 2028 and does nothing, I can see, that tackles high service charges although it is not to say it is not a good step forward. It is.
The vet bills policy less so. I cannot see what the gain is. If they just list prices so people can shop around. People can do that anyway.
Btw hope you’re well. Nice to see you back
Pet owners are angry at the price hikes and attempted upselling by monopolistic veterinary practices. All the vet practices within a 15 miles radius of us except one are owned by the same private equity group. The high prices are just a function of the lack of competition, not the root cause of pet owners’ dissatisfaction.
Sounds like something for the competition authorities. Making them put up a sign saying who owns the place is rather weak.
Badenoch is on now, and says: what would a Tory govt under her do? She says: • Cut taxes • End "welfare addiction" • Curb immigration • Anti-net zero
The message is, basically: we're Reform, but we've done our homework.
The message is, also: centrists are not welcome.
Badenoch: "I won't apologise to those walking away because they don't like the new direction. We only want Conservatives."
No compromise with the party, no compromise with the electorate.
That is not what she said
She welcomed engagement from 'prospect' and wants them to contribute to the party's discussions on the economy
She also said she wanted to control the borders but not with 'cruelty'
She utterly rejected 'second hand car salesman' Farage and his 'drama queens'
She is taking on both labour and reform, and is seeking the very best candidates for the next generation of conservatives with experience, ability and integrity
Does the polling imply that voters believe Farage less able to deliver on policy than even Starmer ?😲
If it is like 2005 then implication is that if Farage supports it then enough voters think it must be a bad idea and they'll switch support for it to make a material difference.
The problem for Reform is Farage is marmite. Some love him but plenty despise him due to Brexit. They won’t overcome that and that will harm them.
I don't think they just despise him due to Brexit. It's also the racism and grifting.
Personally I think its his highly punchable face, but whatever.
Definitely something about his demeanour, mannerisms, and general oddness that puts people off imo.
I think 'national treasureness' is a quality too many politicians are missing. I am not saying successful political leaders need to be at Judi Dench, David Attenborough, levels of NT-ness but a bit more in that vein wouldn't go amiss.
Here's my score out of 10 of National Treasure-ness for various current and past politicians:
Churchill 9 (post 1940) Attlee 4 Macmillan 6 Wilson 3 Thatcher 4 Blair 6 Sturgeon 4 Corbyn 5 Johnson 6 before partygate, 2 after Truss 0 (just very odd) Sunak 3 Starmer 3 Badenoch 5 Davey 6 (maybe not a serious politician but likeable) Farage 2
I suspect others will disagree.
What we need is someone with Carney's or Arhern's level of appeal. But then again, Hitler was undoubtedly a '10' in 1930s Germany.
Corbyn's got to be a 10. You can't help but admire him. Here he's giving Blair and Trump and their parade of charlatans a well deserved kicking
Really? I see an idiotic bigot who doesn't understand why he keeps being called racist and antisemitic but also likes cosying up to lots of racists and anti-semites. I see someone who formed their world view aged 13 3/4 and has not updated it since. I see someone who probably thought Stalin and Mao got things about right.
The only thing I admire about him is that he has an allotment.
Does the polling imply that voters believe Farage less able to deliver on policy than even Starmer ?😲
If it is like 2005 then implication is that if Farage supports it then enough voters think it must be a bad idea and they'll switch support for it to make a material difference.
The problem for Reform is Farage is marmite. Some love him but plenty despise him due to Brexit. They won’t overcome that and that will harm them.
It isn't just Brexit, there are plenty of other reasons to despise Farage and his politics.
Matt Goodwin as his preferred candidate for example.
Indeed, according to the Professor I'm not British.
If Goodwin loses I promise to never use that Farage photo again.
And yet Jacob Rees Twat wants the Tories to roll over for the fascists.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
The ground rent policy and the vet bills policy are quite smart bits of politics.
Ground rent policy doesn’t come into effect until 2028 and does nothing, I can see, that tackles high service charges although it is not to say it is not a good step forward. It is.
The vet bills policy less so. I cannot see what the gain is. If they just list prices so people can shop around. People can do that anyway.
Btw hope you’re well. Nice to see you back
The Ground Rent policy could have some unforeseen impacts I think, because it reduces it to issues around single units rather than mixed blocks (meaning blocks ie areas rather than blocks of flats). I think it will be beneficial, but it should be imo CPI increases not a cash freeze.
One canary in the coalmine will be local independent shops where charges are currently held artificially low.
Time will tell.
On a separate note, I have not seen whether it is retrospective, or applies to commercial properties.
For vets, aiui the problem is that it is turning into an oligopolistic market. 60% of the market is owned by 6 corporate groups, with vertical integration. 15 year ago it was 10% of the market.
Private Equity likes to look at a market with significant barriers to entry and lots of small players that need rationalised. Have been PE adjacent for the last 20 years through family connections and see how they operate. They are very sharp though not always successful as they can choose the odd moneypit or two. Once you are a PE target you get pimped to another PE every 3-5 years.
Another family member is now involved with a PE backed company who interestingly are looking to exit in 2027 rather than 2028 as planned. The 2028 capital markers are looking a bit choppy. They are not sure interest rates will be stable enough to get their acquisition away successfully.
I think Ground Rent tends to be British financials and property rather than PE.
For vets at least a couple of the players are PE, I think.
The restructuring looks quite like the funeral market from the 1980s to me.
What are the barriers to entry for vets ?
Part of the problem seems to be a shortage of vets which helps drive the prices up.
There's a significant shortage of vets, with many practices refusing to take new patients, exacerbated by the significant jump in pet ownership during covid that has only slightly subsided. My own vets seems to have an ever-changing rota of young vets from Commonwealth countries coming here for the travel and experience.
But the real drivers of rising prices are a mixture of the same factors that are pushing up the costs of human healthcare - increasing costs of medication, increasing use of technology, use of ultrasound and MRI etc. - and the progressive capture of the veterinary sector by private equity, which buys up smaller and family owned practices and chains and ruthlessly sets about maximising profit, both by hard-selling scans and other tests that the pet doesn't really need, and through pricing - for example there's one drug my pet is currently on that costs twice as much from the vet as it does with a private prescription that I can collect and pay for at Boots.
As with human care we can (and vets offer) do more for our pets. When my dog had a cancer diagnosis a couple of years back, if I'd wanted we could have had an MRI. For a dog.
Now I loved that dog, but at the end of the day it might have lived a couple more years. In the end we blindly treated with chemotherapy (1000 a month for 4 doses) that actually put her into remission and gave her another 18 months.
Twenty years ago we would probably have managed pain until euthanasia.
Some years back, my Mum needed an MRI and the cat also could've benefitted from an MRI. My Mum (jokingly) suggested she go to her NHS appointment and just have the cat on her while she's in the machine. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak...
You see this is the kind of thinking outside the box we need!
Update Schrodinger, replace box with MRI scanner....
Does the polling imply that voters believe Farage less able to deliver on policy than even Starmer ?😲
If it is like 2005 then implication is that if Farage supports it then enough voters think it must be a bad idea and they'll switch support for it to make a material difference.
The problem for Reform is Farage is marmite. Some love him but plenty despise him due to Brexit. They won’t overcome that and that will harm them.
I don't think they just despise him due to Brexit. It's also the racism and grifting.
Personally I think its his highly punchable face, but whatever.
I used to have no big problem with Farage. I saw him as a respectable politician with reactionary right wing views and a dislike of the European Union. Not my cup of char at all, and I found his effectiveness regrettable since it was in service of a cause (Little Englander Nationalism) which I myself dislike, but, you know, that pernicious nonsense has always been part of political discourse in this country and it has to have its leading voices. But that was then. He's since disgraced himself in my eyes with his craven fandom of Donald Trump, inc aping several features of the ghastly MAGA movement, esp the lying and the racism. Unfit to be PM due to bad character, is my considered current assessment.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
Labour leapfrog into second in this week’s voting intention on 22%. Reform’s lead drops to 7 on 29%, with the Tories third on 20%.
➡️ REF UK 29% (-2) 🌹 LAB 22% (+2) 🌳 CON 20% (-1) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (nc) 🌍 GREEN 10% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3% (+1)
MoreInCommon N = 2,016 | 23 - 25/01| Change w 21/01
Leader approvals - it’s very close at the top with Davey on -12 and Badenoch and Farage on -14. Starmer is far behind on -41 though this is higher than he’s been since Autumn, which from qual seems to reflect a recurring international affairs bounce."
The teal balloon is definitely deflating (presumably leaking Zyklon-B). Probably a combination of the tory asylum seekers, the MAGA adjacency and attenuation of the novelty factor.
I do find it tricky to believe Reformers returning to Keir’s soggy embrace though. So I presume some other dynamic at work.
A lot of ex-Labour supporter turned to Reform. The Reform novelty appears to be wearing off of some of those.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
Not in Oxfordshire where I live (and was CLP chair till I retired this month) - the dominant theme is LibDem, with Greens coming up too. Tories, Labour and Reform are all minor parties (except in Oxford itself, where Labour leads). I live in South Oxfordshire, where the party count is 21 LD, 8 Green, 3 Labour, 3 Residents and one Tory. An exception was in Didcot South where Reform won a County seat from Labour - instructively, that's the poorest town in the area, though by no means slummy. I think Reform does best where things aren't desperate but not good - many people remain interested in politics (which they generally aren't in the poorest areas) but they've tried all the established parties and feel life is still a bit rubbish, so maybe trying Reform is worth a shot. Where things are good they just vote LibDem if they're content and Green if they feel things could be better for the poor - the environment is a minor issue for most Greens round here now.
Tories are a politely considered fringe party. Boris lives in my village, and is tolerated amicably as long as he doesn't get into local politics, which he doesn't.
Does the polling imply that voters believe Farage less able to deliver on policy than even Starmer ?😲
If it is like 2005 then implication is that if Farage supports it then enough voters think it must be a bad idea and they'll switch support for it to make a material difference.
The problem for Reform is Farage is marmite. Some love him but plenty despise him due to Brexit. They won’t overcome that and that will harm them.
I don't think they just despise him due to Brexit. It's also the racism and grifting.
Personally I think its his highly punchable face, but whatever.
I used to have no big problem with Farage. I saw him as a respectable politician with reactionary right wing views and a dislike of the European Union. Not my cup of char at all, and I found his effectiveness regrettable since it was in service of a cause (Little Englander Nationalism) which I myself dislike, but, you know, that pernicious nonsense has always been part of political discourse in this country and it has to have its leading voices. But that was then. He's since disgraced himself bigtime in my eyes with his craven fandom of Donald Trump, inc aping several features of the ghastly movement headed by that ghastly man, esp the lying and the racism. Unfit to be PM due to bad character, is my considered current assessment.
Reform corrected a statement this morning by their Chair, David Bull, on Sky that anyone here illegally to be deported would be time limited, by saying no it will not
They really are bas...ds
I posted this early this morning
spent over an hour yesterday with my wife with a consultant in elderly care
She was wonderful, kind, patient, caring and simply amazing and Sri Lankan
Apparently her husband is also a consultant with the same caring attitude
And Farage,/ Jenrick/ Braverman and Goodwin would threaten their place in our community
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Labour are (gradually) taking railways back into public ownership and freezing fares. It's a popular policy in commuter towns I would think.
Labour’s best attack line is that the Tories broke Britain.
This is why I’m not convinced of the wisdom of recruiting a load of them into Reform.
'Broken Britain' is a very poor selling line. People prefer optimism. It's one of the reasons Labour are polling so badly
This is one of the reasons for Brexit in my opinion. Cameron and Osborne's campaign was almost entirely negative. They didn't have anything positive to say about Europe during it.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
Edit: British government policy has been to restrict the growth of successful cities/larger towns with the greenbelt. Whenever industry and employment has left a place there have been repeated attempts to bring new employment to those places, rather than help/allow the people to move to where there is employment.
I think it's fair to say that government policy has failed.
The ground rent policy and the vet bills policy are quite smart bits of politics.
Ground rent policy doesn’t come into effect until 2028 and does nothing, I can see, that tackles high service charges although it is not to say it is not a good step forward. It is.
The vet bills policy less so. I cannot see what the gain is. If they just list prices so people can shop around. People can do that anyway.
Btw hope you’re well. Nice to see you back
Pet owners are angry at the price hikes and attempted upselling by monopolistic veterinary practices. All the vet practices within a 15 miles radius of us except one are owned by the same private equity group. The high prices are just a function of the lack of competition, not the root cause of pet owners’ dissatisfaction.
That type of patchwork of local monopolies is similar to hypermarkets in small town USA - Walmart and so on.
Which is perhaps one component of why US food prices are so high, and food quality so "manufactured".
The ground rent policy and the vet bills policy are quite smart bits of politics.
Ground rent policy doesn’t come into effect until 2028 and does nothing, I can see, that tackles high service charges although it is not to say it is not a good step forward. It is.
The vet bills policy less so. I cannot see what the gain is. If they just list prices so people can shop around. People can do that anyway.
Btw hope you’re well. Nice to see you back
The Ground Rent policy could have some unforeseen impacts I think, because it reduces it to issues around single units rather than mixed blocks (meaning blocks ie areas rather than blocks of flats). I think it will be beneficial, but it should be imo CPI increases not a cash freeze.
One canary in the coalmine will be local independent shops where charges are currently held artificially low.
Time will tell.
On a separate note, I have not seen whether it is retrospective, or applies to commercial properties.
For vets, aiui the problem is that it is turning into an oligopolistic market. 60% of the market is owned by 6 corporate groups, with vertical integration. 15 year ago it was 10% of the market.
Private Equity likes to look at a market with significant barriers to entry and lots of small players that need rationalised. Have been PE adjacent for the last 20 years through family connections and see how they operate. They are very sharp though not always successful as they can choose the odd moneypit or two. Once you are a PE target you get pimped to another PE every 3-5 years.
Another family member is now involved with a PE backed company who interestingly are looking to exit in 2027 rather than 2028 as planned. The 2028 capital markers are looking a bit choppy. They are not sure interest rates will be stable enough to get their acquisition away successfully.
I think Ground Rent tends to be British financials and property rather than PE.
For vets at least a couple of the players are PE, I think.
The restructuring looks quite like the funeral market from the 1980s to me.
What are the barriers to entry for vets ?
Part of the problem seems to be a shortage of vets which helps drive the prices up.
There's a significant shortage of vets, with many practices refusing to take new patients, exacerbated by the significant jump in pet ownership during covid that has only slightly subsided. My own vets seems to have an ever-changing rota of young vets from Commonwealth countries coming here for the travel and experience.
But the real drivers of rising prices are a mixture of the same factors that are pushing up the costs of human healthcare - increasing costs of medication, increasing use of technology, use of ultrasound and MRI etc. - and the progressive capture of the veterinary sector by private equity, which buys up smaller and family owned practices and chains and ruthlessly sets about maximising profit, both by hard-selling scans and other tests that the pet doesn't really need, and through pricing - for example there's one drug my pet is currently on that costs twice as much from the vet as it does with a private prescription that I can collect and pay for at Boots.
As with human care we can (and vets offer) do more for our pets. When my dog had a cancer diagnosis a couple of years back, if I'd wanted we could have had an MRI. For a dog.
Now I loved that dog, but at the end of the day it might have lived a couple more years. In the end we blindly treated with chemotherapy (1000 a month for 4 doses) that actually put her into remission and gave her another 18 months.
Twenty years ago we would probably have managed pain until euthanasia.
Some years back, my Mum needed an MRI and the cat also could've benefitted from an MRI. My Mum (jokingly) suggested she go to her NHS appointment and just have the cat on her while she's in the machine. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak...
You see this is the kind of thinking outside the box we need!
Update Schrodinger, replace box with MRI scanner....
Oddly I was thinking just that. Now if the MRI is run by one of @Leon's sentient AI's...
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
The bright and ambitious do escape, which creates another viscious circle. I guess you could play with council tax to make them more appealing but good luck explaining that to city and rural voters whod have to pay extra.
Labour’s best attack line is that the Tories broke Britain.
This is why I’m not convinced of the wisdom of recruiting a load of them into Reform.
'Broken Britain' is a very poor selling line. People prefer optimism. It's one of the reasons Labour are polling so badly
This is one of the reasons for Brexit in my opinion. Cameron and Osborne's campaign was almost entirely negative. They didn't have anything positive to say about Europe during it.
Completely agree. Add that to a vitriolic, anti European press that had banged on about the EU for decades (bendy bananas etc) and add in some of the genuine issues with EU membership its a wonder that Leave didn't win by far more.
Healey has gone up slightly in my estimation, since he is the first defence minister in a very long time to stop pretending it's all fine, and grasp the nettle.
He may well still balls it up (and if Ajax is dead, it will mean some very difficult choices), but at least he's not just regurgitating the same old BS fed to ministers for the last decade.
Labour leapfrog into second in this week’s voting intention on 22%. Reform’s lead drops to 7 on 29%, with the Tories third on 20%.
➡️ REF UK 29% (-2) 🌹 LAB 22% (+2) 🌳 CON 20% (-1) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (nc) 🌍 GREEN 10% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3% (+1)
MoreInCommon N = 2,016 | 23 - 25/01| Change w 21/01
Leader approvals - it’s very close at the top with Davey on -12 and Badenoch and Farage on -14. Starmer is far behind on -41 though this is higher than he’s been since Autumn, which from qual seems to reflect a recurring international affairs bounce."
Good poll for Starmer, again shows a swing from Reform to Labour after the Jenrick and Rosindell defections and included a bit of the post Burnham blocking and Braverman defections which also don't seem to have damaged Labour much and not helped Reform either.
Greens down 1% as well will be positive for Labour ahead of Gorton and Tories will be concerned that Kemi is losing her pre Christmas bounce with the Conservatives falling to 3rd again behind Labour as well as Reform
I wonder if Sir Keir's crushing Burnham like an insect has endeared him to voters who like their leaders to be a bit ruthless and unsentimental. Contrast this with Nigel, who rolled out the red carpet to his erstwhile political enemies who he'd never previously had a good word for. Nigel looked weak and ingratiating compared to Sir Keir's icy determination to put the cause above mere chumminess.
Does the polling imply that voters believe Farage less able to deliver on policy than even Starmer ?😲
If it is like 2005 then implication is that if Farage supports it then enough voters think it must be a bad idea and they'll switch support for it to make a material difference.
The problem for Reform is Farage is marmite. Some love him but plenty despise him due to Brexit. They won’t overcome that and that will harm them.
I don't think they just despise him due to Brexit. It's also the racism and grifting.
Personally I think its his highly punchable face, but whatever.
I used to have no big problem with Farage. I saw him as a respectable politician with reactionary right wing views and a dislike of the European Union. Not my cup of char at all, and I found his effectiveness regrettable since it was in service of a cause (Little Englander Nationalism) which I myself dislike, but, you know, that pernicious nonsense has always been part of political discourse in this country and it has to have its leading voices. But that was then. He's since disgraced himself bigtime in my eyes with his craven fandom of Donald Trump, inc aping several features of the ghastly movement headed by that ghastly man, esp the lying and the racism. Unfit to be PM due to bad character, is my considered current assessment.
Reform corrected a statement this morning by their Chair, David Bull, on Sky that anyone here illegally to be deported would be time limited, by saying no it will not
They really are bas...ds
I posted this early this morning
spent over an hour yesterday with my wife with a consultant in elderly care
She was wonderful, kind, patient, caring and simply amazing and Sri Lankan
Apparently her husband is also a consultant with the same caring attitude
And Farage,/ Jenrick/ Braverman and Goodwin would threaten their place in our community
Labour’s best attack line is that the Tories broke Britain.
This is why I’m not convinced of the wisdom of recruiting a load of them into Reform.
'Broken Britain' is a very poor selling line. People prefer optimism. It's one of the reasons Labour are polling so badly
This is one of the reasons for Brexit in my opinion. Cameron and Osborne's campaign was almost entirely negative. They didn't have anything positive to say about Europe during it.
That is certainly correct but it's such a well known fact it's quite extraordinary that the Leavers cottoned on but the Remainers didn't. The positivity of 'Take Back Control' made it a brilliant line and there's no getting away from it.
Britain is on the cusp of an economic boom – no thanks to Labour The UK’s private economy has an extremely healthy balance sheet. But it must fully embrace AI
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Labour are (gradually) taking railways back into public ownership and freezing fares. It's a popular policy in commuter towns I would think.
As long as the service improves, then yes, it will be popular and should help as it will improve people’s daily lives.
Trans Pennine Express has been poor as long as I can remember.
Train fare freeze more helps London and the South East. Until recently outside of rush hour we had one train every couple of hours. Now it’s hourly.
Capping bus fares a bigger deal round here. I know it went up from £2 to £2.5 but it still makes a difference.
Also what helps is having a fast bus in to the toon with limited stops.
Does the polling imply that voters believe Farage less able to deliver on policy than even Starmer ?😲
If it is like 2005 then implication is that if Farage supports it then enough voters think it must be a bad idea and they'll switch support for it to make a material difference.
The problem for Reform is Farage is marmite. Some love him but plenty despise him due to Brexit. They won’t overcome that and that will harm them.
I don't think they just despise him due to Brexit. It's also the racism and grifting.
Personally I think its his highly punchable face, but whatever.
I used to have no big problem with Farage. I saw him as a respectable politician with reactionary right wing views and a dislike of the European Union. Not my cup of char at all, and I found his effectiveness regrettable since it was in service of a cause (Little Englander Nationalism) which I myself dislike, but, you know, that pernicious nonsense has always been part of political discourse in this country and it has to have its leading voices. But that was then. He's since disgraced himself bigtime in my eyes with his craven fandom of Donald Trump, inc aping several features of the ghastly movement headed by that ghastly man, esp the lying and the racism. Unfit to be PM due to bad character, is my considered current assessment.
Reform corrected a statement this morning by their Chair, David Bull, on Sky that anyone here illegally to be deported would be time limited, by saying no it will not
They really are bas...ds
I posted this early this morning
spent over an hour yesterday with my wife with a consultant in elderly care
She was wonderful, kind, patient, caring and simply amazing and Sri Lankan
Apparently her husband is also a consultant with the same caring attitude
And Farage,/ Jenrick/ Braverman and Goodwin would threaten their place in our community
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
The bright and ambitious do escape, which creates another viscious circle. I guess you could play with council tax to make them more appealing but good luck explaining that to city and rural voters whod have to pay extra.
But why should government fight against the economic tide?
Consider a future Britain where cities have been supported to grow, and you have successful cities that are much larger than now - London, South Wales/Bristol, Manchester/Sheffield/Leeds, Central Belt in Scotland. Birmingham I guess.
Meanwhile the towns have shrunk. Ipswich down from ~130k to ~20k, Stoke down from ~250k to ~30k, etc. All those people able to move to work in the cities and be more productive there, while the towns are shrunk to a size more suitable for servicing the surrounding rural areas, tourism, etc, with villages re-established on their peripheries as the town retreated to a smaller core.
Wouldn't that be better than trying to tilt the economic playing field to tempt businesses to places where it's less efficient for them to operate?
Healey has gone up slightly in my estimation, since he is the first defence minister in a very long time to stop pretending it's all fine, and grasp the nettle.
He may well still balls it up (and if Ajax is dead, it will mean some very difficult choices), but at least he's not just regurgitating the same old BS fed to ministers for the last decade.
Taken him 18 months though. Ajax has been dead for a lot longer than that, and it was under him it got IOC in the first place.
A lot of the stuff Labour are getting around to doing now is at least 12 months late.
Labour’s best attack line is that the Tories broke Britain.
This is why I’m not convinced of the wisdom of recruiting a load of them into Reform.
'Broken Britain' is a very poor selling line. People prefer optimism. It's one of the reasons Labour are polling so badly
This is one of the reasons for Brexit in my opinion. Cameron and Osborne's campaign was almost entirely negative. They didn't have anything positive to say about Europe during it.
That is certainly correct but it's such a well known fact it's quite extraordinary that the Leavers cottoned on but the Remainers didn't. The positivity of 'Take Back Control' made it a brilliant line and there's no getting away from it.
Perhaps putting Jack Straw's pot-smoking idiot son in charge of the campaign was a mistake. Alastair Campbell would have smashed it.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
The bright and ambitious do escape, which creates another viscious circle. I guess you could play with council tax to make them more appealing but good luck explaining that to city and rural voters whod have to pay extra.
But why should government fight against the economic tide?
Consider a future Britain where cities have been supported to grow, and you have successful cities that are much larger than now - London, South Wales/Bristol, Manchester/Sheffield/Leeds, Central Belt in Scotland. Birmingham I guess.
Meanwhile the towns have shrunk. Ipswich down from ~130k to ~20k, Stoke down from ~250k to ~30k, etc. All those people able to move to work in the cities and be more productive there, while the towns are shrunk to a size more suitable for servicing the surrounding rural areas, tourism, etc, with villages re-established on their peripheries as the town retreated to a smaller core.
Wouldn't that be better than trying to tilt the economic playing field to tempt businesses to places where it's less efficient for them to operate?
That is my point, there is little the government can sensibly do to override default human preferences in our current societal set up. It is not particularly a failure of policy that people in small towns feel disillusioned, but an inevitability.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Labour are (gradually) taking railways back into public ownership and freezing fares. It's a popular policy in commuter towns I would think.
No, on this Taz is quite right.
I'm far from convinced that Reform would be any different at all - especially given their cost cutting agenda - but every government for decades has actively starved infrastructure investment outside of the London area. They've repeatedly cut programs outside of London, every time cash is tight, while preserving spending in the capital.
The rolling joke that has been "Northern Powerhouse Rail" is just one example.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
Edit: British government policy has been to restrict the growth of successful cities/larger towns with the greenbelt. Whenever industry and employment has left a place there have been repeated attempts to bring new employment to those places, rather than help/allow the people to move to where there is employment.
I think it's fair to say that government policy has failed.
Look at what these are doing, their strategies for growth, and replicate it.
Towns can survive, they will probably be feeders to the nearby cities or largely full of retirees. The Close I live in, most people are around my age and retired or part time. Seems similar to the larger estate,
However we also have to look at how cities are constrained from growing and enable it.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Small towns and small towns, though.
There are definitely small towns in a really bad way. Places whose historic purpose doesn't really exist any more- old heavy industries and faded seaside resorts are the obvious examples, and they map onto Reform's core areas pretty well. I don't know that anyone knows what to do with them.
It's the other smaller towns, the ones we hear less of because they're beige, that are electorally more interesting, I reckon.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
The bright and ambitious do escape, which creates another viscious circle. I guess you could play with council tax to make them more appealing but good luck explaining that to city and rural voters whod have to pay extra.
But why should government fight against the economic tide?
Consider a future Britain where cities have been supported to grow, and you have successful cities that are much larger than now - London, South Wales/Bristol, Manchester/Sheffield/Leeds, Central Belt in Scotland. Birmingham I guess.
Meanwhile the towns have shrunk. Ipswich down from ~130k to ~20k, Stoke down from ~250k to ~30k, etc. All those people able to move to work in the cities and be more productive there, while the towns are shrunk to a size more suitable for servicing the surrounding rural areas, tourism, etc, with villages re-established on their peripheries as the town retreated to a smaller core.
Wouldn't that be better than trying to tilt the economic playing field to tempt businesses to places where it's less efficient for them to operate?
That is my point, there is little the government can sensibly do to override default human preferences in our current societal set up. It is not particularly a failure of policy that people in small towns feel disillusioned, but an inevitability.
But it's policy to stop disillusioned people in small towns from becoming happier people in big cities.
Britain is on the cusp of an economic boom – no thanks to Labour The UK’s private economy has an extremely healthy balance sheet. But it must fully embrace AI
Great news if true although it is AEP. Who cares whether or not it’s due to the govt. What it’s important is it is delivered and if it is then Starmer could be a lucky general.
'US technology giant Amazon has confirmed it will cut 16,000 jobs - hours after it told staff about a new round of global redundancies in an email apparently sent in error.
The email, which has been seen by the BBC, was sent late on Tuesday and refers to a swathe of employees in the US, Canada and Costa Rica having been laid off as part of an effort to "strengthen the company."
The message was apparently shared by mistake, as it was quickly cancelled.
Early on Wednesday, Amazon announced job reductions as part of a plan to "remove bureaucracy" at the firm.
Beth Galetti, senior vice president of people experience and technology at Amazon, said on Wednesday it was not planning to make "broad reductions every few months", referring to Amazon's announcement of 14,000 job cuts in October.
"While many teams finalized their organizational changes in October, other teams did not complete that work until now," she said..Earlier on Tuesday, the company announced it would close its roughly 70 remaining Amazon-branded grocery stores, Amazon Fresh and Amazon Go, and expand its Whole Foods Market business.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ywzxlxnlo
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Small towns and small towns, though.
There are definitely small towns in a really bad way. Places whose historic purpose doesn't really exist any more- old heavy industries and faded seaside resorts are the obvious examples, and they map onto Reform's core areas pretty well. I don't know that anyone knows what to do with them.
It's the other smaller towns, the ones we hear less of because they're beige, that are electorally more interesting, I reckon.
Those are still mostly Reform, given the current Reform national poll lead
'Asked at an event in central London this morning whether she would travel to China if she were PM, Badenoch said: "No, not now, because I don’t think that this is the time to do that. We need to be talking to those other countries who are worried about the threat China is posing to them.”
Badenoch also repeated her criticism of the government’s decision to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
Writing in the Telegraph on Tuesday, Badenoch said the decision “will weaken our strategic position in the Indian Ocean and hand Beijing even greater influence near critical British military infrastructure”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4gw427eenpt
'The Rwandan government is claiming it is owed £100m by the UK over payments due under an asylum agreement cancelled by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.
Rwanda has filed an international arbitration case, arguing the UK has breached the terms of the deal to send some asylum seekers to the east African nation.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx32yxnvzro
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
The bright and ambitious do escape, which creates another viscious circle. I guess you could play with council tax to make them more appealing but good luck explaining that to city and rural voters whod have to pay extra.
But why should government fight against the economic tide?
Consider a future Britain where cities have been supported to grow, and you have successful cities that are much larger than now - London, South Wales/Bristol, Manchester/Sheffield/Leeds, Central Belt in Scotland. Birmingham I guess.
Meanwhile the towns have shrunk. Ipswich down from ~130k to ~20k, Stoke down from ~250k to ~30k, etc. All those people able to move to work in the cities and be more productive there, while the towns are shrunk to a size more suitable for servicing the surrounding rural areas, tourism, etc, with villages re-established on their peripheries as the town retreated to a smaller core.
Wouldn't that be better than trying to tilt the economic playing field to tempt businesses to places where it's less efficient for them to operate?
Not really. Look at Switzerland for an extreme counter example.
And there are plenty of large and medium sized towns in Britain (all those along the Liverpool to Hull corridor) which are close enough to large cities for both cities and towns to mutually benefit from improved transport infrastructure.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Small towns and small towns, though.
There are definitely small towns in a really bad way. Places whose historic purpose doesn't really exist any more- old heavy industries and faded seaside resorts are the obvious examples, and they map onto Reform's core areas pretty well. I don't know that anyone knows what to do with them.
It's the other smaller towns, the ones we hear less of because they're beige, that are electorally more interesting, I reckon.
They’d better work out what to do with them because where do they go when Reform fails to deliver for them ?
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
Edit: British government policy has been to restrict the growth of successful cities/larger towns with the greenbelt. Whenever industry and employment has left a place there have been repeated attempts to bring new employment to those places, rather than help/allow the people to move to where there is employment.
I think it's fair to say that government policy has failed.
Look at what these are doing, their strategies for growth, and replicate it.
Towns can survive, they will probably be feeders to the nearby cities or largely full of retirees. The Close I live in, most people are around my age and retired or part time. Seems similar to the larger estate,
However we also have to look at how cities are constrained from growing and enable it.
Okay. That's interesting. So towns aren't as doomed as I had suggested.
Some support for Barty's mantra of letting people build as the route to success.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Labour are (gradually) taking railways back into public ownership and freezing fares. It's a popular policy in commuter towns I would think.
No, on this Taz is quite right.
I'm far from convinced that Reform would be any different at all - especially given their cost cutting agenda - but every government for decades has actively starved infrastructure investment outside of the London area. They've repeatedly cut programs outside of London, every time cash is tight, while preserving spending in the capital.
The rolling joke that has been "Northern Powerhouse Rail" is just one example.
Only recently we had the dualling of the A1 north of Newcastle cancelled
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Labour are (gradually) taking railways back into public ownership and freezing fares. It's a popular policy in commuter towns I would think.
No, on this Taz is quite right.
I'm far from convinced that Reform would be any different at all - especially given their cost cutting agenda - but every government for decades has actively starved infrastructure investment outside of the London area. They've repeatedly cut programs outside of London, every time cash is tight, while preserving spending in the capital.
The rolling joke that has been "Northern Powerhouse Rail" is just one example.
Only recently we had the dualling of the A1 north of Newcastle cancelled
But they are now going to look at re-opening the Leamside line.
And I still can’t work out what the purpose of that line is going to be - it’s not like you can use it for mainline traffic if it’s being used as a Metro line
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
Edit: British government policy has been to restrict the growth of successful cities/larger towns with the greenbelt. Whenever industry and employment has left a place there have been repeated attempts to bring new employment to those places, rather than help/allow the people to move to where there is employment.
I think it's fair to say that government policy has failed.
Look at what these are doing, their strategies for growth, and replicate it.
Towns can survive, they will probably be feeders to the nearby cities or largely full of retirees. The Close I live in, most people are around my age and retired or part time. Seems similar to the larger estate,
However we also have to look at how cities are constrained from growing and enable it.
Okay. That's interesting. So towns aren't as doomed as I had suggested.
Some support for Barty's mantra of letting people build as the route to success.
As well as the Green belt being a constraint on growth.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
Edit: British government policy has been to restrict the growth of successful cities/larger towns with the greenbelt. Whenever industry and employment has left a place there have been repeated attempts to bring new employment to those places, rather than help/allow the people to move to where there is employment.
I think it's fair to say that government policy has failed.
Look at what these are doing, their strategies for growth, and replicate it.
Towns can survive, they will probably be feeders to the nearby cities or largely full of retirees. The Close I live in, most people are around my age and retired or part time. Seems similar to the larger estate,
However we also have to look at how cities are constrained from growing and enable it.
That is presumably a function of cities being both more expensive and having younger working demographics who have done worse over the last two decades than older retirees.
Members of the UK team are all on "disposable burner phone numbers and temporary email addresses", our political editor Chris Mason reports from the flight to Beijing.
Modern tech like iPads and earbuds have all been "left at home under the bed", swapped for "notepads and pens" and other kit "that they might not bring back", he says.
"Such is the anxiety about security, about bugging, about spying."
That’s no different to me going to the USA for Bae back in the early 2010s
New empty laptop, different email address - rebuilt on return (it was a one off visit, otherwise you had a separate going to the US laptop).
That’s been going on in the US since 9/11, and a court case that said border searches are technically abroad and the Constitution doesn’t apply.
There’s a long list of countries not to go with a regular phone and laptop, especially if on business with their government or your own. I’d send people to China with a burner phone and a laptop with nothing but the office VPN on it, which wouldn’t be enabled until they confirmed they had arrived safely, and was wiped before they left to come home.
The first interesting article I've ever read in the Spectator. So Amos wasn't always the hanging and flogging shit we always thought he was even if his reasons for the damascene conversion were self serving
'Asked at an event in central London this morning whether she would travel to China if she were PM, Badenoch said: "No, not now, because I don’t think that this is the time to do that. We need to be talking to those other countries who are worried about the threat China is posing to them.”
Badenoch also repeated her criticism of the government’s decision to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
Writing in the Telegraph on Tuesday, Badenoch said the decision “will weaken our strategic position in the Indian Ocean and hand Beijing even greater influence near critical British military infrastructure”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4gw427eenpt
They know the truth, why are they persisting with this claim? She even name checked “Indian Ocean” without any acknowledgement India’s involvement in pushing and arranging this Chagos deal.
This attack line is not without creating some problem for the Conservative Party as time passes. I don’t believe at the highest strategic levels the Conservative Party is ignorant of India’s growing Superpower influence in the region, but it’s certainly giving that impression publicly, by only talking of China influence in Indian Ocean not India’s.
And of course, in the wild outlier the Conservatives win the next election on scrapping “Labours” Chagos deal - there’s the huge India in the way glaring down at them.
Healey has gone up slightly in my estimation, since he is the first defence minister in a very long time to stop pretending it's all fine, and grasp the nettle.
He may well still balls it up (and if Ajax is dead, it will mean some very difficult choices), but at least he's not just regurgitating the same old BS fed to ministers for the last decade.
Taken him 18 months though. Ajax has been dead for a lot longer than that, and it was under him it got IOC in the first place.
A lot of the stuff Labour are getting around to doing now is at least 12 months late.
The stuff they're getting around to is about a decade late.
I've criticised them as much as anyone for completely wasting their first year in government, but credit should be given when they actually do something right.
I do wonder how much of this is having no plan, and how much just having no idea how to govern after so long in opposition ?
That doesn't bode well for the expected Reform government in 2030, still less of it's the Greens.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Labour are (gradually) taking railways back into public ownership and freezing fares. It's a popular policy in commuter towns I would think.
No, on this Taz is quite right.
I'm far from convinced that Reform would be any different at all - especially given their cost cutting agenda - but every government for decades has actively starved infrastructure investment outside of the London area. They've repeatedly cut programs outside of London, every time cash is tight, while preserving spending in the capital.
The rolling joke that has been "Northern Powerhouse Rail" is just one example.
Mention treating animals better, and voters don’t really care whose idea it was
According to the poll, they do.
Left of centre voters in particular seem to have a strong aversion to anything that's associated with Farage. It's not a small effect.
My question above, which TSE replied to, was slightly tongue in cheek, but it is an interesting question exactly why this should be. Is there's a rational component to it, or is it essentially extra-rational transference of the understandably negative emotions he invokes ?
There’s a long history of polling issues, where the results are quite different if the pollster mentions that the policy was from a named politician, so the poll ends up not being primary on the issue or policy, but rather on the politician.
It’s the old joke that Donald Trump could announce live that there was now a cure for a serious disease, and there would quickly be groups of people finding reasons to be in favour of the disease.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Labour are (gradually) taking railways back into public ownership and freezing fares. It's a popular policy in commuter towns I would think.
No, on this Taz is quite right.
I'm far from convinced that Reform would be any different at all - especially given their cost cutting agenda - but every government for decades has actively starved infrastructure investment outside of the London area. They've repeatedly cut programs outside of London, every time cash is tight, while preserving spending in the capital.
The rolling joke that has been "Northern Powerhouse Rail" is just one example.
Only recently we had the dualling of the A1 north of Newcastle cancelled
But they are now going to look at re-opening the Leamside line.
And I still can’t work out what the purpose of that line is going to be - it’s not like you can use it for mainline traffic if it’s being used as a Metro line
It will link to the Metro extension to Washington but, according to a Facebook post from the Mayor, it’s to help free up capacity on the mainline to link to NPR when complete.
Presumably if that is the case the gauge is the same on both tracks and I presume the Metro extension is happening rather than being ‘in principle’
Leamside is subject to ‘Value for Money’, whatever that means and how it’s quantified, so I’d expect it won’t happen. But it provided the Mayor with another photo op. She does like them.
Mention treating animals better, and voters don’t really care whose idea it was
According to the poll, they do.
Left of centre voters in particular seem to have a strong aversion to anything that's associated with Farage. It's not a small effect.
My question above, which TSE replied to, was slightly tongue in cheek, but it is an interesting question exactly why this should be. Is there's a rational component to it, or is it essentially extra-rational transference of the understandably negative emotions he invokes ?
There’s a long history of polling issues, where the results are quite different if the pollster mentions that the policy was from a named politician, so the poll ends up not being primary on the issue or policy, but rather on the politician.
It’s the old joke that Donald Trump could announce live that there was now a cure for a serious disease, and there would quickly be groups of people finding reasons to be in favour of the disease.
'Asked at an event in central London this morning whether she would travel to China if she were PM, Badenoch said: "No, not now, because I don’t think that this is the time to do that. We need to be talking to those other countries who are worried about the threat China is posing to them.”
Badenoch also repeated her criticism of the government’s decision to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
Writing in the Telegraph on Tuesday, Badenoch said the decision “will weaken our strategic position in the Indian Ocean and hand Beijing even greater influence near critical British military infrastructure”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4gw427eenpt
They know the truth, why are they persisting with this claim? She even name checked “Indian Ocean” without any acknowledgement India’s involvement in pushing and arranging this Chagos deal.
This attack line is not without creating some problem for the Conservative Party as time passes. I don’t believe at the highest strategic levels the Conservative Party is ignorant of India’s growing Superpower influence in the region, but it’s certainly giving that impression publicly, by only talking of China influence in Indian Ocean not India’s.
And of course, in the wild outlier the Conservatives win the next election on scrapping “Labours” Chagos deal - there’s the huge India in the way glaring down at them.
The US would also be glaring at India and China as they also oppose the Chagos handover
Graham Grant in the Daily Mail - 'So much for Honest John... the endemic secrecy of this failing SNP state would make North Koreans blush'
"Imagine a country where the government is taken to court for riding roughshod over the law.
The instigator is a ‘tsar’ whose job is to promote transparency – but he’s running out of patience with our political masters.
They’re sitting on secret files relating to the handling of sexual harassment complaints made against a former leader.
The new boss of the regime appears on television to deny he presides over a ‘culture of secrecy and obfuscation’, seemingly with a straight face.
But the same man, while giving vague assurances he’ll ultimately respect the edict to hand over the dossier, is dragging his feet on complying with a separate ruling on gender – handed down by the highest court in the land."
"You would be forgiven for thinking this was a banana republic – but shamefully it’s Scotland in the 21st century, under a Nationalist government which treats voters with brazen contempt.
What makes it all the more remarkable is that John Swinney wants to present himself as a fresh start for Scotland – despite his previous roles as the Minister for Cover-Ups and a ruthless consigliere for both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
Despite his half-hearted denial, the reality is that the endemic secrecy of Mr Swinney’s failing SNP state would make the North Koreans blush.
When it comes to politics Mr Swinney is entirely devoid of integrity and not a word he says can be trusted – not now, and not years ago when he did his bosses’ bidding under the laughable nickname of Honest John."
Mention treating animals better, and voters don’t really care whose idea it was
According to the poll, they do.
Left of centre voters in particular seem to have a strong aversion to anything that's associated with Farage. It's not a small effect.
My question above, which TSE replied to, was slightly tongue in cheek, but it is an interesting question exactly why this should be. Is there's a rational component to it, or is it essentially extra-rational transference of the understandably negative emotions he invokes ?
There’s a long history of polling issues, where the results are quite different if the pollster mentions that the policy was from a named politician, so the poll ends up not being primary on the issue or policy, but rather on the politician.
It’s the old joke that Donald Trump could announce live that there was now a cure for a serious disease, and there would quickly be groups of people finding reasons to be in favour of the disease.
The "cure" would probably involve drinking bleach or buying a Trump Card so fair enough.
Mention treating animals better, and voters don’t really care whose idea it was
According to the poll, they do.
Left of centre voters in particular seem to have a strong aversion to anything that's associated with Farage. It's not a small effect.
My question above, which TSE replied to, was slightly tongue in cheek, but it is an interesting question exactly why this should be. Is there's a rational component to it, or is it essentially extra-rational transference of the understandably negative emotions he invokes ?
There’s a long history of polling issues, where the results are quite different if the pollster mentions that the policy was from a named politician, so the poll ends up not being primary on the issue or policy, but rather on the politician.
It’s the old joke that Donald Trump could announce live that there was now a cure for a serious disease, and there would quickly be groups of people finding reasons to be in favour of the disease.
Surely you're not saying that you would trust Donald "drink bleach to cure Covid" Trump if he announced a cure for a disease?
I think it would be fair to subject such a claim to more scrutiny than normal.
Labour’s best attack line is that the Tories broke Britain.
This is why I’m not convinced of the wisdom of recruiting a load of them into Reform.
'Broken Britain' is a very poor selling line. People prefer optimism. It's one of the reasons Labour are polling so badly
Kemi this morning on asked the question responded
'Britain is not broken, it needs repair'
Golly, I thought by definition something broken needed repair (unless it’s not worth repairing). #logicfail
TBF "Britain needs maintenance" is a pretty uninspiring slogan.
Tbf I’ve gone to garages where they’ve said things needed repairing when I was unconvinced that they were broken.
*sucks in breath* ‘Well, it’s not technically broke mate, but false economy not to get it done now. £800 for cash.’
My wife had a car from a main dealer (I know !!!!) and we took out a service plan. When we took it in they always performed a ‘complimentary health check’ even if you said not to bother.
By some happy coincide they always found extra work that needed to be done while there, for around that sum.
Now the car is out of warranty I take it to a reliable local garage that doesn’t try to shake you down for cash.
Mention treating animals better, and voters don’t really care whose idea it was
According to the poll, they do.
Left of centre voters in particular seem to have a strong aversion to anything that's associated with Farage. It's not a small effect.
My question above, which TSE replied to, was slightly tongue in cheek, but it is an interesting question exactly why this should be. Is there's a rational component to it, or is it essentially extra-rational transference of the understandably negative emotions he invokes ?
There’s a long history of polling issues, where the results are quite different if the pollster mentions that the policy was from a named politician, so the poll ends up not being primary on the issue or policy, but rather on the politician.
It’s the old joke that Donald Trump could announce live that there was now a cure for a serious disease, and there would quickly be groups of people finding reasons to be in favour of the disease.
Or, as another example, Trump’s goons could shoot innocent people dead in the streets of Minnesota and there would quickly be groups of people finding reasons to blame Tim Walz.
'The Rwandan government is claiming it is owed £100m by the UK over payments due under an asylum agreement cancelled by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.
Rwanda has filed an international arbitration case, arguing the UK has breached the terms of the deal to send some asylum seekers to the east African nation.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx32yxnvzro
Healey has gone up slightly in my estimation, since he is the first defence minister in a very long time to stop pretending it's all fine, and grasp the nettle.
He may well still balls it up (and if Ajax is dead, it will mean some very difficult choices), but at least he's not just regurgitating the same old BS fed to ministers for the last decade.
Healey is very sensible, and has been doing well thought out things since he got the post, despite lack of resources. I'd extend the compliment in some ways to Ben Wallace, even though he has rather transformed into a bald male version of Kemi recently.
The first was an overhaul of the procurement side, which I do not actually believe has reached the army properly yet in sufficient depth, and also basics such as taking service housing back into the public sector.
But everything had been severely gutted. as had the pipeline of experienced staff rising through the forces, so it is a 10 year job to get even partially back on track.
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Yes. It also explains why small towns were the swing seats previously. Governments on both sides always ended up failing them, more so than anywhere else.
Is it governments failing them or just human preferences? I'd be happy to live in a big city or somewhere rural as long as connected. I wouldn't choose a small town unless that was my only option. Is there much a government can realistically do about that?
I thought about that when writing my previous comment and it's worth considering.
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
Edit: British government policy has been to restrict the growth of successful cities/larger towns with the greenbelt. Whenever industry and employment has left a place there have been repeated attempts to bring new employment to those places, rather than help/allow the people to move to where there is employment.
I think it's fair to say that government policy has failed.
Look at what these are doing, their strategies for growth, and replicate it.
Towns can survive, they will probably be feeders to the nearby cities or largely full of retirees. The Close I live in, most people are around my age and retired or part time. Seems similar to the larger estate,
However we also have to look at how cities are constrained from growing and enable it.
That is presumably a function of cities being both more expensive and having younger working demographics who have done worse over the last two decades than older retirees.
“I want growth. But I don’t want anyone to build more of anything anywhere near me. Or, indeed, anywhere.”
Followed by
“why is there no growth? Why are evil Private Equity outfits only interested in sweating existing assets? Why don’t they build some actual factories.”
I’ve actually heard both of the above expressed, in consecutive sentences, by actual people….
Kemi wants a 'common ground' broad tent Conservative Party with no wet centrists and no Jenrick supporters either.
'The Tories “have to be a truly Conservative party”, Badenoch said in her speech, adding she was relaxed if that meant centrists deciding to leave: “I won’t apologise to those walking away because they don’t like the new direction. We only want Conservatives.”
She said: “The people who don’t agree with this direction need to get out of the way … We’re about the future, not the past. We’re not trying to recreate 2006 and it’s not 2016 any more.”
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Labour are (gradually) taking railways back into public ownership and freezing fares. It's a popular policy in commuter towns I would think.
No, on this Taz is quite right.
I'm far from convinced that Reform would be any different at all - especially given their cost cutting agenda - but every government for decades has actively starved infrastructure investment outside of the London area. They've repeatedly cut programs outside of London, every time cash is tight, while preserving spending in the capital.
The rolling joke that has been "Northern Powerhouse Rail" is just one example.
The bit we get, the Leamside Line, is just a feasibility study at the moment and will be subject to ‘value for money’ which is a simple cop out to allow any govt in the future to decide on a punitive metric and cancel it.
It will link to the extension of the Metro down to Washington which has already been funded by the Mayors office.
Britain is on the cusp of an economic boom – no thanks to Labour The UK’s private economy has an extremely healthy balance sheet. But it must fully embrace AI
Great news if true although it is AEP. Who cares whether or not it’s due to the govt. What it’s important is it is delivered and if it is then Starmer could be a lucky general.
There are quite a few positive economic signals piling up right now.
“So Luke Pollard, Minister for DRI updated the House quite properly last week. I am furious that vital information was withheld. It’s clear we didn’t have the full facts in the lead up to decisions about the initial operating capability. That IOC has been withdrawn. The Army is no longer in charge of this programme. A new senior responsible officer is now in place. I have been clear that we must back it or scrap it. The work is being done at the moment in order to put us in a position to make that decision. And whilst I really want to see the way that we procure for the future being more innovative and more rapid, first and foremost will be my concern for the safety and protection of our forces personnel.”
Initial Operating Capability is normally a one way milestone in defence procurement. Once declared, it signifies that a platform is safe, usable and capable of limited operational employment. It is exceptionally rare for IOC to be withdrawn after being granted, as doing so effectively acknowledges that earlier assurances to ministers and Parliament were unsound (lies).
In the case of Ajax, the decision reflects the depth of unresolved safety concerns. Long standing problems involving vibration and noise have affected soldiers during trials, with reports of physical symptoms linked to prolonged exposure. Despite multiple rounds of modification and testing, the issues have not been conclusively resolved, raising doubts over whether they stem from integration problems or more fundamental design limitations..
Exactly, if he'd wanted to be part of this govt, he could have been applied to be a PPC on the basis he'd stand down as Mayor in 2024. However, obviously he thought Mayor was a better gig.
Badenoch is on now, and says: what would a Tory govt under her do? She says: • Cut taxes • End "welfare addiction" • Curb immigration • Anti-net zero
The message is, basically: we're Reform, but we've done our homework.
The message is, also: centrists are not welcome.
Badenoch: "I won't apologise to those walking away because they don't like the new direction. We only want Conservatives."
No compromise with the party, no compromise with the electorate.
That is not what she said
She welcomed engagement from 'prospect' and wants them to contribute to the party's discussions on the economy
She also said she wanted to control the borders but not with 'cruelty'
She utterly rejected 'second hand car salesman' Farage and his 'drama queens'
She is taking on both labour and reform, and is seeking the very best candidates for the next generation of conservatives with experience, ability and integrity
Can't help noticing that @Big_G_NorthWales has dispensed with full stops. Is this a new thing? A trend set by @Leon ? Been discussed already here? What are we to think?
'Asked at an event in central London this morning whether she would travel to China if she were PM, Badenoch said: "No, not now, because I don’t think that this is the time to do that. We need to be talking to those other countries who are worried about the threat China is posing to them.”
Badenoch also repeated her criticism of the government’s decision to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
Writing in the Telegraph on Tuesday, Badenoch said the decision “will weaken our strategic position in the Indian Ocean and hand Beijing even greater influence near critical British military infrastructure”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4gw427eenpt
They know the truth, why are they persisting with this claim? She even name checked “Indian Ocean” without any acknowledgement India’s involvement in pushing and arranging this Chagos deal.
This attack line is not without creating some problem for the Conservative Party as time passes. I don’t believe at the highest strategic levels the Conservative Party is ignorant of India’s growing Superpower influence in the region, but it’s certainly giving that impression publicly, by only talking of China influence in Indian Ocean not India’s.
And of course, in the wild outlier the Conservatives win the next election on scrapping “Labours” Chagos deal - there’s the huge India in the way glaring down at them.
The US would also be glaring at India and China as they also oppose the Chagos handover
Are you sure 🤣 the US wrote it for us to sign!
Historically, since we got into this in 1960’s, it’s been US writing the order sheet what we must do, UK owning the ethnic cleansing and everything - what’s different with this new deal, India have muscled their way into the room, in a show of their growing superpower influence in the region. When it comes to our continued involvement in Chagos and Garcia, UK now has Two Gov’nors in the room, bossing us around.
It helps Conservative Party to get publicly back on the facts before too long. But I guess that’s what changing leaders is for.
Badenoch is on now, and says: what would a Tory govt under her do? She says: • Cut taxes • End "welfare addiction" • Curb immigration • Anti-net zero
The message is, basically: we're Reform, but we've done our homework.
The message is, also: centrists are not welcome.
Badenoch: "I won't apologise to those walking away because they don't like the new direction. We only want Conservatives."
No compromise with the party, no compromise with the electorate.
That is not what she said
She welcomed engagement from 'prospect' and wants them to contribute to the party's discussions on the economy
She also said she wanted to control the borders but not with 'cruelty'
She utterly rejected 'second hand car salesman' Farage and his 'drama queens'
She is taking on both labour and reform, and is seeking the very best candidates for the next generation of conservatives with experience, ability and integrity
Can't help noticing that @Big_G_NorthWales has dispensed with full stops. Is this a new thing? A trend set by @Leon ? Been discussed already here? What are we to think?
'Asked at an event in central London this morning whether she would travel to China if she were PM, Badenoch said: "No, not now, because I don’t think that this is the time to do that. We need to be talking to those other countries who are worried about the threat China is posing to them.”
Badenoch also repeated her criticism of the government’s decision to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
Writing in the Telegraph on Tuesday, Badenoch said the decision “will weaken our strategic position in the Indian Ocean and hand Beijing even greater influence near critical British military infrastructure”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4gw427eenpt
They know the truth, why are they persisting with this claim? She even name checked “Indian Ocean” without any acknowledgement India’s involvement in pushing and arranging this Chagos deal.
This attack line is not without creating some problem for the Conservative Party as time passes. I don’t believe at the highest strategic levels the Conservative Party is ignorant of India’s growing Superpower influence in the region, but it’s certainly giving that impression publicly, by only talking of China influence in Indian Ocean not India’s.
And of course, in the wild outlier the Conservatives win the next election on scrapping “Labours” Chagos deal - there’s the huge India in the way glaring down at them.
The US would also be glaring at India and China as they also oppose the Chagos handover
Are you sure 🤣 the US wrote it for us to sign!
Historically, since we got into this in 1960’s, it’s been US writing the order sheet what we must do, UK owning the ethnic cleansing and everything - what’s different with this new deal, India have muscled their way into the room, in a show of their growing superpower influence in the region. When it comes to our continued involvement in Chagos and Garcia, UK now has Two Gov’nors in the room, bossing us around.
It helps Conservative Party to get publicly back on the facts before too long. But I guess that’s what changing leaders is for.
Trump has made clear the Chagos should not be handed over to Mauritius, so Modi can take it up with him
None of this will help Labour in May, as they're fighting on four fronts.
Against Reform in the Metropolitan boroughs, and Red Wall.
Against the Conservatives in wealthier parts of Greater London.
Against the Greens in urban left constituencies.
And, against Plaid in Wales.
The central mystery though...
What happens in middle England? The boring suburbs, the sort-of OK small commuter towns? Provincial, but without the chip on the shoulder?
At the moment, nobody is really speaking to them, though they are probably the lens through which Starmer's blurred vision makes most sense.
And there's flipping loads of them.
My impression is that Reform has swept through small towns. I think they score very highly in the East Midlands, which is sort of a proxy for small towns as I think it's the region with fewest large cities or rural expanse.
People in small towns are Reform voters. They feel like they don't get anything from government, compared to the investment that goes into big cities, both from the public and the private sector. They score maximum on reliance on the car, and it being annoying to be reliant on the car because of traffic, with very poor public transport alternatives. Lower rates of government employment, no universities.
Years ago the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands were identified in an article on here as the swing seats in British general elections. Big cities were Labour. Rural areas were Tory. The towns were in between. Now those towns are for Reform.
I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the economy and economic opportunity. My town is a commuting town. I’m going into Newcastle tomorrow morning. Public transport options aren’t great.
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
Labour are (gradually) taking railways back into public ownership and freezing fares. It's a popular policy in commuter towns I would think.
No, on this Taz is quite right.
I'm far from convinced that Reform would be any different at all - especially given their cost cutting agenda - but every government for decades has actively starved infrastructure investment outside of the London area. They've repeatedly cut programs outside of London, every time cash is tight, while preserving spending in the capital.
The rolling joke that has been "Northern Powerhouse Rail" is just one example.
The bit we get, the Leamside Line, is just a feasibility study at the moment and will be subject to ‘value for money’ which is a simple cop out to allow any govt in the future to decide on a punitive metric and cancel it.
It will link to the extension of the Metro down to Washington which has already been funded by the Mayors office.
Which means the rest of the line is now useless as you can’t have part of it owned and operated by Nexus and the rest by Network Rail (well you can but it never works as blame just gets passed backwards and forwards)
I’ve had the same problem with the Leamside line for years, you may want to use it but it isn’t possible to use it as a fix for all problems in the North East it’s really only a one off fix.
Britain is on the cusp of an economic boom – no thanks to Labour The UK’s private economy has an extremely healthy balance sheet. But it must fully embrace AI
Great news if true although it is AEP. Who cares whether or not it’s due to the govt. What it’s important is it is delivered and if it is then Starmer could be a lucky general.
There are quite a few positive economic signals piling up right now.
What we really need is routine regional GDP reporting. London/SE dominate output so slow growth there makes the headline number look crap. By my maths London could have -1% growth, the NE of England +8%, and it would net out at 0%.
Badenoch is on now, and says: what would a Tory govt under her do? She says: • Cut taxes • End "welfare addiction" • Curb immigration • Anti-net zero
The message is, basically: we're Reform, but we've done our homework.
The message is, also: centrists are not welcome.
Badenoch: "I won't apologise to those walking away because they don't like the new direction. We only want Conservatives."
No compromise with the party, no compromise with the electorate.
That is not what she said
She welcomed engagement from 'prospect' and wants them to contribute to the party's discussions on the economy
She also said she wanted to control the borders but not with 'cruelty'
She utterly rejected 'second hand car salesman' Farage and his 'drama queens'
She is taking on both labour and reform, and is seeking the very best candidates for the next generation of conservatives with experience, ability and integrity
Can't help noticing that @Big_G_NorthWales has dispensed with full stops. Is this a new thing? A trend set by @Leon ? Been discussed already here? What are we to think?
Badenoch is on now, and says: what would a Tory govt under her do? She says: • Cut taxes • End "welfare addiction" • Curb immigration • Anti-net zero
The message is, basically: we're Reform, but we've done our homework.
The message is, also: centrists are not welcome.
Badenoch: "I won't apologise to those walking away because they don't like the new direction. We only want Conservatives."
No compromise with the party, no compromise with the electorate.
That is not what she said
She welcomed engagement from 'prospect' and wants them to contribute to the party's discussions on the economy
She also said she wanted to control the borders but not with 'cruelty'
She utterly rejected 'second hand car salesman' Farage and his 'drama queens'
She is taking on both labour and reform, and is seeking the very best candidates for the next generation of conservatives with experience, ability and integrity
Can't help noticing that @Big_G_NorthWales has dispensed with full stops. Is this a new thing? A trend set by @Leon ? Been discussed already here? What are we to think?
I think it is because it is over 65 years since I passed my English O level and I am becoming more forgetful
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw6vMqzSlPU
The main Parties who want to get back into these areas need to work out a strategy for it and said strategy is not just telling the voters they are stupid or wrong. They can’t just keep voting the same old same old and get nothing in return.
She welcomed engagement from 'prospect' and wants them to contribute to the party's discussions on the economy
She also said she wanted to control the borders but not with 'cruelty'
She utterly rejected 'second hand car salesman' Farage and his 'drama queens'
She is taking on both labour and reform, and is seeking the very best candidates for the next generation of conservatives with experience, ability and integrity
The only thing I admire about him is that he has an allotment.
'Britain is not broken, it needs repair'
Tories are a politely considered fringe party. Boris lives in my village, and is tolerated amicably as long as he doesn't get into local politics, which he doesn't.
They really are bas...ds
I posted this early this morning
spent over an hour yesterday with my wife with a consultant in elderly care
She was wonderful, kind, patient, caring and simply amazing and Sri Lankan
Apparently her husband is also a consultant with the same caring attitude
And Farage,/ Jenrick/ Braverman and Goodwin would threaten their place in our community
Shame on all of you
Towns simply don't have the scale that is required to succeed in modern economies, and the improvements in communications, logistics and distribution mean that so much that previously happened in towns can now be centralised.
Perhaps what a government needs to do is to encourage the growth of successful cities, and manage the shrinking of towns.
So I think you could still say that the people in towns have been failed by governments, because they've been left trapped in them, rather than allowed to escape to the big city, or see their town rewilded, so to speak.
Edit: British government policy has been to restrict the growth of successful cities/larger towns with the greenbelt. Whenever industry and employment has left a place there have been repeated attempts to bring new employment to those places, rather than help/allow the people to move to where there is employment.
I think it's fair to say that government policy has failed.
Which is perhaps one component of why US food prices are so high, and food quality so "manufactured".
#logicfail
donkeysmorons.I regularly take my car to the garage when it isnt broken to be repaired....
He may well still balls it up (and if Ajax is dead, it will mean some very difficult choices), but at least he's not just regurgitating the same old BS fed to ministers for the last decade.
Britain is on the cusp of an economic boom – no thanks to Labour
The UK’s private economy has an extremely healthy balance sheet. But it must fully embrace AI
Full article link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/4f817c99a39c2138
Trans Pennine Express has been poor as long as I can remember.
Train fare freeze more helps London and the South East. Until recently outside of rush hour we had one train every couple of hours. Now it’s hourly.
Capping bus fares a bigger deal round here. I know it went up from £2 to £2.5 but it still makes a difference.
Also what helps is having a fast bus in to the toon with limited stops.
Consider a future Britain where cities have been supported to grow, and you have successful cities that are much larger than now - London, South Wales/Bristol, Manchester/Sheffield/Leeds, Central Belt in Scotland. Birmingham I guess.
Meanwhile the towns have shrunk. Ipswich down from ~130k to ~20k, Stoke down from ~250k to ~30k, etc. All those people able to move to work in the cities and be more productive there, while the towns are shrunk to a size more suitable for servicing the surrounding rural areas, tourism, etc, with villages re-established on their peripheries as the town retreated to a smaller core.
Wouldn't that be better than trying to tilt the economic playing field to tempt businesses to places where it's less efficient for them to operate?
@migobs.bsky.social
A Times investigation has found that visa agents are selling Skilled Worker visas for positions that don't exist.
https://bsky.app/profile/migobs.bsky.social/post/3mdhzqrdpws2w
No shit, Sherlock.
Popcorn to standby.
A lot of the stuff Labour are getting around to doing now is at least 12 months late.
I'm far from convinced that Reform would be any different at all - especially given their cost cutting agenda - but every government for decades has actively starved infrastructure investment outside of the London area. They've repeatedly cut programs outside of London, every time cash is tight, while preserving spending in the capital.
The rolling joke that has been "Northern Powerhouse Rail" is just one example.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/26/disposable-income-rises-twice-as-fast-11-towns-cities-uk-warrington
Towns can survive, they will probably be feeders to the nearby cities or largely full of retirees. The Close I live in, most people are around my age and retired or part time. Seems similar to the larger estate,
However we also have to look at how cities are constrained from growing and enable it.
There are definitely small towns in a really bad way. Places whose historic purpose doesn't really exist any more- old heavy industries and faded seaside resorts are the obvious examples, and they map onto Reform's core areas pretty well. I don't know that anyone knows what to do with them.
It's the other smaller towns, the ones we hear less of because they're beige, that are electorally more interesting, I reckon.
The email, which has been seen by the BBC, was sent late on Tuesday and refers to a swathe of employees in the US, Canada and Costa Rica having been laid off as part of an effort to "strengthen the company."
The message was apparently shared by mistake, as it was quickly cancelled.
Early on Wednesday, Amazon announced job reductions as part of a plan to "remove bureaucracy" at the firm.
Beth Galetti, senior vice president of people experience and technology at Amazon, said on Wednesday it was not planning to make "broad reductions every few months", referring to Amazon's announcement of 14,000 job cuts in October.
"While many teams finalized their organizational changes in October, other teams did not complete that work until now," she said..Earlier on Tuesday, the company announced it would close its roughly 70 remaining Amazon-branded grocery stores, Amazon Fresh and Amazon Go, and expand its Whole Foods Market business.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ywzxlxnlo
'Asked at an event in central London this morning whether she would travel to China if she were PM, Badenoch said: "No, not now, because I don’t think that this is the time to do that. We need to be talking to those other countries who are worried about the threat China is posing to them.”
Badenoch also repeated her criticism of the government’s decision to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
Writing in the Telegraph on Tuesday, Badenoch said the decision “will weaken our strategic position in the Indian Ocean and hand Beijing even greater influence near critical British military infrastructure”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4gw427eenpt
Rwanda has filed an international arbitration case, arguing the UK has breached the terms of the deal to send some asylum seekers to the east African nation.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx32yxnvzro
Look at Switzerland for an extreme counter example.
And there are plenty of large and medium sized towns in Britain (all those along the Liverpool to Hull corridor) which are close enough to large cities for both cities and towns to mutually benefit from improved transport infrastructure.
Some support for Barty's mantra of letting people build as the route to success.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/2016467145639493878?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04lnek2d2xo
But they are now going to look at re-opening the Leamside line.
*sucks in breath*
‘Well, it’s not technically broke mate, but false economy not to get it done now. £800 for cash.’
According to the racist they can call themselves British .
There’s a long list of countries not to go with a regular phone and laptop, especially if on business with their government or your own. I’d send people to China with a burner phone and a laptop with nothing but the office VPN on it, which wouldn’t be enabled until they confirmed they had arrived safely, and was wiped before they left to come home.
This attack line is not without creating some problem for the Conservative Party as time passes. I don’t believe at the highest strategic levels the Conservative Party is ignorant of India’s growing Superpower influence in the region, but it’s certainly giving that impression publicly, by only talking of China influence in Indian Ocean not India’s.
And of course, in the wild outlier the Conservatives win the next election on scrapping “Labours” Chagos deal - there’s the huge India in the way glaring down at them.
I've criticised them as much as anyone for completely wasting their first year in government, but credit should be given when they actually do something right.
I do wonder how much of this is having no plan, and how much just having no idea how to govern after so long in opposition ?
That doesn't bode well for the expected Reform government in 2030, still less of it's the Greens.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/13/northern-powerhouse-rail-project-pledge-funds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
It’s the old joke that Donald Trump could announce live that there was now a cure for a serious disease, and there would quickly be groups of people finding reasons to be in favour of the disease.
Presumably if that is the case the gauge is the same on both tracks and I presume the Metro extension is happening rather than being ‘in principle’
Leamside is subject to ‘Value for Money’, whatever that means and how it’s quantified, so I’d expect it won’t happen. But it provided the Mayor with another photo op. She does like them.
"Imagine a country where the government is taken to court for riding roughshod over the law.
The instigator is a ‘tsar’ whose job is to promote transparency – but he’s running out of patience with our political masters.
They’re sitting on secret files relating to the handling of sexual harassment complaints made against a former leader.
The new boss of the regime appears on television to deny he presides over a ‘culture of secrecy and obfuscation’, seemingly with a straight face.
But the same man, while giving vague assurances he’ll ultimately respect the edict to hand over the dossier, is dragging his feet on complying with a separate ruling on gender – handed down by the highest court in the land."
"You would be forgiven for thinking this was a banana republic – but shamefully it’s Scotland in the 21st century, under a Nationalist government which treats voters with brazen contempt.
What makes it all the more remarkable is that John Swinney wants to present himself as a fresh start for Scotland – despite his previous roles as the Minister for Cover-Ups and a ruthless consigliere for both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
Despite his half-hearted denial, the reality is that the endemic secrecy of Mr Swinney’s failing SNP state would make the North Koreans blush.
When it comes to politics Mr Swinney is entirely devoid of integrity and not a word he says can be trusted – not now, and not years ago when he did his bosses’ bidding under the laughable nickname of Honest John."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15499667/GRAHAM-GRANT-Honest-John-endemic-secrecy-failing-SNP-North-Koreans.html?ito=native_share_article-top
I think it would be fair to subject such a claim to more scrutiny than normal.
By some happy coincide they always found extra work that needed to be done while there, for around that sum.
Now the car is out of warranty I take it to a reliable local garage that doesn’t try to shake you down for cash.
The first was an overhaul of the procurement side, which I do not actually believe has reached the army properly yet in sufficient depth, and also basics such as taking service housing back into the public sector.
Another one which is looking positive is a "gap year in the armed forces" scheme (on a small scale), and building on building up the Cadet core structures (though there is more to be done there.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-military-gap-year-scheme-to-begin-with-150-participants/
But everything had been severely gutted. as had the pipeline of experienced staff rising through the forces, so it is a 10 year job to get even partially back on track.
The Prime Minister said it was a “matter for Andy” to decide what to do when his mayoral term ends in May 2028, a year before the next election is due to take place.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/01/28/starmer-allows-burnham-to-stand-at-next-election/
Followed by
“why is there no growth? Why are evil Private Equity outfits only interested in sweating existing assets? Why don’t they build some actual factories.”
I’ve actually heard both of the above expressed, in consecutive sentences, by actual people….
'The Tories “have to be a truly Conservative party”, Badenoch said in her speech, adding she was relaxed if that meant centrists deciding to leave: “I won’t apologise to those walking away because they don’t like the new direction. We only want Conservatives.”
She said: “The people who don’t agree with this direction need to get out of the way … We’re about the future, not the past. We’re not trying to recreate 2006 and it’s not 2016 any more.”
'She said: “To those who are defecting, who don’t actually disagree with our policies, I will say: I’m sorry you didn’t win the leadership contest, sorry you didn’t get into the Lords, but you are not offering a plan to fix this country. This is a tantrum dressed up as politics.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/28/centrist-ideas-no-longer-wanted-in-conservative-party-says-kemi-badenoch
It will link to the extension of the Metro down to Washington which has already been funded by the Mayors office.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/army-withdraws-ajax-ioc-after-ministers-misled/
Speaking to the Defence Committee, Defence Secretary John Healey said ministers had not been given the full facts ahead of earlier decisions, describing the situation as a serious failure of transparency within the programme.
“So Luke Pollard, Minister for DRI updated the House quite properly last week. I am furious that vital information was withheld. It’s clear we didn’t have the full facts in the lead up to decisions about the initial operating capability. That IOC has been withdrawn. The Army is no longer in charge of this programme. A new senior responsible officer is now in place. I have been clear that we must back it or scrap it.
The work is being done at the moment in order to put us in a position to make that decision. And whilst I really want to see the way that we procure for the future being more innovative and more rapid, first and foremost will be my concern for the safety and protection of our forces personnel.”
Initial Operating Capability is normally a one way milestone in defence procurement. Once declared, it signifies that a platform is safe, usable and capable of limited operational employment. It is exceptionally rare for IOC to be withdrawn after being granted, as doing so effectively acknowledges that earlier assurances to ministers and Parliament were unsound (lies).
In the case of Ajax, the decision reflects the depth of unresolved safety concerns. Long standing problems involving vibration and noise have affected soldiers during trials, with reports of physical symptoms linked to prolonged exposure. Despite multiple rounds of modification and testing, the issues have not been conclusively resolved, raising doubts over whether they stem from integration problems or more fundamental design limitations..
https://news.sky.com/story/archbishop-of-canterbury-latest-sarah-mullally-to-become-first-ever-woman-to-lead-church-in-500-years-as-she-promises-calm-and-consistency-13499951
Historically, since we got into this in 1960’s, it’s been US writing the order sheet what we must do, UK owning the ethnic cleansing and everything - what’s different with this new deal, India have muscled their way into the room, in a show of their growing superpower influence in the region. When it comes to our continued involvement in Chagos and Garcia, UK now has Two Gov’nors in the room, bossing us around.
It helps Conservative Party to get publicly back on the facts before too long. But I guess that’s what changing leaders is for.
I’ve had the same problem with the Leamside line for years, you may want to use it but it isn’t possible to use it as a fix for all problems in the North East it’s really only a one off fix.