Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
There are 5000 plus seats up, that site hasnt worked that out, nor how to model multi member wards. And obviousky if Reform win by a large margin on NEV they will win on wards, i was referrimg to a closer result like Ashcroft or YouGov https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 theres another fag packet projection showing a different outcome
Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
Reform will get their vote out in locals that's assured
Other parties will get their votes out in some areas not others.
The one thing that suits Farage is a low turn out and now organised tactical voting.
It's easy in a by election.
When there are 5000 votes taking place a lot harder.
Like it or not, their core is highly motivated. It also needs less prodding to vote.
Is it my imagination or my age but has the nice taste gone from Kellogs cornflakes. I don't think they are worth buying with the bland taste they now seem to have.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
Hold on, Bart. Genocide is defined in international law. It was a concept invented for international law. But you don’t believe international law exists
That is not the case, I have never said it does not exist, I have always said that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules - and where possible we should respect the guidelines but we should not be treating them as immutable rules that have to be followed.
The meaning of the word has always been an attempt to wipe out a population. Twisting it to mean anything else, belittles and devalues the meaning of the word.
So, if these aren’t immutable rules that have to be followed, that means that genocide is OK sometimes? I mean, I recall you were actively advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza for a while, before thankfully stepping back from that position.
It is absolutely worth keeping a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing. I can not imagine the former ever being acceptable, but for moral rather than legal reasons. The latter might sometimes be, though it is certainly not ideal.
What I actually said is if there is no other viable route to peace then it might be the least-worst option, and one well-trodden in the past century without outrage including just a couple of years ago (thankfully without much violence) as discussed earlier in this conversation.
Rounding people up, digging trenches, and shooting them in the back of the head - I can not see any circumstances where that is acceptable. Because of morals. Peacefully seeing transfers of people when borders change - that might have a place.
You are so keen to support peace that you would consider removing a whole population from a region to achieve it. Yet you are so keen for war that every US or Israeli bombing mission is worth it for a minuscule chance that it might lead to a positive change. Some would see you as a man full of contradictions, but I think that would be unfair. There is a common thread here: no sympathy for the civilians affected. If Gazans or Iranians have to suffer for your goals, so be it.
At the moment, Barty is very hard to distinguish from the neocons who backed the Iraq adventure a couple of decades back.
I have, truth be told, some sympathy for an interventionist foreign policy stance. I supported the idea of bombing Syria in 2013. I support more support for Ukraine. Call me a neocon too! But I think we should promote the ideal of international law, not ignore it. I think we should act multilaterally, not unilaterally. And I think we need to recognise the consequences of our actions. The US and Israel's ill thought out attacks on Iran, motivated largely by Netanyahu's and Trump's personal concerns, are not the way to do it.
Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
There are 5000 plus seats up, that site hasnt worked that out, nor how to model multi member wards. And obviousky if Reform win by a large margin on NEV they will win on wards, i was referrimg to a closer result like Ashcroft or YouGov https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 theres another fag packet projection showing a different outcome
Labour won’t be getting away with just losing 30% of the seats they are defending.
Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
Reform will get their vote out in locals that's assured
Other parties will get their votes out in some areas not others.
The one thing that suits Farage is a low turn out and now organised tactical voting.
It's easy in a by election.
When there are 5000 votes taking place a lot harder.
Like it or not, their core is highly motivated. It also needs less prodding to vote.
Reform don't have the years of canvassing data to 'get their vote out' , theyve no idea where there vote is. If it turns out, it will be largely organic
Is it still fair to assume some proportion of the Green vote goes back to Labour or is that vote now locked in?
Has anyone asked the switchers what they think of the Green policies?
2029 is shaping up to be tactical voting heaven. Currently the losers look like the Tories. If you are pro-Reform you vote Reform, if anti-Reform you don't vote for the only party who might help them govern. The Tories need to sort this in good time.
Wrong, in the 121 seats with Tory MPs in almost all of them if you don't vote Tory you get a Reform MP. Though admittedly a Cleverly led Tory party would likely get more Labour and LD tactical votes to beat Reform than the current Kemi led Tories will
Thats the massive moot point.
Kemi inches right right right every day.
She's reducing her top line by doing so.
Cleverly would retain more and gain some, what he would also do with his far more personable style is attract tactical votes.
Is it my imagination or my age but has the nice taste gone from Kellogs cornflakes. I don't think they are worth buying with the bland taste they now seem to have.
Is it my imagination or my age but has the nice taste gone from Kellogs cornflakes. I don't think they are worth buying with the bland taste they now seem to have.
I prefer the cheap ones from Lidl. 89p for a big box.
Someone thinks the US will lose this war with Iran. Not particularly revelatory in itself but watched by 3.5 million which suggests a lot of Americans are rooting for this result. I also like the presenter Crystal Ball.
(And as Tommy Docherty once said when asked if United could win the double. "To answer that I'd need crystal balls')
An independent commentator on LBC called Penny Mordant was very scathing of Starmer's failure to fully support the US and Israel and not put assets in the Gulf in anticipation of Bibi's widely anticipated war. She says he is pandering to his back benchers rather than considering the needs of the nation.
So another potential leader bites the dust. The Tories were more gung-ho over Iraq then Blair then when it went pear shaped (as this one will) they were nowhere to be seen.
I know we've all laughed at the Russian navy over the last few years but the travails of getting a single boat out to RAF Akrotiri look like a real embarrassment to a nation that once had the world's greatest navy.
Is it my imagination or my age but has the nice taste gone from Kellogs cornflakes. I don't think they are worth buying with the bland taste they now seem to have.
Your Pulitzer is in the post.
It is quite magnificent in its way. PB is never far from Pooter, possibly one of its redeeming features.
Is it my imagination or my age but has the nice taste gone from Kellogs cornflakes. I don't think they are worth buying with the bland taste they now seem to have.
Is it still fair to assume some proportion of the Green vote goes back to Labour or is that vote now locked in?
Has anyone asked the switchers what they think of the Green policies?
2029 is shaping up to be tactical voting heaven. Currently the losers look like the Tories. If you are pro-Reform you vote Reform, if anti-Reform you don't vote for the only party who might help them govern. The Tories need to sort this in good time.
If youre an under 30 centre left voter in a seat where con Ref is threatening a sitting Labour MP and the choice is a government led by Farage with Kemi anywhere on the front bench, who are you going to vote for.
The centre left party with the best chance of winning and unless the incumbent is an absolute ass hole you would generally see incumbent factor as a big positive
I cannot see Labour not being largest Party on that basis.
Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
There are 5000 plus seats up, that site hasnt worked that out, nor how to model multi member wards. And obviousky if Reform win by a large margin on NEV they will win on wards, i was referrimg to a closer result like Ashcroft or YouGov https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 theres another fag packet projection showing a different outcome
The pollcheck projection though is over optimistic for Labour, gives them 1582 council seats to just 916 for Reform, 860 for the LDs and 735 for the Tories and 417 for the Greens
You didn't hear this from me but I am hearing that the insurers have been contacted about postponing/cancelling the Bahrain and Saudi Arabia Grands Prix.
Also discussions about the Baku, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi, although we'll have much bigger problems if this special military operation is still continuing in December.
Given the tightness of the calendar, if these races are postponedd, then they won't happen at all.
They probably only have a couple of weeks before they need to make the decision on Bahrain and Saudi, although Jeddah is at the moment not affected by the disruption.
Rumours on F1 forums are that Southern European circuits such as Imola and Portimao could take the dates if required.
Apple new 27-inch monitor, $3.3k.....WTF. They are throwing in the stand for free though....how generous.
The remarkable thing is that other prices haven’t changed once to factor in the spec upgrades up (air now has minimum 512gb storage, pro has 1tb, max has 2tb).
And Mac Mini still remains best bang for buck for an every day computer. But $3.3k for what I presume is just an LG panel (pretty sure last time they were) in a metal housing.
Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
There are 5000 plus seats up, that site hasnt worked that out, nor how to model multi member wards. And obviousky if Reform win by a large margin on NEV they will win on wards, i was referrimg to a closer result like Ashcroft or YouGov https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 theres another fag packet projection showing a different outcome
Labour won’t be getting away with just losing 30% of the seats they are defending.
I agree. But they could lose half and still win most seats on the night. If they go more than 50% loss then all the others will be gaining in spades from them, even the Tories (ameliorating losses elsewhere a little)
Is it my imagination or my age but has the nice taste gone from Kellogs cornflakes. I don't think they are worth buying with the bland taste they now seem to have.
They've removed the cocaine and the radium, political correctness gone mad.
I know we've all laughed at the Russian navy over the last few years but the travails of getting a single boat out to RAF Akrotiri look like a real embarrassment to a nation that once had the world's greatest navy.
The prime role for the British military now seems to be parading around for tourists and royal occasions.
Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
There are 5000 plus seats up, that site hasnt worked that out, nor how to model multi member wards. And obviousky if Reform win by a large margin on NEV they will win on wards, i was referrimg to a closer result like Ashcroft or YouGov https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 theres another fag packet projection showing a different outcome
Labour won’t be getting away with just losing 30% of the seats they are defending.
Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
There are 5000 plus seats up, that site hasnt worked that out, nor how to model multi member wards. And obviousky if Reform win by a large margin on NEV they will win on wards, i was referrimg to a closer result like Ashcroft or YouGov https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 theres another fag packet projection showing a different outcome
Labour won’t be getting away with just losing 30% of the seats they are defending.
I think that an unusually small number of council byelections have been successfuly defended in the last year, something like 40%. Thr churn of councillors for all parties could well be huge in May.
Apple new 27-inch monitor, $3.3k.....WTF. They are throwing in the stand for free though....how generous.
The remarkable thing is that other prices haven’t changed once to factor in the spec upgrades up (air now has minimum 512gb storage, pro has 1tb, max has 2tb).
And Mac Mini still remains best bang for buck for an every day computer. But $3.3k for what I presume is just an LG panel (pretty sure last time they were) in a metal housing.
Isn’t the Apple monitor a pro-grade calibrated jobbie for stuff like film production, as opposed to an epically-overpriced LG competitor? No-one’s paying three grand extra just for the logo.
Apple new 27-inch monitor, $3.3k.....WTF. They are throwing in the stand for free though....how generous.
The remarkable thing is that other prices haven’t changed once to factor in the spec upgrades up (air now has minimum 512gb storage, pro has 1tb, max has 2tb).
And Mac Mini still remains best bang for buck for an every day computer. But $3.3k for what I presume is just an LG panel (pretty sure last time they were) in a metal housing.
Oh it’s blooming expensive but I think it’s the only game in town if you need those specs (5k, calibration and 120hz refresh)
Is it my imagination or my age but has the nice taste gone from Kellogs cornflakes. I don't think they are worth buying with the bland taste they now seem to have.
It is not just Iran that is being run by religious fanatics with a cult of martyrdom.
Vance is Roman Catholic as is Rubio, Trump was raised Presbyterian though describes himself now as a nondenominational conservative evangelical
US military commanders have been invoking extremist Christian rhetoric about biblical “end times” to justify involvement in the Iran war to troops, according to complaints made to a watchdog group. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) says it has received more than 200 complaints from service members across all branches of the armed forces, including the marines, air force and space force.
One complainant, identified as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in a unit that could be deployed “at any moment to join” operations against Iran, told MRFF in a complaint viewed by the Guardian that their commander had “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ”.
“He said that ‘President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth’”, the NCO added.
That inspires great confidence.
At least there's a plan for what comes after.....? !
Apple new 27-inch monitor, $3.3k.....WTF. They are throwing in the stand for free though....how generous.
The remarkable thing is that other prices haven’t changed once to factor in the spec upgrades up (air now has minimum 512gb storage, pro has 1tb, max has 2tb).
And Mac Mini still remains best bang for buck for an every day computer. But $3.3k for what I presume is just an LG panel (pretty sure last time they were) in a metal housing.
Isn’t the Apple monitor a pro-grade calibrated jobbie for stuff like film production, as opposed to an epically-overpriced LG competitor? No-one’s paying three grand extra just for the logo.
Imaging the cost of kitting out the BBC with them - 15 monitors per desk:
Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
There are 5000 plus seats up, that site hasnt worked that out, nor how to model multi member wards. And obviousky if Reform win by a large margin on NEV they will win on wards, i was referrimg to a closer result like Ashcroft or YouGov https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 theres another fag packet projection showing a different outcome
The pollcheck projection though is over optimistic for Labour, gives them 1582 council seats to just 916 for Reform, 860 for the LDs and 735 for the Tories and 417 for the Greens
Its no more or less 'accurate' than Britain Votes, they are projections, not things that have happened. I made a point, that Reform 'could' win on NEV but lose on most wards won. Thats just a fact, they 'could' (especially if they win by a small margin) - being ahead on NEV but facing votes in areas of relative strength for others is hard to model out. A projection showing they 'might not' isnt evidence of anything. Im already aware other outcomes are possible or even probable
I know we've all laughed at the Russian navy over the last few years but the travails of getting a single boat out to RAF Akrotiri look like a real embarrassment to a nation that once had the world's greatest navy.
The prime role for the British military now seems to be parading around for tourists and royal occasions.
At the beginning of the War in Ukraine Brett Devereaux observed that the function of the Russian Army had been primarily for internal security and corruption and therefore ill equipped to actually fight a war. He noted that there a few armed forces actually built to fight a war; the US, who's global national interests require it, South Korea, which faces an obvious and direct threat and, ditto, Israel. Devereaux finished by stating that the Russian Army was unlikely to be the only paper tiger in the jungle.
On topic. Given all this bad news for Reform, is it not quite impressive that they got 28.7% of the vote? It had occurred to me that some of the Tory vote may have gone to Labour. If so, that's an even more impressive share of the vote for Reform. And, this is in an ultra-safe Labour seat.
Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
There are 5000 plus seats up, that site hasnt worked that out, nor how to model multi member wards. And obviousky if Reform win by a large margin on NEV they will win on wards, i was referrimg to a closer result like Ashcroft or YouGov https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 theres another fag packet projection showing a different outcome
The pollcheck projection though is over optimistic for Labour, gives them 1582 council seats to just 916 for Reform, 860 for the LDs and 735 for the Tories and 417 for the Greens
Its no more or less 'accurate' than Britain Votes, they are projections, not things that have happened. I made a point, that Reform 'could' win on NEV but lose on most wards won. Thats just a fact, they 'could' (especially if they win by a small margin) - being ahead on NEV but facing votes in areas of relative strength for others is hard to model out. A projection showing they 'might not' isnt evidence of anything. Im already aware other outcomes are possible or even probable
We will see in May but I expect the Britain Votes projection of Reform winning 400 more council ward seats than Labour in May is more likely to be accurate than the pollcheck projection of Labour winning 600 more council ward seats than Reform. Even if Labour likely still win comfortably more seats than Reform in London Reform will certainly win more council seats than Labour in the rest of England especially as Reform are even projected to win more Senedd members and Holyrood MSPs than Labour in most polls too
Yet, despite it all, Reform are polling well ahead of the Conservatives and Labour. The real danger for the Conservatives is that they come to be seen as a wasted vote for right of centre voters. If Reform poll well ahead of them in May, that perception will grow. People don’t vote for losers.
This Mays results will not look anything like as dominant as last Mays for Reform or anything like as bad for the Tories. Reform could 'win' NEV and yet be behind Labour and possibly even the Tories on wards won just because of where the votes are happening this year. And, unlike last year, Reform are declining not advancing. The pull to turnout for the great new hope is less and the maindtrea, parties voters know theyll need to if they want to stop reform.
Not really showing on the new Britain Votes Now local elections projection for May which has Reform winning 1069 council wards in May, Labour 696, the LDs 488, the Tories 394 and the Greens 180 and Independents 124 https://britain.votes.now/local-elections/may-26
There are 5000 plus seats up, that site hasnt worked that out, nor how to model multi member wards. And obviousky if Reform win by a large margin on NEV they will win on wards, i was referrimg to a closer result like Ashcroft or YouGov https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 theres another fag packet projection showing a different outcome
The pollcheck projection though is over optimistic for Labour, gives them 1582 council seats to just 916 for Reform, 860 for the LDs and 735 for the Tories and 417 for the Greens
Its no more or less 'accurate' than Britain Votes, they are projections, not things that have happened. I made a point, that Reform 'could' win on NEV but lose on most wards won. Thats just a fact, they 'could' (especially if they win by a small margin) - being ahead on NEV but facing votes in areas of relative strength for others is hard to model out. A projection showing they 'might not' isnt evidence of anything. Im already aware other outcomes are possible or even probable
We will see in May but I expect the Britain Votes projection of Reform winning 400 more council ward seats than Labour in May is more likely to be accurate than the pollcheck projection of Labour winning 600 more council ward seats than Reform. Even if Labour likely still win comfortably more seats than Reform in London Reform will certainly win more council seats than Labour in the rest of England especially as Reform are even projected to win more Senedd members and Holyrood MSPs than Labour in most polls too
I completely agree on Holyrood and Senedd Reform may well win most wards overall too. Or they may not. They probably need to be 6 or 7 points ahead in the NEV to do so though given how far ahead Labour start in the northern and midland areas up
Apple new 27-inch monitor, $3.3k.....WTF. They are throwing in the stand for free though....how generous.
The remarkable thing is that other prices haven’t changed once to factor in the spec upgrades up (air now has minimum 512gb storage, pro has 1tb, max has 2tb).
And Mac Mini still remains best bang for buck for an every day computer. But $3.3k for what I presume is just an LG panel (pretty sure last time they were) in a metal housing.
Isn’t the Apple monitor a pro-grade calibrated jobbie for stuff like film production, as opposed to an epically-overpriced LG competitor? No-one’s paying three grand extra just for the logo.
Imaging the cost of kitting out the BBC with them - 15 monitors per desk:
Experts issued some pretty dire warnings about Trumpian tariffs and Brexit, and the result was not nearly as bad as it could have been.
Now they're issuing dire warnings about Iran.
A much smarter friend asked me how I was thinking about the difference.
My short answer: control.
Both escalation and de-escalation are now not entirely within US control and there are other actors, with genuine agency.
This is not a genie you can necessarily stuff back into the bottle, and the time for more sensible implementation was before you went all LE EPIC MEMELORD FURY PEW PEW.
You didn't hear this from me but I am hearing that the insurers have been contacted about postponing/cancelling the Bahrain and Saudi Arabia Grands Prix.
Also discussions about the Baku, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi, although we'll have much bigger problems if this special military operation is still continuing in December.
Given the tightness of the calendar, if these races are postponedd, then they won't happen at all.
They probably only have a couple of weeks before they need to make the decision on Bahrain and Saudi, although Jeddah is at the moment not affected by the disruption.
Rumours on F1 forums are that Southern European circuits such as Imola and Portimao could take the dates if required.
Turkey's slated for a return next year, and as a potential substitute if Madrid isn't ready, so Istanbul could be another possibility.
We should all take a moment to give our thoughts and prayers to people who are names at Lloyd’s of London.
There are very, very few names at Lloyd’s now. And no longer unlimited liability. It is now, overwhelming, corporate capital.
Any marine losses would be minimal in comparison to a windy season, most property is excluded is excluded in war and Lloyds cannot write direct anywhere in the middle East anyway. Well - Israel - but war excluded.
Is it my imagination or my age but has the nice taste gone from Kellogs cornflakes. I don't think they are worth buying with the bland taste they now seem to have.
I seem to remember Govt reduced the amount of sugar cereals can have. It's to make us less fat. We used to complain about the nanny state. Now we just accept it. Bad us.
‘ Qatalum of Qatar, supplier of 9% of global aluminium supply, has initiated a controlled shutdown aluminium production due to the gas production shutdown. The smelter will take six to twelve MONTHS to fully restart.
Did anybody think of this before pulling the trigger on war?’
I know we've all laughed at the Russian navy over the last few years but the travails of getting a single boat out to RAF Akrotiri look like a real embarrassment to a nation that once had the world's greatest navy.
The prime role for the British military now seems to be parading around for tourists and royal occasions.
The UK navy can't position a battleship for every time a rogue state might blow up. I'm referring of course to the United States. You would also need to cover Venezuela, Greenland and Spain ...
Experts issued some pretty dire warnings about Trumpian tariffs and Brexit, and the result was not nearly as bad as it could have been.
Now they're issuing dire warnings about Iran.
A much smarter friend asked me how I was thinking about the difference.
My short answer: control.
Both escalation and de-escalation are now not entirely within US control and there are other actors, with genuine agency.
This is not a genie you can necessarily stuff back into the bottle, and the time for more sensible implementation was before you went all LE EPIC MEMELORD FURY PEW PEW.
‘ Qatalum of Qatar, supplier of 9% of global aluminium supply, has initiated a controlled shutdown aluminium production due to the gas production shutdown. The smelter will take six to twelve MONTHS to fully restart.
Did anybody think of this before pulling the trigger on war?’
REFORM: Sir Robin Wales, Labour mayor of Newham from 2002 to 2018, will become Reform's London director of local government.
Wales' close aide Clive Furness will be Reform's mayoral candidate in Newham.
I seemed to remember they quit Labour a few months ago and penned a joint open letter about how bad Labour was. But as they are nobodies, nobody noticed.
They surely can't be the individuals Farage was bigging up for weeks saying coming next week big Labour name.....well its Farage, so yes it could be. But still feels like somebody got cold feet, a Kate Hoey type.
Experts issued some pretty dire warnings about Trumpian tariffs and Brexit, and the result was not nearly as bad as it could have been.
Now they're issuing dire warnings about Iran.
A much smarter friend asked me how I was thinking about the difference.
My short answer: control.
Both escalation and de-escalation are now not entirely within US control and there are other actors, with genuine agency.
This is not a genie you can necessarily stuff back into the bottle, and the time for more sensible implementation was before you went all LE EPIC MEMELORD FURY PEW PEW.
Both escalation and de-escalation are now not entirely within US control and there are other actors, with genuine agency.
Which has always been the case.
October 2023 was not in US control for example.
One thing that has changed is that Iran's ability to escalate things is much reduced and another is that the ability of Iran's leadership to escalate is even more reduced as they are dead.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
I know we've all laughed at the Russian navy over the last few years but the travails of getting a single boat out to RAF Akrotiri look like a real embarrassment to a nation that once had the world's greatest navy.
The prime role for the British military now seems to be parading around for tourists and royal occasions.
At the beginning of the War in Ukraine Brett Devereaux observed that the function of the Russian Army had been primarily for internal security and corruption and therefore ill equipped to actually fight a war. He noted that there a few armed forces actually built to fight a war; the US, who's global national interests require it, South Korea, which faces an obvious and direct threat and, ditto, Israel. Devereaux finished by stating that the Russian Army was unlikely to be the only paper tiger in the jungle.
I thought it odd when last year's US army parade was mocked for being so dismal.
It should have been reassuring that they hadn't been wasting time preparing it.
On topic. Given all this bad news for Reform, is it not quite impressive that they got 28.7% of the vote? It had occurred to me that some of the Tory vote may have gone to Labour. If so, that's an even more impressive share of the vote for Reform. And, this is in an ultra-safe Labour seat.
They got spot on average in 2024 so they performed in line with polling. In a by election versus a very very unpopular government performing 'at polling' when you are aiming to become the government is a big undershoot. Does not suggest any appeal outside current polling and major concerns at trying to drive turnout in all 632 seats at a GE as opposed to a one off turkey shoot
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
REFORM: Sir Robin Wales, Labour mayor of Newham from 2002 to 2018, will become Reform's London director of local government.
Wales' close aide Clive Furness will be Reform's mayoral candidate in Newham.
I seemed to remember they quit Labour a few months ago and penned a joint open letter about how bad Labour was. But as they are nobodies, nobody noticed.
They surely can't be the individuals Farage was bigging up for weeks saying coming next week big Labour name.....well its Farage, so yes it could be. But still feels like somebody got cold feet, a Kate Hoey type.
We are three press conferences from Farage unveiling my postman as the next big defection
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
Personally, I am fairly sure I am going to be ordering his big boy.....waiting for Mrs U to go on a work trip so I can smuggle it in the house without getting in the neck.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
The problem Labour has is they’ve now been in power 20 months and we’ve seen no change and no change is in sight.
And no plan for change, which for me is the big one. Thatcher had a vision and a plan. It was horrible at the time and many suffered and then plan probably could have been implemented with more care, but it was a plan and in the end it worked. There is NO sense that Labour have any clue how to get to the end state, nor what they want that end state to be.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
REFORM: Sir Robin Wales, Labour mayor of Newham from 2002 to 2018, will become Reform's London director of local government.
Wales' close aide Clive Furness will be Reform's mayoral candidate in Newham.
I seemed to remember they quit Labour a few months ago and penned a joint open letter about how bad Labour was. But as they are nobodies, nobody noticed.
They surely can't be the individuals Farage was bigging up for weeks saying coming next week big Labour name.....well its Farage, so yes it could be. But still feels like somebody got cold feet, a Kate Hoey type.
We are three press conferences from Farage unveiling my postman as the next big defection
Someone thinks the US will lose this war with Iran. Not particularly revelatory in itself but watched by 3.5 million which suggests a lot of Americans are rooting for this result. I also like the presenter Crystal Ball.
(And as Tommy Docherty once said when asked if United could win the double. "To answer that I'd need crystal balls')
An independent commentator on LBC called Penny Mordant was very scathing of Starmer's failure to fully support the US and Israel and not put assets in the Gulf in anticipation of Bibi's widely anticipated war. She says he is pandering to his back benchers rather than considering the needs of the nation.
So another potential leader bites the dust. The Tories were more gung-ho over Iraq then Blair then when it went pear shaped (as this one will) they were nowhere to be seen.
REFORM: Sir Robin Wales, Labour mayor of Newham from 2002 to 2018, will become Reform's London director of local government.
Wales' close aide Clive Furness will be Reform's mayoral candidate in Newham.
I seemed to remember they quit Labour a few months ago and penned a joint open letter about how bad Labour was. But as they are nobodies, nobody noticed.
They surely can't be the individuals Farage was bigging up for weeks saying coming next week big Labour name.....well its Farage, so yes it could be. But still feels like somebody got cold feet, a Kate Hoey type.
We are three press conferences from Farage unveiling my postman as the next big defection
Might improve the delivery.
Only one who's performance improves by being given the sack
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
A reminder of how Miliband spent his time as an MP:
On 21 December 2010, the Office of David Miliband Limited was formed with Miliband and his wife Louise as directors.
According to the Financial Times, "much of Mr Miliband's time has been spent on his lucrative directorships and speaking roles, which he would be expected to give up if he returned to frontline politics…as of January 2013, David Miliband has made just short of £1m on top of his MP's salary since he failed to win the Labour leadership in the summer of 2010."
According to a March 2013 article in HuffPost, Miliband had earned almost £1m since the 2010 election. The article listed sources of income from speaking (where he had earned up to £20,000 per event), advisory and teaching roles, journalism, gifts, hospitality and overseas visits.
Miliband is one of six members of the Global Advisory Board of Macro Advisory Partners, which advises multinational corporations, sovereign wealth funds, investors and governments.
In January 2012, David Miliband joined the Board of Directors of Mauritius-based private equity group, Indus Basin Holdings. IBH operates Rice Partners in the Punjab region of Pakistan which specialises in managing the end-to-end supply chain for major global users of rice.
According to the Financial Times, "Mr Miliband's jobs include advisory roles with VantagePoint Capital Partners, a Californian group; Oxford Analytica, a UK advisory company; and Indus Basin Holdings, a Pakistani agrochemical group. He is also a member of the advisory board to the Sir Bani Yas academic forum, which is hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates. Despite supporting Arsenal, Mr Miliband was vice-chairman and a non-executive director of Sunderland from 2011 until 2013. As a speaker he commands a fee of up to £20,000."
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
A reminder of how Miliband spent his time as an MP:
On 21 December 2010, the Office of David Miliband Limited was formed with Miliband and his wife Louise as directors.
According to the Financial Times, "much of Mr Miliband's time has been spent on his lucrative directorships and speaking roles, which he would be expected to give up if he returned to frontline politics…as of January 2013, David Miliband has made just short of £1m on top of his MP's salary since he failed to win the Labour leadership in the summer of 2010."
According to a March 2013 article in HuffPost, Miliband had earned almost £1m since the 2010 election. The article listed sources of income from speaking (where he had earned up to £20,000 per event), advisory and teaching roles, journalism, gifts, hospitality and overseas visits.
Miliband is one of six members of the Global Advisory Board of Macro Advisory Partners, which advises multinational corporations, sovereign wealth funds, investors and governments.
In January 2012, David Miliband joined the Board of Directors of Mauritius-based private equity group, Indus Basin Holdings. IBH operates Rice Partners in the Punjab region of Pakistan which specialises in managing the end-to-end supply chain for major global users of rice.
According to the Financial Times, "Mr Miliband's jobs include advisory roles with VantagePoint Capital Partners, a Californian group; Oxford Analytica, a UK advisory company; and Indus Basin Holdings, a Pakistani agrochemical group. He is also a member of the advisory board to the Sir Bani Yas academic forum, which is hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates. Despite supporting Arsenal, Mr Miliband was vice-chairman and a non-executive director of Sunderland from 2011 until 2013. As a speaker he commands a fee of up to £20,000."
Ask not what you can do for South Shields, ask what South Shields can do for you.
Their current MP may not be as bright as Miliband, or have had the career he has had, but at least she cares for the area and its people and it’s not just a stepping stone.
It is not just Iran that is being run by religious fanatics with a cult of martyrdom.
Vance is Roman Catholic as is Rubio, Trump was raised Presbyterian though describes himself now as a nondenominational conservative evangelical
US military commanders have been invoking extremist Christian rhetoric about biblical “end times” to justify involvement in the Iran war to troops, according to complaints made to a watchdog group. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) says it has received more than 200 complaints from service members across all branches of the armed forces, including the marines, air force and space force.
One complainant, identified as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in a unit that could be deployed “at any moment to join” operations against Iran, told MRFF in a complaint viewed by the Guardian that their commander had “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ”.
“He said that ‘President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth’”, the NCO added.
It is not just Iran that is being run by religious fanatics with a cult of martyrdom.
Vance is Roman Catholic as is Rubio, Trump was raised Presbyterian though describes himself now as a nondenominational conservative evangelical
US military commanders have been invoking extremist Christian rhetoric about biblical “end times” to justify involvement in the Iran war to troops, according to complaints made to a watchdog group. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) says it has received more than 200 complaints from service members across all branches of the armed forces, including the marines, air force and space force.
One complainant, identified as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in a unit that could be deployed “at any moment to join” operations against Iran, told MRFF in a complaint viewed by the Guardian that their commander had “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ”.
“He said that ‘President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth’”, the NCO added.
That inspires great confidence.
To be fair Jesus himself picked one wrong 'un to be a disciple.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
Hold on, Bart. Genocide is defined in international law. It was a concept invented for international law. But you don’t believe international law exists
That is not the case, I have never said it does not exist, I have always said that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules - and where possible we should respect the guidelines but we should not be treating them as immutable rules that have to be followed.
The meaning of the word has always been an attempt to wipe out a population. Twisting it to mean anything else, belittles and devalues the meaning of the word.
So, if these aren’t immutable rules that have to be followed, that means that genocide is OK sometimes? I mean, I recall you were actively advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza for a while, before thankfully stepping back from that position.
It is absolutely worth keeping a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing. I can not imagine the former ever being acceptable, but for moral rather than legal reasons. The latter might sometimes be, though it is certainly not ideal.
What I actually said is if there is no other viable route to peace then it might be the least-worst option, and one well-trodden in the past century without outrage including just a couple of years ago (thankfully without much violence) as discussed earlier in this conversation.
Rounding people up, digging trenches, and shooting them in the back of the head - I can not see any circumstances where that is acceptable. Because of morals. Peacefully seeing transfers of people when borders change - that might have a place.
You are so keen to support peace that you would consider removing a whole population from a region to achieve it. Yet you are so keen for war that every US or Israeli bombing mission is worth it for a minuscule chance that it might lead to a positive change. Some would see you as a man full of contradictions, but I think that would be unfair. There is a common thread here: no sympathy for the civilians affected. If Gazans or Iranians have to suffer for your goals, so be it.
At the moment, Barty is very hard to distinguish from the neocons who backed the Iraq adventure a couple of decades back.
I have, truth be told, some sympathy for an interventionist foreign policy stance. I supported the idea of bombing Syria in 2013. I support more support for Ukraine. Call me a neocon too! But I think we should promote the ideal of international law, not ignore it. I think we should act multilaterally, not unilaterally. And I think we need to recognise the consequences of our actions. The US and Israel's ill thought out attacks on Iran, motivated largely by Netanyahu's and Trump's personal concerns, are not the way to do it.
To be clear, I am not against all interventionist foreign policy, and there is probably a good argument to make for intervention in Iran, given their malign regime, and in particular the recent mass killings. That argument has not been made.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
The problem Labour has is they’ve now been in power 20 months and we’ve seen no change and no change is in sight.
We’ve had a few relaunches too. People aren’t listening anymore.
It’s just continuity Sunak.
Sunak seemed more able (though not doing the right things) - you couldn’t imagine him giving a speech whinging about how The Blob was stopping him doing stuff.
On topic. Given all this bad news for Reform, is it not quite impressive that they got 28.7% of the vote? It had occurred to me that some of the Tory vote may have gone to Labour. If so, that's an even more impressive share of the vote for Reform. And, this is in an ultra-safe Labour seat.
They got spot on average in 2024 so they performed in line with polling. In a by election versus a very very unpopular government performing 'at polling' when you are aiming to become the government is a big undershoot. Does not suggest any appeal outside current polling and major concerns at trying to drive turnout in all 632 seats at a GE as opposed to a one off turkey shoot
On that last point, I'd see Reform as the opposite to the Lib Dems (and maybe the Greens, though they're different again). Whereas the Lib Dems blow everyone out of the water at by-elections because they're an easy party to vote for to kick the government, Reform are very much the opposite.
So, I don't think Reform need to worry too much that the voters of Gorton and Denton didn't decide to vote Reform to give Labour a kicking (also, if this by-election had come up in 2008, the Tories wouldn't have stormed to victory, so I'm not sure why Reform were expected to).
Apple new 27-inch monitor, $3.3k.....WTF. They are throwing in the stand for free though....how generous.
The remarkable thing is that other prices haven’t changed once to factor in the spec upgrades up (air now has minimum 512gb storage, pro has 1tb, max has 2tb).
What's going on here? My 27" monitor was about £270 a number of years ago.
Apple new 27-inch monitor, $3.3k.....WTF. They are throwing in the stand for free though....how generous.
The remarkable thing is that other prices haven’t changed once to factor in the spec upgrades up (air now has minimum 512gb storage, pro has 1tb, max has 2tb).
What's going on here? My 27" monitor was about £270 a number of years ago.
It is very high res / very high contrast / high refresh rate, but there are LG monitors with very similar specs for about 1/2 the price i.e. still a lot more than £300. Factory calibration is something some people will pay extra for, but I bet inside it is still an LG panel. And for all the claims for pros, the gear the professional movie / tv people use for stuff like colour grading is a totally different beast.
I paid ~£1300 for my current 5k / 120hz display. There is a big difference between those kind of monitors and the £300 ones.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
The problem Labour has is they’ve now been in power 20 months and we’ve seen no change and no change is in sight.
And no plan for change, which for me is the big one. Thatcher had a vision and a plan. It was horrible at the time and many suffered and then plan probably could have been implemented with more care, but it was a plan and in the end it worked. There is NO sense that Labour have any clue how to get to the end state, nor what they want that end state to be.
Taking of end states. Remember when Trump was laughed at for asking what victory in Afghanistan would look like?
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
Hold on, Bart. Genocide is defined in international law. It was a concept invented for international law. But you don’t believe international law exists
That is not the case, I have never said it does not exist, I have always said that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules - and where possible we should respect the guidelines but we should not be treating them as immutable rules that have to be followed.
The meaning of the word has always been an attempt to wipe out a population. Twisting it to mean anything else, belittles and devalues the meaning of the word.
So, if these aren’t immutable rules that have to be followed, that means that genocide is OK sometimes? I mean, I recall you were actively advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza for a while, before thankfully stepping back from that position.
It is absolutely worth keeping a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing. I can not imagine the former ever being acceptable, but for moral rather than legal reasons. The latter might sometimes be, though it is certainly not ideal.
What I actually said is if there is no other viable route to peace then it might be the least-worst option, and one well-trodden in the past century without outrage including just a couple of years ago (thankfully without much violence) as discussed earlier in this conversation.
Rounding people up, digging trenches, and shooting them in the back of the head - I can not see any circumstances where that is acceptable. Because of morals. Peacefully seeing transfers of people when borders change - that might have a place.
You are so keen to support peace that you would consider removing a whole population from a region to achieve it. Yet you are so keen for war that every US or Israeli bombing mission is worth it for a minuscule chance that it might lead to a positive change. Some would see you as a man full of contradictions, but I think that would be unfair. There is a common thread here: no sympathy for the civilians affected. If Gazans or Iranians have to suffer for your goals, so be it.
At the moment, Barty is very hard to distinguish from the neocons who backed the Iraq adventure a couple of decades back.
I have, truth be told, some sympathy for an interventionist foreign policy stance. I supported the idea of bombing Syria in 2013. I support more support for Ukraine. Call me a neocon too! But I think we should promote the ideal of international law, not ignore it. I think we should act multilaterally, not unilaterally. And I think we need to recognise the consequences of our actions. The US and Israel's ill thought out attacks on Iran, motivated largely by Netanyahu's and Trump's personal concerns, are not the way to do it.
To be clear, I am not against all interventionist foreign policy, and there is probably a good argument to make for intervention in Iran, given their malign regime, and in particular the recent mass killings. That argument has not been made.
An intervention that stopped the mass killings and ended the malign regime has also not been made.
Is it still fair to assume some proportion of the Green vote goes back to Labour or is that vote now locked in?
Has anyone asked the switchers what they think of the Green policies?
Yes.
In general Green policy is the most popular selection nationally. Renationalise trains, post office, water, and kicking the ghouls eating into our healthcare budgets.
Everyone has stories of shitehawks and their mates ripping off the public purse for profit. Corruption is an issue eating the public trust. The main parties ain’t trusted and Reform are a bunch of ill educated and rigid thinking racists.
It’s the likelihood of wasted votes that hold us back. Once we hit the tipping point there will be real change.
These so-called "predictors" of the May Council elections are worse than useless. They will doubtless be used by some to inform the expectations management game which is part and parcel of elections these days.
Some of the "pollsters" admit to not being able to map Independents, Residents and other non-Party affiliated groups but they are or will be a key part of these elections - in Newham, for example, the Independents will win at least 15 seats and quite possibly more. In London, and elsewhere, that's going to be significant.
There's also the problem trying to use Westminster VI shares to extrapolate local election outcomes is fraught with risk - turnouts are smaller, personal votes more important and some people who will vote for a party to be their MP often vote for a different party to run their Council.
In addition, will all parties run full slates of candidates? We don't know and in my part of the world, I'd be surprised if the Greens, LDs, Reform and even the Conservatives fought every seat with the full number of candidates.
MY "back of a fag packet, not to be taken too seriously" projection starts at Labour losing 1000 seats and the Conservatives 500. How those losses are spread around Reform, Greens, the LDs, Independents and others is the more difficult part.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
A reminder of how Miliband spent his time as an MP:
On 21 December 2010, the Office of David Miliband Limited was formed with Miliband and his wife Louise as directors.
According to the Financial Times, "much of Mr Miliband's time has been spent on his lucrative directorships and speaking roles, which he would be expected to give up if he returned to frontline politics…as of January 2013, David Miliband has made just short of £1m on top of his MP's salary since he failed to win the Labour leadership in the summer of 2010."
According to a March 2013 article in HuffPost, Miliband had earned almost £1m since the 2010 election. The article listed sources of income from speaking (where he had earned up to £20,000 per event), advisory and teaching roles, journalism, gifts, hospitality and overseas visits.
Miliband is one of six members of the Global Advisory Board of Macro Advisory Partners, which advises multinational corporations, sovereign wealth funds, investors and governments.
In January 2012, David Miliband joined the Board of Directors of Mauritius-based private equity group, Indus Basin Holdings. IBH operates Rice Partners in the Punjab region of Pakistan which specialises in managing the end-to-end supply chain for major global users of rice.
According to the Financial Times, "Mr Miliband's jobs include advisory roles with VantagePoint Capital Partners, a Californian group; Oxford Analytica, a UK advisory company; and Indus Basin Holdings, a Pakistani agrochemical group. He is also a member of the advisory board to the Sir Bani Yas academic forum, which is hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates. Despite supporting Arsenal, Mr Miliband was vice-chairman and a non-executive director of Sunderland from 2011 until 2013. As a speaker he commands a fee of up to £20,000."
Ask not what you can do for South Shields, ask what South Shields can do for you.
To be honest I am quite relaxed about MPs who can earn serious money from their talents, probably a lot more than most, especially those who believe that MPs should be overpaid if under qualified social workers.
But to be lectured by those who have had such success about the need for ‘hard choices’ is a bit much.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
Hold on, Bart. Genocide is defined in international law. It was a concept invented for international law. But you don’t believe international law exists
That is not the case, I have never said it does not exist, I have always said that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules - and where possible we should respect the guidelines but we should not be treating them as immutable rules that have to be followed.
The meaning of the word has always been an attempt to wipe out a population. Twisting it to mean anything else, belittles and devalues the meaning of the word.
So, if these aren’t immutable rules that have to be followed, that means that genocide is OK sometimes? I mean, I recall you were actively advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza for a while, before thankfully stepping back from that position.
It is absolutely worth keeping a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing. I can not imagine the former ever being acceptable, but for moral rather than legal reasons. The latter might sometimes be, though it is certainly not ideal.
What I actually said is if there is no other viable route to peace then it might be the least-worst option, and one well-trodden in the past century without outrage including just a couple of years ago (thankfully without much violence) as discussed earlier in this conversation.
Rounding people up, digging trenches, and shooting them in the back of the head - I can not see any circumstances where that is acceptable. Because of morals. Peacefully seeing transfers of people when borders change - that might have a place.
You are so keen to support peace that you would consider removing a whole population from a region to achieve it. Yet you are so keen for war that every US or Israeli bombing mission is worth it for a minuscule chance that it might lead to a positive change. Some would see you as a man full of contradictions, but I think that would be unfair. There is a common thread here: no sympathy for the civilians affected. If Gazans or Iranians have to suffer for your goals, so be it.
At the moment, Barty is very hard to distinguish from the neocons who backed the Iraq adventure a couple of decades back.
I was pondering wrt Mark Carney. Who are the people who still think the Iraq invasion a good idea? Tony Blair I guess. Any others?
Actually it had more going for it than the current adventure. There was a motivation, amongst other motivations, to build a better future for Iraq. This is just bombing for the sake of it.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
The problem Labour has is they’ve now been in power 20 months and we’ve seen no change and no change is in sight.
There have been changes but those who have gained aren't giving Labour the credit and those who have lost out are giving Labour the blame.
Most people who don't like Labour wouldn't have given them 20 minutes, nor would they change their views if Starmer personally were to change their water into wine. He's fortunate in having a couple more years to run yet before he has to return to the electorate and as the last week has amply indicated, the world could be a very different place then.
Personally I don't think he and his government are very good, but I'd certainly prefer it to the Johnson Kleptocracy and Liz's Circus. Then again I'm easily pleased these days.
Comments
And obviousky if Reform win by a large margin on NEV they will win on wards, i was referrimg to a closer result like Ashcroft or YouGov
https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 theres another fag packet projection showing a different outcome
Other parties will get their votes out in some areas not others.
The one thing that suits Farage is a low turn out and now organised tactical voting.
It's easy in a by election.
When there are 5000 votes taking place a lot harder.
Like it or not, their core is highly motivated. It also needs less prodding to vote.
If it turns out, it will be largely organic
Kemi inches right right right every day.
She's reducing her top line by doing so.
Cleverly would retain more and gain some, what he would also do with his far more personable style is attract tactical votes.
89p for a big box.
PB is never far from Pooter, possibly one of its redeeming features.
The centre left party with the best chance of winning and unless the incumbent is an absolute ass hole you would generally see incumbent factor as a big positive
I cannot see Labour not being largest Party on that basis.
I can't see them getting a majority though either
Rumours on F1 forums are that Southern European circuits such as Imola and Portimao could take the dates if required.
https://x.com/BeyondIntrst/status/2028827627042300190
I made a point, that Reform 'could' win on NEV but lose on most wards won. Thats just a fact, they 'could' (especially if they win by a small margin) - being ahead on NEV but facing votes in areas of relative strength for others is hard to model out.
A projection showing they 'might not' isnt evidence of anything. Im already aware other outcomes are possible or even probable
People forget his less than distinguished stint at the BoE.
Reform may well win most wards overall too. Or they may not. They probably need to be 6 or 7 points ahead in the NEV to do so though given how far ahead Labour start in the northern and midland areas up
Lol
https://x.com/haaretzcom/status/2029129930852671909?s=20
Experts issued some pretty dire warnings about Trumpian tariffs and Brexit, and the result was not nearly as bad as it could have been.
Now they're issuing dire warnings about Iran.
A much smarter friend asked me how I was thinking about the difference.
My short answer: control.
Both escalation and de-escalation are now not entirely within US control and there are other actors, with genuine agency.
This is not a genie you can necessarily stuff back into the bottle, and the time for more sensible implementation was before you went all LE EPIC MEMELORD FURY PEW PEW.
https://bsky.app/profile/explaintrade.com/post/3mga22sigzs2h
Any marine losses would be minimal in comparison to a windy season, most property is excluded is excluded in war and Lloyds cannot write direct anywhere in the middle East anyway. Well - Israel - but war excluded.
Russia has confirmed that a Ukrainian naval drone hit a Russian oil tanker 100km off Malta in the Mediterranean.
A long, long way from Ukraine.
#explodey
Got metals or commodities in your portfolio ?
‘ Qatalum of Qatar, supplier of 9% of global aluminium supply, has initiated a controlled shutdown aluminium production due to the gas production shutdown. The smelter will take six to twelve MONTHS to fully restart.
Did anybody think of this before pulling the trigger on war?’
https://x.com/admcollingwood/status/2029102079910846931?s=61
https://x.com/GuidoFawkes/status/2029136822102630409
REFORM: Sir Robin Wales, Labour mayor of Newham from 2002 to 2018, will become Reform's London director of local government.
Wales' close aide Clive Furness will be Reform's mayoral candidate in Newham.
China's largest shipping company, Cosco, has suspended all services to and from the Gulf.
...due to tariffs...
They surely can't be the individuals Farage was bigging up for weeks saying coming next week big Labour name.....well its Farage, so yes it could be. But still feels like somebody got cold feet, a Kate Hoey type.
Which has always been the case.
October 2023 was not in US control for example.
One thing that has changed is that Iran's ability to escalate things is much reduced and another is that the ability of Iran's leadership to escalate is even more reduced as they are dead.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
https://x.com/newstatesman/status/2029095205060698542?s=61
It should have been reassuring that they hadn't been wasting time preparing it.
Does not suggest any appeal outside current polling and major concerns at trying to drive turnout in all 632 seats at a GE as opposed to a one off turkey shoot
It hides real news, real progress
Labour should create a new Ministry and stick Emily Thornberry in there.
Minister of 24 hours a day sorting Trump and Netanyahu shit out.
Give her total control of comms
https://www.dell.com/en-uk/shop/dell-ultrasharp-52-thunderbolt-hub-monitor-u5226kw/apd/210-btfw/monitors-monitor-accessories
WHO
Who are ya
WHO
Who are ya
🤣
And destroy 25% of our navy while she’s at it.
On 21 December 2010, the Office of David Miliband Limited was formed with Miliband and his wife Louise as directors.
According to the Financial Times, "much of Mr Miliband's time has been spent on his lucrative directorships and speaking roles, which he would be expected to give up if he returned to frontline politics…as of January 2013, David Miliband has made just short of £1m on top of his MP's salary since he failed to win the Labour leadership in the summer of 2010."
According to a March 2013 article in HuffPost, Miliband had earned almost £1m since the 2010 election. The article listed sources of income from speaking (where he had earned up to £20,000 per event), advisory and teaching roles, journalism, gifts, hospitality and overseas visits.
Miliband is one of six members of the Global Advisory Board of Macro Advisory Partners, which advises multinational corporations, sovereign wealth funds, investors and governments.
In January 2012, David Miliband joined the Board of Directors of Mauritius-based private equity group, Indus Basin Holdings. IBH operates Rice Partners in the Punjab region of Pakistan which specialises in managing the end-to-end supply chain for major global users of rice.
According to the Financial Times, "Mr Miliband's jobs include advisory roles with VantagePoint Capital Partners, a Californian group; Oxford Analytica, a UK advisory company; and Indus Basin Holdings, a Pakistani agrochemical group. He is also a member of the advisory board to the Sir Bani Yas academic forum, which is hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates. Despite supporting Arsenal, Mr Miliband was vice-chairman and a non-executive director of Sunderland from 2011 until 2013. As a speaker he commands a fee of up to £20,000."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miliband#Business_interests
Ask not what you can do for South Shields, ask what South Shields can do for you.
2025 iirc: "The New World is at the height of its powers."
It’s just continuity Sunak.
It was predestined ...
(I actually do take two different funny pills but they make me a sleepy woolie usually)
How long do these take?
That argument has not been made.
So, I don't think Reform need to worry too much that the voters of Gorton and Denton didn't decide to vote Reform to give Labour a kicking (also, if this by-election had come up in 2008, the Tories wouldn't have stormed to victory, so I'm not sure why Reform were expected to).
I paid ~£1300 for my current 5k / 120hz display. There is a big difference between those kind of monitors and the £300 ones.
We seem to have moved a ways from there.
In general Green policy is the most popular selection nationally. Renationalise trains, post office, water, and kicking the ghouls eating into our healthcare budgets.
Everyone has stories of shitehawks and their mates ripping off the public purse for profit. Corruption is an issue eating the public trust. The main parties ain’t trusted and Reform are a bunch of ill educated and rigid thinking racists.
It’s the likelihood of wasted votes that hold us back. Once we hit the tipping point there will be real change.
Multiple reports an Iranian warship has been sunk off the coast of Sri Lanka. If true, major widening of the scope of the conflict.
These so-called "predictors" of the May Council elections are worse than useless. They will doubtless be used by some to inform the expectations management game which is part and parcel of elections these days.
Some of the "pollsters" admit to not being able to map Independents, Residents and other non-Party affiliated groups but they are or will be a key part of these elections - in Newham, for example, the Independents will win at least 15 seats and quite possibly more. In London, and elsewhere, that's going to be significant.
There's also the problem trying to use Westminster VI shares to extrapolate local election outcomes is fraught with risk - turnouts are smaller, personal votes more important and some people who will vote for a party to be their MP often vote for a different party to run their Council.
In addition, will all parties run full slates of candidates? We don't know and in my part of the world, I'd be surprised if the Greens, LDs, Reform and even the Conservatives fought every seat with the full number of candidates.
MY "back of a fag packet, not to be taken too seriously" projection starts at Labour losing 1000 seats and the Conservatives 500. How those losses are spread around Reform, Greens, the LDs, Independents and others is the more difficult part.
But to be lectured by those who have had such success about the need for ‘hard choices’ is a bit much.
What’s the name of this organization?
We call it the Department of War
And the head of that department is?
The Secretary of War
And the workers in this organization?
Warfighters
And these people are fighting a war.
Oh no. My goodness no.
@atrupar.com
RAJU: You'll concede this is war?
MARKWAYNE MULLIN: We haven't declared war. They declared war on us
RAJU: The president called it war and Secretary Hegseth called it war
REPORTER: When you walked up just now, you called it war
MULLIN: Okay. That was a misspoke.
Actually it had more going for it than the current adventure. There was a motivation, amongst other motivations, to build a better future for Iraq. This is just bombing for the sake of it.
Personally I don't think he and his government are very good, but I'd certainly prefer it to the Johnson Kleptocracy and Liz's Circus. Then again I'm easily pleased these days.