More in Common better for Labour ➡️ REF UK 30% (+1) 🌹 LAB 22% (+4) 🌳 CON 19% (nc) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1) 🌍 GREEN 11% (-3) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03
Greens quite the flash in the by-election pan...
I suspect the Greens will have a couple of more flashes in the pan
1) After May's locals
and
2) When a few Labour MPs defect
The Greens are now effectively Corbyn Labour - and more effective than Your Party. So yes, defections to the Greens from Corbyn-revering Labour would not be a surprise.
With the Conservatives riding high in the opinion polls after Kemi has claimed to have called the war right and Farage having reversed himself up a one way cul de sac are we expecting Jenrick, Braverman, Rosindell, Son of Bake Off and Zahawi to come crawling home?
More in Common better for Labour ➡️ REF UK 30% (+1) 🌹 LAB 22% (+4) 🌳 CON 19% (nc) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1) 🌍 GREEN 11% (-3) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03
Greens quite the flash in the by-election pan...
I suspect the Greens will have a couple of more flashes in the pan
1) After May's locals
and
2) When a few Labour MPs defect
The Greens are now effectively Corbyn Labour - and more effective than Your Party. So yes, defections to the Greens from Corbyn-revering Labour would not be a surprise.
With the Conservatives riding high in the opinion polls after Kemi has claimed to have called the war right and Farage having reversed himself up a one way cul de sac are we expecting Jenrick, Braverman, Rosindell, Son of Bake Off and Zahawi to come crawling home?
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
In an ideal world that would happen , sadly there are some in Europe who maintain the delusion that if they try and maintain good relations with Trump he won’t throw Ukraine under a bus or throw further as the case maybe now .
Over and above that, and whatever misgivings they might have, most European governments are likely not displeased to see the US and Israel sticking it to Iran.
It’s been building up for decades now, was always going to happen one day. Plenty of neutrals are careful what they say out loud, but the only people upset appear to be Russia and China.
The complaints are going to be that the US and Israel didn’t think through what was likely to happen far more than the actual attack.
The attack was inevitable, not grasping the likely issues in the Hormaz Strait rather less so
If the Reform lead continues to shrink and Con/Lab stay broadly level then I'd start looking at seats where it's Con vs Lab and Ref are no longer doing well enough to come through the middle. The likes of Wycombe, Peterborough, Welwyn Hatfield, Banbury Then on to the likes of South Norfolk, Suffolk Coastal, Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.
Obviously from your Conservative perspective, that will be welcome but I think we're some way from that.
We need to start seeing polling with Reform no longer leading - the last poll with Reform neither joint top nor clearly in front was 13-14 April 2025 when Labour (yes, them) led by one point (the numbers were Lab 24, Ref 23, Con 21, LD 14, Green 11). That's approaching a year of Reform leads and even the current polling (three this week) has Reform ahead beyond Margin of Error.
The May elections will be informative and influential on polling and it's all about expectations management as we know. What do we expect/want/fear (delete as appropriate)?
1000 Labour losses, 500 Conservative losses, 1000 Reform gains - I don't know.
At this stage, there are assumptions about parties running full slates of candidates and the involvement (or otherwise) of local groups such as the Newham Indpendents in my patch which make some of the "forecasts" I've seen laughable in my view.
Who defines the expectations management and will it be on seats lost/gained or councils lost/gained? For example, the Conservatives could make a net loss of seats in London but gain in terms of councils controlled and if you get more councils moving to No Overall Control, what kinds of political partnerships will we see? We didn't see a lot of Reform-Conservative collaboration last year - will we this year?
It is an appalling film enjoyed by dreadful, dreary people. I have no words to adequately express my contempt.
Concur completely. I am a fan of romcoms and even some of Richard Curtis's other work (especially Notting Hill) and also a big fan of Hugh Grant but Love Actually is utter bilge from start to finish.
More in Common better for Labour ➡️ REF UK 30% (+1) 🌹 LAB 22% (+4) 🌳 CON 19% (nc) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1) 🌍 GREEN 11% (-3) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03
Greens quite the flash in the by-election pan...
Indeed. The 'its Ref vs Green' bros are in the mud
A bit like your prediction yougov would have Refirj second 🤣
I didnt predict theyd be second i wondered if the Ref bot MPs were all slagging off YG because they had found out it would show ref second. Turns out its just because they are pricks. I have predicted Ref will lose their lead at lesst once before the LEs and 'often' afterwards
Honestly I think the actual reality of Starmer, Farage or Badenoch being in charge (Allowing the US to use our air bases for strategic bombing, HMS Dragon being ... veeeery sloowly... deployed to the eastern med) would have very little difference. It would be different if Polanski or Corbyn was in charge but that's about it.
Are Labour actually ever going to get rid of the HoL or not.
No, they have just turned on the poor remaining hereditaries, who actually do a reasonable job, turn up and ask sensible questions and generally have more understanding of life in rural areas especially than the average life peer. So have removed via this bill the last of the hereditary peers mainly as they are largely Tories with a handful of Liberals and Independents, while keeping the more Labour friendly bishops and continuing to appoint Labour life peers. Given current polling would see Reform win most seats in an elected upper house Labour has no incentive to change it further once the hereditaries have fully left
Labour will “abolish the Lords” the same way I’ll “start going to the gym”: loudly, repeatedly, and with absolutely no follow-through once it gets mildly inconvenient.
What they are doing is the easy bit: bin the remaining hereditaries (mostly Tory, a few LD) because it’s clean optics and shifts the numbers without risking anything unpredictable. Meanwhile the bishops stay (because apparently divine appointment is more legitimate than inheritance now), and the PM keeps the patronage machine humming by appointing more friendly life peers.
The real reason it stops there is simple: an elected second chamber is a political dice roll. With current polling, a PR-ish elected upper house probably spits out a chunky Reform bloc, and Labour have no incentive to create a second chamber that can claim democratic legitimacy while being packed with people who’d love to spend every day trying to kneecap them.
More in Common better for Labour ➡️ REF UK 30% (+1) 🌹 LAB 22% (+4) 🌳 CON 19% (nc) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1) 🌍 GREEN 11% (-3) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03
Greens quite the flash in the by-election pan...
I suspect the Greens will have a couple of more flashes in the pan
1) After May's locals
and
2) When a few Labour MPs defect
The Greens are now effectively Corbyn Labour - and more effective than Your Party. So yes, defections to the Greens from Corbyn-revering Labour would not be a surprise.
With the Conservatives riding high in the opinion polls after Kemi has claimed to have called the war right and Farage having reversed himself up a one way cul de sac are we expecting Jenrick, Braverman, Rosindell, Son of Bake Off and Zahawi to come crawling home?
It is an appalling film enjoyed by dreadful, dreary people. I have no words to adequately express my contempt.
Concur completely. I am a fan of romcoms and even some of Richard Curtis's other work (especially Notting Hill) and also a big fan of Hugh Grant but Love Actually is utter bilge from start to finish.
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders
I wonder why ?
Tbf you'll mention it enough to do the work of several Tory posters.
More in Common better for Labour ➡️ REF UK 30% (+1) 🌹 LAB 22% (+4) 🌳 CON 19% (nc) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1) 🌍 GREEN 11% (-3) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03
Greens quite the flash in the by-election pan...
I suspect the Greens will have a couple of more flashes in the pan
1) After May's locals
and
2) When a few Labour MPs defect
The Greens are now effectively Corbyn Labour - and more effective than Your Party. So yes, defections to the Greens from Corbyn-revering Labour would not be a surprise.
With the Conservatives riding high in the opinion polls after Kemi has claimed to have called the war right and Farage having reversed himself up a one way cul de sac are we expecting Jenrick, Braverman, Rosindell, Son of Bake Off and Zahawi to come crawling home?
No thank you - they made their choice
It does seem like you were correct and Kemi has played an absolute blinder after the latest YouGov, despite what the header would suggest. She says she thought we should have allowed the US to use our bases to decapitate an evil regime, but she was opposed to direct action by the UK which is probably where many voters sit. Starmer's equivocation has been a very, very poor look, as has Nigel's bomb them, don't bomb them narrative.
So Kemi has been onthe on-the-money war leader whilst Starmer, Nige and Zack have all had mares. Nigey almost as bad as Starmer.
It is an appalling film enjoyed by dreadful, dreary people. I have no words to adequately express my contempt.
Concur completely. I am a fan of romcoms and even some of Richard Curtis's other work (especially Notting Hill) and also a big fan of Hugh Grant but Love Actually is utter bilge from start to finish.
Labour will “abolish the Lords” the same way I’ll “start going to the gym”: loudly, repeatedly, and with absolutely no follow-through once it gets mildly inconvenient.
What they are doing is the easy bit: bin the remaining hereditaries (mostly Tory, a few LD) because it’s clean optics and shifts the numbers without risking anything unpredictable. Meanwhile the bishops stay (because apparently divine appointment is more legitimate than inheritance now), and the PM keeps the patronage machine humming by appointing more friendly life peers.
The real reason it stops there is simple: an elected second chamber is a political dice roll. With current polling, a PR-ish elected upper house probably spits out a chunky Reform bloc, and Labour have no incentive to create a second chamber that can claim democratic legitimacy while being packed with people who’d love to spend every day trying to kneecap them.
Every attempt at Lords reform is blocked by those who are there, until there's a deal that essentially protects the incumbents, who have an entitled sense that they are on a lifetime promise. The Lords is so big, now, that there's no deal that can protect sufficient number of incumbents (such as a partly-elected, partly-appointed chamber) to enable it to get through. The closest way through would be some sort of party list electoral system, allowing the parties to stuff their lists with all their existing peers.
Labour will “abolish the Lords” the same way I’ll “start going to the gym”: loudly, repeatedly, and with absolutely no follow-through once it gets mildly inconvenient.
What they are doing is the easy bit: bin the remaining hereditaries (mostly Tory, a few LD) because it’s clean optics and shifts the numbers without risking anything unpredictable. Meanwhile the bishops stay (because apparently divine appointment is more legitimate than inheritance now), and the PM keeps the patronage machine humming by appointing more friendly life peers.
The real reason it stops there is simple: an elected second chamber is a political dice roll. With current polling, a PR-ish elected upper house probably spits out a chunky Reform bloc, and Labour have no incentive to create a second chamber that can claim democratic legitimacy while being packed with people who’d love to spend every day trying to kneecap them.
Every attempt at Lords reform is blocked by those who are there, until there's a deal that essentially protects the incumbents, who have an entitled sense that they are on a lifetime promise. The Lords is so big, now, that there's no deal that can protect sufficient number of incumbents (such as a partly-elected, partly-appointed chamber) to enable it to get through. The closest way through would be some sort of party list electoral system, allowing the parties to stuff their lists with all their existing peers.
My regular advocacy for the Lords to be appointed/elected in the same way as the Irish Senate to be inserted here. It'll never happen but I like screaming into the void.
Honestly I think the actual reality of Starmer, Farage or Badenoch being in charge (Allowing the US to use our air bases for strategic bombing, HMS Dragon being ... veeeery sloowly... deployed to the eastern med) would have very little difference. It would be different if Polanski or Corbyn was in charge but that's about it.
In keeping with Starmer's general approach, I fully anticipate the war ending a day or two before HMS Dragon arrives.
More in Common better for Labour ➡️ REF UK 30% (+1) 🌹 LAB 22% (+4) 🌳 CON 19% (nc) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1) 🌍 GREEN 11% (-3) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03
Greens quite the flash in the by-election pan...
I suspect the Greens will have a couple of more flashes in the pan
1) After May's locals
and
2) When a few Labour MPs defect
The Greens are now effectively Corbyn Labour - and more effective than Your Party. So yes, defections to the Greens from Corbyn-revering Labour would not be a surprise.
With the Conservatives riding high in the opinion polls after Kemi has claimed to have called the war right and Farage having reversed himself up a one way cul de sac are we expecting Jenrick, Braverman, Rosindell, Son of Bake Off and Zahawi to come crawling home?
No thank you - they made their choice
It does seem like you were correct and Kemi has played an absolute blinder after the latest YouGov, despite what the header would suggest. She says she thought we should have allowed the US to use our bases to decapitate an evil regime, but she was opposed to direct action by the UK which is probably where many voters sit. Starmer's equivocation has been a very, very poor look, as has Nigel's bomb them, don't bomb them narrative.
So Kemi has been onthe on-the-money war leader whilst Starmer, Nige and Zack have all had mares. Nigey almost as bad as Starmer.
I would not go that far and you are very good at satire
The guy who got caught with a $20 hooker, when he had Elizabeth Hurley at home.
Indeed.
He’s a good actor though, he played Jeremy Thorpe brilliantly.
As he's aged, his acting has improved immeasurably. Very good in Paddington 2. They should cast him as a Bond villain.
He's always been a brilliant actor IMHO. The kind of light comic leading man shtick he does in his earlier films is way harder to pull off than people think. His comic timing is brilliant.
Disappointed nobody has spotted the very subtle rock music pun right at the end of the header.
Why worry? Maybe it’s not so far away after all. I clocked it, but I’m not going home to write an essay about it. It's just your latest trick for engagement.
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders
I wonder why ?
Tbf you'll mention it enough to do the work of several Tory posters.
That is not the point
@HYUFD is a conservative and you would expect him to report Kemi's bounce, but that does not fit his Cleverly obsession
The guy who got caught with a $20 hooker, when he had Elizabeth Hurley at home.
Indeed.
He’s a good actor though, he played Jeremy Thorpe brilliantly.
As he's aged, his acting has improved immeasurably. Very good in Paddington 2. They should cast him as a Bond villain.
He's always been a brilliant actor IMHO. The kind of light comic leading man shtick he does in his earlier films is way harder to pull off than people think. His comic timing is brilliant.
Oh he's always been talented, but much of his stuff is lazy and mannered.
If the Reform lead continues to shrink and Con/Lab stay broadly level then I'd start looking at seats where it's Con vs Lab and Ref are no longer doing well enough to come through the middle. The likes of Wycombe, Peterborough, Welwyn Hatfield, Banbury Then on to the likes of South Norfolk, Suffolk Coastal, Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.
Obviously from your Conservative perspective, that will be welcome but I think we're some way from that.
We need to start seeing polling with Reform no longer leading - the last poll with Reform neither joint top nor clearly in front was 13-14 April 2025 when Labour (yes, them) led by one point (the numbers were Lab 24, Ref 23, Con 21, LD 14, Green 11). That's approaching a year of Reform leads and even the current polling (three this week) has Reform ahead beyond Margin of Error.
The May elections will be informative and influential on polling and it's all about expectations management as we know. What do we expect/want/fear (delete as appropriate)?
1000 Labour losses, 500 Conservative losses, 1000 Reform gains - I don't know.
At this stage, there are assumptions about parties running full slates of candidates and the involvement (or otherwise) of local groups such as the Newham Indpendents in my patch which make some of the "forecasts" I've seen laughable in my view.
Who defines the expectations management and will it be on seats lost/gained or councils lost/gained? For example, the Conservatives could make a net loss of seats in London but gain in terms of councils controlled and if you get more councils moving to No Overall Control, what kinds of political partnerships will we see? We didn't see a lot of Reform-Conservative collaboration last year - will we this year?
Thars why i said 'if'. We absolutely do not need to see Ref lose the lead for there to be Con/Ref battles like i suggested, lower single digits Ref lead would do it.
Ref Local elections. Last year nobody but Ref and , to a slightly lesser but not insignificant extent, LD had anything to spin. This year they'll all have results to spin. The spin operation and 'order of results' will be important.
P.s, you dont have to keep pointing out I am Conservative like I've got a dose of the plague, i don't keep pointing out you are a Lib Dem.
The guy who got caught with a $20 hooker, when he had Elizabeth Hurley at home.
Indeed.
He’s a good actor though, he played Jeremy Thorpe brilliantly.
As he's aged, his acting has improved immeasurably. Very good in Paddington 2. They should cast him as a Bond villain.
As regular readers will have observed I am a bit odd. One of my main oddities is that I recoil from stories where the protagonist is wrongfully accused. Can't watch The Fugitive, The Green Mile or...Paddington 2, which has almost perfect Rotten Tomato ratings. It's almost like a phobia. And I loved the first one.
More in Common better for Labour ➡️ REF UK 30% (+1) 🌹 LAB 22% (+4) 🌳 CON 19% (nc) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1) 🌍 GREEN 11% (-3) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03
Greens quite the flash in the by-election pan...
I suspect the Greens will have a couple of more flashes in the pan
1) After May's locals
and
2) When a few Labour MPs defect
The Greens are now effectively Corbyn Labour - and more effective than Your Party. So yes, defections to the Greens from Corbyn-revering Labour would not be a surprise.
With the Conservatives riding high in the opinion polls after Kemi has claimed to have called the war right and Farage having reversed himself up a one way cul de sac are we expecting Jenrick, Braverman, Rosindell, Son of Bake Off and Zahawi to come crawling home?
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders
I wonder why ?
Because it's bloody irrelevant outside of the confines of the Ormes.
The guy who got caught with a $20 hooker, when he had Elizabeth Hurley at home.
Indeed.
He’s a good actor though, he played Jeremy Thorpe brilliantly.
As he's aged, his acting has improved immeasurably. Very good in Paddington 2. They should cast him as a Bond villain.
As regular readers will have observed I am a bit odd. One of my main oddities is that I recoil from stories where the protagonist is wrongfully accused. Can't watch The Fugitive, The Green Mile or...Paddington 2, which has almost perfect Rotten Tomato ratings. It's almost like a phobia. And I loved the first one.
Anyway...
We all have things we dislike. I wish there was an option with Amazon or Waterstones to remove all the romantasy nonsense from the Fantasy category.
More in Common better for Labour ➡️ REF UK 30% (+1) 🌹 LAB 22% (+4) 🌳 CON 19% (nc) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1) 🌍 GREEN 11% (-3) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03
Greens quite the flash in the by-election pan...
I suspect the Greens will have a couple of more flashes in the pan
1) After May's locals
and
2) When a few Labour MPs defect
The Greens are now effectively Corbyn Labour - and more effective than Your Party. So yes, defections to the Greens from Corbyn-revering Labour would not be a surprise.
With the Conservatives riding high in the opinion polls after Kemi has claimed to have called the war right and Farage having reversed himself up a one way cul de sac are we expecting Jenrick, Braverman, Rosindell, Son of Bake Off and Zahawi to come crawling home?
The UK's youngest council leader is facing a vote of no confidence after being accused of bringing the authority "into disrepute". Reform UK's George Finch, who leads Warwickshire County Council, was appointed last summer at the age of 19.
Green Party councillors called for a vote on Finch's position at the next full council meeting on 17 March, suggesting he has "abused the office of leader".
Labour will “abolish the Lords” the same way I’ll “start going to the gym”: loudly, repeatedly, and with absolutely no follow-through once it gets mildly inconvenient.
What they are doing is the easy bit: bin the remaining hereditaries (mostly Tory, a few LD) because it’s clean optics and shifts the numbers without risking anything unpredictable. Meanwhile the bishops stay (because apparently divine appointment is more legitimate than inheritance now), and the PM keeps the patronage machine humming by appointing more friendly life peers.
The real reason it stops there is simple: an elected second chamber is a political dice roll. With current polling, a PR-ish elected upper house probably spits out a chunky Reform bloc, and Labour have no incentive to create a second chamber that can claim democratic legitimacy while being packed with people who’d love to spend every day trying to kneecap them.
Every attempt at Lords reform is blocked by those who are there, until there's a deal that essentially protects the incumbents, who have an entitled sense that they are on a lifetime promise. The Lords is so big, now, that there's no deal that can protect sufficient number of incumbents (such as a partly-elected, partly-appointed chamber) to enable it to get through. The closest way through would be some sort of party list electoral system, allowing the parties to stuff their lists with all their existing peers.
The actual numbers are about to be fixed, if the Govt manifesto pledges are fulfilled.
It's soon to be down to about 740 members after the hereditaries go, plus around the 25 or so who will be given a Life sentence.
If the retirement age of "end of the Parliament when you turn 80" arrives, that will be another 300+ gone by 2029, who will be approx:
1/3 of Tories. 1/2 of Labour. 1/2 of Lib Dems. 1/2 of Crossbenchers.
So it will be 440 plus extra appointments.
What we need then is a look at the appointment process.
I'm sure there will be a different set of complaints by then.
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders
I wonder why ?
Because it's bloody irrelevant outside of the confines of the Ormes.
Labour will “abolish the Lords” the same way I’ll “start going to the gym”: loudly, repeatedly, and with absolutely no follow-through once it gets mildly inconvenient.
What they are doing is the easy bit: bin the remaining hereditaries (mostly Tory, a few LD) because it’s clean optics and shifts the numbers without risking anything unpredictable. Meanwhile the bishops stay (because apparently divine appointment is more legitimate than inheritance now), and the PM keeps the patronage machine humming by appointing more friendly life peers.
The real reason it stops there is simple: an elected second chamber is a political dice roll. With current polling, a PR-ish elected upper house probably spits out a chunky Reform bloc, and Labour have no incentive to create a second chamber that can claim democratic legitimacy while being packed with people who’d love to spend every day trying to kneecap them.
Every attempt at Lords reform is blocked by those who are there, until there's a deal that essentially protects the incumbents, who have an entitled sense that they are on a lifetime promise. The Lords is so big, now, that there's no deal that can protect sufficient number of incumbents (such as a partly-elected, partly-appointed chamber) to enable it to get through. The closest way through would be some sort of party list electoral system, allowing the parties to stuff their lists with all their existing peers.
The actual numbers are about to be fixed, if the Govt manifesto pledges are fulfilled.
It's soon to be down to about 740 members after the hereditaries go, plus around the 25 or so who will be given a Life sentence.
If the retirement age of "end of the Parliament when you turn 80" arrives, that will be another 300+ gone by 2029, who will be approx:
1/3 of Tories. 1/2 of Labour. 1/2 of Lib Dems. 1/2 of Crossbenchers.
So it will be 440 plus extra appointments.
What we need then is a look at the appointment process.
I'm sure there will be a different set of complaints by then.
Going on past precendent, I'd predict that the existing over-80s (and indeed existing peers below 80) will be ring-fenced from the retirement rule and it will end up only applying to new appointments.
The guy who got caught with a $20 hooker, when he had Elizabeth Hurley at home.
Indeed.
He’s a good actor though, he played Jeremy Thorpe brilliantly.
As he's aged, his acting has improved immeasurably. Very good in Paddington 2. They should cast him as a Bond villain.
He's always been a brilliant actor IMHO. The kind of light comic leading man shtick he does in his earlier films is way harder to pull off than people think. His comic timing is brilliant.
Maybe it’s having met him - but his best roles are when he is playing the sleazy and creepy.
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
More in Common better for Labour ➡️ REF UK 30% (+1) 🌹 LAB 22% (+4) 🌳 CON 19% (nc) 🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1) 🌍 GREEN 11% (-3) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03
Greens quite the flash in the by-election pan...
I suspect the Greens will have a couple of more flashes in the pan
1) After May's locals
and
2) When a few Labour MPs defect
The Greens are now effectively Corbyn Labour - and more effective than Your Party. So yes, defections to the Greens from Corbyn-revering Labour would not be a surprise.
With the Conservatives riding high in the opinion polls after Kemi has claimed to have called the war right and Farage having reversed himself up a one way cul de sac are we expecting Jenrick, Braverman, Rosindell, Son of Bake Off and Zahawi to come crawling home?
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
What did Martin Say do?
Its a long time ago now, i cant remember the specifics tbf
The guy who got caught with a $20 hooker, when he had Elizabeth Hurley at home.
Indeed.
He’s a good actor though, he played Jeremy Thorpe brilliantly.
As he's aged, his acting has improved immeasurably. Very good in Paddington 2. They should cast him as a Bond villain.
As regular readers will have observed I am a bit odd. One of my main oddities is that I recoil from stories where the protagonist is wrongfully accused. Can't watch The Fugitive, The Green Mile or...Paddington 2, which has almost perfect Rotten Tomato ratings. It's almost like a phobia. And I loved the first one.
Anyway...
We all have things we dislike. I wish there was an option with Amazon or Waterstones to remove all the romantasy nonsense from the Fantasy category.
You know that Romantasy is currently the thing propping up large parts of the publishing industry
That's harsh! If maybe fair. But surely LDs will have cancelled it for the reasons discussed?
Our only avowed fan on here is a Tory, I believe (although I know you probably consider him too wet and more of an LD!)
Top Curtis films by political affiliation would be interesting.
Top Rickman films maybe even more so.
I wonder what Reform voters make of the actual Love Actually Moment in Love Actually?
Now you've lost me. Unless I've seen the clip!
Well it's set up to get the big cheer. But it's possible that your typical Reform voter would react the other way - identifying with the bombastic US president over our man and therefore booing and hissing. I can't say because I've never watched it with a Reform voter.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive US strike operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
TBH, I don’t see the distinction between offensive and defensive bombing as amounting to much, even if it helps some lawyers sleep at night.
Just wank words to try and pretend they are good guys.
The guy who got caught with a $20 hooker, when he had Elizabeth Hurley at home.
Indeed.
He’s a good actor though, he played Jeremy Thorpe brilliantly.
As he's aged, his acting has improved immeasurably. Very good in Paddington 2. They should cast him as a Bond villain.
He's always been a brilliant actor IMHO. The kind of light comic leading man shtick he does in his earlier films is way harder to pull off than people think. His comic timing is brilliant.
Maybe it’s having met him - but his best roles are when he is playing the sleazy and creepy.
I rate Grant. Some of those Curtis films don't hold up that well but his performances in them do.
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
I don't remember that. As long as I have been here (since 2007 IIRC) people have quoted Martin Baxter and Martin Boon, neither of which AFAIK ever tripped the spam filter.
the HoL is an undemocratic anachronism, but it is a vital function of our political system and despite its many failings is still significantly better than anything that's been proposed.
Every replacement on offer either recreates patronage with extra steps or creates a rival Commons. Until someone proposes a workable alternative, “reform” usually means “make it more partisan”.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Has either Israel or the United States actually declared war? Odd that.
If the Reform lead continues to shrink and Con/Lab stay broadly level then I'd start looking at seats where it's Con vs Lab and Ref are no longer doing well enough to come through the middle. The likes of Wycombe, Peterborough, Welwyn Hatfield, Banbury Then on to the likes of South Norfolk, Suffolk Coastal, Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.
Obviously from your Conservative perspective, that will be welcome but I think we're some way from that.
We need to start seeing polling with Reform no longer leading - the last poll with Reform neither joint top nor clearly in front was 13-14 April 2025 when Labour (yes, them) led by one point (the numbers were Lab 24, Ref 23, Con 21, LD 14, Green 11). That's approaching a year of Reform leads and even the current polling (three this week) has Reform ahead beyond Margin of Error.
The May elections will be informative and influential on polling and it's all about expectations management as we know. What do we expect/want/fear (delete as appropriate)?
1000 Labour losses, 500 Conservative losses, 1000 Reform gains - I don't know.
At this stage, there are assumptions about parties running full slates of candidates and the involvement (or otherwise) of local groups such as the Newham Indpendents in my patch which make some of the "forecasts" I've seen laughable in my view.
Who defines the expectations management and will it be on seats lost/gained or councils lost/gained? For example, the Conservatives could make a net loss of seats in London but gain in terms of councils controlled and if you get more councils moving to No Overall Control, what kinds of political partnerships will we see? We didn't see a lot of Reform-Conservative collaboration last year - will we this year?
Thars why i said 'if'. We absolutely do not need to see Ref lose the lead for there to be Con/Ref battles like i suggested, lower single digits Ref lead would do it.
Ref Local elections. Last year nobody but Ref and , to a slightly lesser but not insignificant extent, LD had anything to spin. This year they'll all have results to spin. The spin operation and 'order of results' will be important.
P.s, you dont have to keep pointing out I am Conservative like I've got a dose of the plague, i don't keep pointing out you are a Lib Dem.
Apologies but sometimes objective commentary is worth a try rather than continually talking up the prospects of the party you support.
I'll offer this gem - the LDs start with about 150 Councillors in London - when Paddy was in charge, there were over 300 LD London Councillors - there are currently 19 London Boroughs with no LD councillors so the party has withdrawn to islands of strength surrounded by oceans of weakness.
There are already Con/Ref battles as you put it in a number of constituencies and clearly the Conservatives will be hoping those not enamoured of the propect of a Reform Government will be tempted to support the Conservatives to prevent that.
Perhaps but in turn that perception will be coloured by the approach Badenoch takes (or is perceived to be taking) vis-a-vis Reform in the run up to the election. If it looks as though the Conservative Party she leads will enable a minority Reform Government (via Confidence & Supply for example), the anti-Reform tactical vote will go elsewhere. IF she distances herself from Reform, the question will then be the Conservative line in respect of a minority Labour Government and that in itself will cause problems.
As you see, being the third (or even fourth) party is much harder than being the first or second party and it's all about seats, not votes. Labour could easily poll slightly fewer votes yet end up with more seats.
Why are the twatty Bishops still in the HoL? Disestablish, now
If they remove the Bishops from the House of Lords, they will be replaced.
Potentially by people with extreme ideas, such as believing in God. As opposed to vague niceness and weak tea.
The whole point of the Establish Church is to keep that dangerous God Bothering stuff out of public life.
I like weak tea.
Well, quite.
It’s very hard to create an ideology of repression and violence out of vague niceness and weak tea.
It’s very easy to do that from Knowing that you believe in God in exactly the right fashion.
Hence the CoE
Tangentially to that, the only serious clerical argument I can see being made in favour of Christian Nationalist type values (eg impose Old Testament style social organisation on everyone in the UK no matter what their values or beliefs), though he does not apply that label to himself, is by a Church of Ireland pastor called Jamie Bambrick, of Hope Church, Craigavon.
I can't buttonhole him in a niche in Northern Irish protestant politics yet, as I am not up to date with all the nuances. I would need to ask Mick Fealty for a steer. He has a touch of the Paisleyite stentorian, and I can imagine him fitting in the Orange Order, but that's not detailed enough for NI.
* I'm ignoring the various Chaplains to Tommy Robinson, who I suspect are mainly cross with the Church of England because it smoked them out and either stopped them becoming Vicars or got rid later. And for that mindset the idea that the "Christian State" aspire to inclusiveness and tolerance (however imperfectly) is a rebuke.
That's harsh! If maybe fair. But surely LDs will have cancelled it for the reasons discussed?
Our only avowed fan on here is a Tory, I believe (although I know you probably consider him too wet and more of an LD!)
Top Curtis films by political affiliation would be interesting.
Top Rickman films maybe even more so.
I wonder what Reform voters make of the actual Love Actually Moment in Love Actually?
Now you've lost me. Unless I've seen the clip!
Well it's set up to get the big cheer. But it's possible that your typical Reform voter would react the other way - identifying with the bombastic US president over our man and therefore booing and hissing. I can't say because I've never watched it with a Reform voter.
Ah, the Hugh - Billy Bob put down? The polling suggests that Reform voters back Trump over the UK, so I think they'd be appalled.
“Recent Pandemic Viruses Jumped to Humans Without Prior Adaptation, UC San Diego Study Finds “Large-scale evolutionary analysis shows most zoonotic viruses emerge without prior adaptation, while passing through a laboratory leaves detectable genetic signatures, offering a new tool to interpret outbreak origins”
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Well it's you versus pretty much everybody with expertise in the matter.
Law - what is it good for? Deciding what is legal. Which this isn't.
The oil price seems to be in a weird situation. If it looks like the war will drag on, it goes higher, which scares Trump into saying the war is nearly over, which drives the oil price down, which gives Trump the confidence to prolong the war, which drives the price back up.
I guess at some point the physical reality of whether there is a shortage of oil or not will overcome sentiment and decisively send prices in one direction or the other.
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
I don't remember that. As long as I have been here (since 2007 IIRC) people have quoted Martin Baxter and Martin Boon, neither of which AFAIK ever tripped the spam filter.
It definitely did because i repeatedly tried to reference Martine McCutcheon because of some daft thing or other (something to do with her This is my Moment song and Gordon Brown and an argument with, from memory, one of the Bobs) and it wouldnt let me and i worked out/was informed that was why
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive US strike operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
TBH, I don’t see the distinction between offensive and defensive bombing as amounting to much, even if it helps some lawyers sleep at night.
It's a question of attitude.
Offensive bombing is done by people like Hesgeth: "Yeah, take that you camel jockeys!"
Defensive bombing is done by people like Starmer: "Terribly sorry old chap, but you've forced us to do this."
the HoL is an undemocratic anachronism, but it is a vital function of our political system and despite its many failings is still significantly better than anything that's been proposed.
Every replacement on offer either recreates patronage with extra steps or creates a rival Commons. Until someone proposes a workable alternative, “reform” usually means “make it more partisan”.
Good points . The last thing the country needs is a situation where you end up with total gridlock because of a rival Commons .
The HOL does play an important role and seems a lot more thoughtful than the Commons .
Labour will “abolish the Lords” the same way I’ll “start going to the gym”: loudly, repeatedly, and with absolutely no follow-through once it gets mildly inconvenient.
What they are doing is the easy bit: bin the remaining hereditaries (mostly Tory, a few LD) because it’s clean optics and shifts the numbers without risking anything unpredictable. Meanwhile the bishops stay (because apparently divine appointment is more legitimate than inheritance now), and the PM keeps the patronage machine humming by appointing more friendly life peers.
The real reason it stops there is simple: an elected second chamber is a political dice roll. With current polling, a PR-ish elected upper house probably spits out a chunky Reform bloc, and Labour have no incentive to create a second chamber that can claim democratic legitimacy while being packed with people who’d love to spend every day trying to kneecap them.
Every attempt at Lords reform is blocked by those who are there, until there's a deal that essentially protects the incumbents, who have an entitled sense that they are on a lifetime promise. The Lords is so big, now, that there's no deal that can protect sufficient number of incumbents (such as a partly-elected, partly-appointed chamber) to enable it to get through. The closest way through would be some sort of party list electoral system, allowing the parties to stuff their lists with all their existing peers.
My regular advocacy for the Lords to be appointed/elected in the same way as the Irish Senate to be inserted here. It'll never happen but I like screaming into the void.
Why would you want to copy the Irish Senate? It's a powerless body whose only function is to be somewhere to park failed politicians until they have another go at being elected.
That's harsh! If maybe fair. But surely LDs will have cancelled it for the reasons discussed?
Our only avowed fan on here is a Tory, I believe (although I know you probably consider him too wet and more of an LD!)
Top Curtis films by political affiliation would be interesting.
Top Rickman films maybe even more so.
I wonder what Reform voters make of the actual Love Actually Moment in Love Actually?
Now you've lost me. Unless I've seen the clip!
Well it's set up to get the big cheer. But it's possible that your typical Reform voter would react the other way - identifying with the bombastic US president over our man and therefore booing and hissing. I can't say because I've never watched it with a Reform voter.
Ah, the Hugh - Billy Bob put down? The polling suggests that Reform voters back Trump over the UK, so I think they'd be appalled.
Is what I'm thinking. They really are a bunch of characters.
That's harsh! If maybe fair. But surely LDs will have cancelled it for the reasons discussed?
Our only avowed fan on here is a Tory, I believe (although I know you probably consider him too wet and more of an LD!)
Top Curtis films by political affiliation would be interesting.
Top Rickman films maybe even more so.
I wonder what Reform voters make of the actual Love Actually Moment in Love Actually?
Now you've lost me. Unless I've seen the clip!
Well it's set up to get the big cheer. But it's possible that your typical Reform voter would react the other way - identifying with the bombastic US president over our man and therefore booing and hissing. I can't say because I've never watched it with a Reform voter.
Nigel Farage interviewed by @freddiejh8 in Palm Beach this weekend. The Reform leader told the NS:
💥A written offer to help with Trump admin was made privately to Starmer in September - the PM ignored Farage 💥Iran poses a “potentially bigger” threat to UK than Russia 💥He is “reasonably optimistic” about the war 💥His back channel communications with Trump team are “not against the national interest”
the HoL is an undemocratic anachronism, but it is a vital function of our political system and despite its many failings is still significantly better than anything that's been proposed.
Every replacement on offer either recreates patronage with extra steps or creates a rival Commons. Until someone proposes a workable alternative, “reform” usually means “make it more partisan”.
Good points . The last thing the country needs is a situation where you end up with total gridlock because of a rival Commons .
The HOL does play an important role and seems a lot more thoughtful than the Commons .
Australia has an elected Senate based on 1911 HoL powers. I don't know enough about Australian politics to know whether it works.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Well it's you versus pretty much everybody with expertise in the matter.
Law - what is it good for? Deciding what is legal. Which this isn't.
Would you say that His Honour Jeff Blackett OBE, the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces between 2004 and 2020, has expertise in this matter?
Trigger warning for those who despise the Spectator, but he is not a Spectator hack, is an expert, and is quite adamant that it is legal, on multiple grounds.
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders
I wonder why ?
Because it's bloody irrelevant outside of the confines of the Ormes.
Upsets you though
Her popularity score reflects her irrelevance and nothingness
She is the least relevant Tory Leader since IDS, as the Tories are increasingly irrelevant.
People in the Street have no other view on her other than she is aggressive, sounds like a man and won't apologise for 14 years of Tory Government.
She is less well known than any of the other 4 main Party Leaders
Farage Starmer Davey Polanski
My fascination with her is purely the fact that she spouts lies, acts like a spoilt brat, behaves against all parliamentary conventions (last week pmq, refusing to acknowledge passing of non tory mps, breaking convention of letting actual shadow minister talk in debates) are recent examples.
I call out lies, her wriggling trying to deny she clearly called for aggressive action on Iran and supporting US and Israel a clear example yesterday which turned in to a comedy skit about vows and arrows...
She is what she is, out if her depth intellectually challenged, over aggressive with temper issues not avery nice personality and increasingly comedy gold.
That's harsh! If maybe fair. But surely LDs will have cancelled it for the reasons discussed?
Our only avowed fan on here is a Tory, I believe (although I know you probably consider him too wet and more of an LD!)
Top Curtis films by political affiliation would be interesting.
Top Rickman films maybe even more so.
I wonder what Reform voters make of the actual Love Actually Moment in Love Actually?
Now you've lost me. Unless I've seen the clip!
Well it's set up to get the big cheer. But it's possible that your typical Reform voter would react the other way - identifying with the bombastic US president over our man and therefore booing and hissing. I can't say because I've never watched it with a Reform voter.
Is that a 'never kissed a Tory' synonym?
It sort of is, yes. Never shared popcorn with a Reform voter. Maybe one day.
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive US strike operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
TBH, I don’t see the distinction between offensive and defensive bombing as amounting to much, even if it helps some lawyers sleep at night.
It's a question of attitude.
Offensive bombing is done by people like Hesgeth: "Yeah, take that you camel jockeys!"
Defensive bombing is done by people like Starmer: "Terribly sorry old chap, but you've forced us to do this."
It's not accurate biologically as an analogy, but every time I hear hear Hegseth making a speech, he makes me think of an 11 year old trying to convince a 14 year old that his balls have dropped because he shot a village cat with an air gun.
Why are the twatty Bishops still in the HoL? Disestablish, now
Absolutely not, we have an established church and the Bishops should be there, they are less than 5% of the fully appointed unelected Lords anyway though a few more leaders from other faiths should be appointed as well. We should have kept the hereditaries too.
Disestablishment also removes the automatic right to a wedding or funeral in your local C of E Parish church
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive US strike operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
TBH, I don’t see the distinction between offensive and defensive bombing as amounting to much, even if it helps some lawyers sleep at night.
Why are the twatty Bishops still in the HoL? Disestablish, now
If they remove the Bishops from the House of Lords, they will be replaced.
Potentially by people with extreme ideas, such as believing in God. As opposed to vague niceness and weak tea.
The whole point of the Establish Church is to keep that dangerous God Bothering stuff out of public life.
I like weak tea.
Well, quite.
It’s very hard to create an ideology of repression and violence out of vague niceness and weak tea.
It’s very easy to do that from Knowing that you believe in God in exactly the right fashion.
Hence the CoE
You are talking about the liberal Catholic wing of the C of E. There are though also a lot of conservative evangelicals in the C of E who are certainly not weak and vaguely nice but biblical and conservative and strong willed and well funded, plus still a few conservative Anglo Catholics though most of those went to Rome after female ordination and now of course a female Archbishop
If the Reform lead continues to shrink and Con/Lab stay broadly level then I'd start looking at seats where it's Con vs Lab and Ref are no longer doing well enough to come through the middle. The likes of Wycombe, Peterborough, Welwyn Hatfield, Banbury Then on to the likes of South Norfolk, Suffolk Coastal, Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.
Obviously from your Conservative perspective, that will be welcome but I think we're some way from that.
We need to start seeing polling with Reform no longer leading - the last poll with Reform neither joint top nor clearly in front was 13-14 April 2025 when Labour (yes, them) led by one point (the numbers were Lab 24, Ref 23, Con 21, LD 14, Green 11). That's approaching a year of Reform leads and even the current polling (three this week) has Reform ahead beyond Margin of Error.
The May elections will be informative and influential on polling and it's all about expectations management as we know. What do we expect/want/fear (delete as appropriate)?
1000 Labour losses, 500 Conservative losses, 1000 Reform gains - I don't know.
At this stage, there are assumptions about parties running full slates of candidates and the involvement (or otherwise) of local groups such as the Newham Indpendents in my patch which make some of the "forecasts" I've seen laughable in my view.
Who defines the expectations management and will it be on seats lost/gained or councils lost/gained? For example, the Conservatives could make a net loss of seats in London but gain in terms of councils controlled and if you get more councils moving to No Overall Control, what kinds of political partnerships will we see? We didn't see a lot of Reform-Conservative collaboration last year - will we this year?
Thars why i said 'if'. We absolutely do not need to see Ref lose the lead for there to be Con/Ref battles like i suggested, lower single digits Ref lead would do it.
Ref Local elections. Last year nobody but Ref and , to a slightly lesser but not insignificant extent, LD had anything to spin. This year they'll all have results to spin. The spin operation and 'order of results' will be important.
P.s, you dont have to keep pointing out I am Conservative like I've got a dose of the plague, i don't keep pointing out you are a Lib Dem.
Apologies but sometimes objective commentary is worth a try rather than continually talking up the prospects of the party you support.
I'll offer this gem - the LDs start with about 150 Councillors in London - when Paddy was in charge, there were over 300 LD London Councillors - there are currently 19 London Boroughs with no LD councillors so the party has withdrawn to islands of strength surrounded by oceans of weakness.
There are already Con/Ref battles as you put it in a number of constituencies and clearly the Conservatives will be hoping those not enamoured of the propect of a Reform Government will be tempted to support the Conservatives to prevent that.
Perhaps but in turn that perception will be coloured by the approach Badenoch takes (or is perceived to be taking) vis-a-vis Reform in the run up to the election. If it looks as though the Conservative Party she leads will enable a minority Reform Government (via Confidence & Supply for example), the anti-Reform tactical vote will go elsewhere. IF she distances herself from Reform, the question will then be the Conservative line in respect of a minority Labour Government and that in itself will cause problems.
As you see, being the third (or even fourth) party is much harder than being the first or second party and it's all about seats, not votes. Labour could easily poll slightly fewer votes yet end up with more seats.
I guess the question of C and S will be answered as we enter a campaign. For now they all say 'we play to win'
The point about 3rd/4th is well made. I think the Tories have a mountain to climb to ever look like a majority winning party again (and indeed Labour might find themselves there too). The damage they will suffer in the Red Wall areas they made progress in to 2019 will take many parliaments to repair and nay never be undone if Reform stay in the game. Im condfident Reform's campaign of 5 years of rage into a landslide simply won't work. Im less confident of how far they fall back when it doesnt.
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders
I wonder why ?
Where is this poll bounce you speak of? The More in Common poll posted earlier in the thread has the Tories third on 19%, 3% behind Labour and 11% behind Reform
Comments
The attack was inevitable, not grasping the likely issues in the Hormaz Strait rather less so
We need to start seeing polling with Reform no longer leading - the last poll with Reform neither joint top nor clearly in front was 13-14 April 2025 when Labour (yes, them) led by one point (the numbers were Lab 24, Ref 23, Con 21, LD 14, Green 11). That's approaching a year of Reform leads and even the current polling (three this week) has Reform ahead beyond Margin of Error.
The May elections will be informative and influential on polling and it's all about expectations management as we know. What do we expect/want/fear (delete as appropriate)?
1000 Labour losses, 500 Conservative losses, 1000 Reform gains - I don't know.
At this stage, there are assumptions about parties running full slates of candidates and the involvement (or otherwise) of local groups such as the Newham Indpendents in my patch which make some of the "forecasts" I've seen laughable in my view.
Who defines the expectations management and will it be on seats lost/gained or councils lost/gained? For example, the Conservatives could make a net loss of seats in London but gain in terms of councils controlled and if you get more councils moving to No Overall Control, what kinds of political partnerships will we see? We didn't see a lot of Reform-Conservative collaboration last year - will we this year?
I cannot believe that a Cambridge gentleman and lawyer could be so duplicitous.
I have predicted Ref will lose their lead at lesst once before the LEs and 'often' afterwards
It would be different if Polanski or Corbyn was in charge but that's about it.
What they are doing is the easy bit: bin the remaining hereditaries (mostly Tory, a few LD) because it’s clean optics and shifts the numbers without risking anything unpredictable. Meanwhile the bishops stay (because apparently divine appointment is more legitimate than inheritance now), and the PM keeps the patronage machine humming by appointing more friendly life peers.
The real reason it stops there is simple: an elected second chamber is a political dice roll. With current polling, a PR-ish elected upper house probably spits out a chunky Reform bloc, and Labour have no incentive to create a second chamber that can claim democratic legitimacy while being packed with people who’d love to spend every day trying to kneecap them.
Disestablish, now
A councillor who defected to Reform UK from the Conservatives rejoined the Tories in the same week after he said he had "made a mistake".
They should cast him as a Bond villain.
So Kemi has been onthe on-the-money war leader whilst Starmer, Nige and Zack have all had mares. Nigey almost as bad as Starmer.
It's just your latest trick for engagement.
@HYUFD is a conservative and you would expect him to report Kemi's bounce, but that does not fit his Cleverly obsession
We absolutely do not need to see Ref lose the lead for there to be Con/Ref battles like i suggested, lower single digits Ref lead would do it.
Ref Local elections. Last year nobody but Ref and , to a slightly lesser but not insignificant extent, LD had anything to spin. This year they'll all have results to spin. The spin operation and 'order of results' will be important.
P.s, you dont have to keep pointing out I am Conservative like I've got a dose of the plague, i don't keep pointing out you are a Lib Dem.
Anyway...
I am sure over time there will be reform to conservative defections but not those two unwelcome characters
Our only avowed fan on here is a Tory, I believe (although I know you probably consider him too wet and more of an LD!)
Top Curtis films by political affiliation would be interesting.
Top Rickman films maybe even more so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c043yre6l2ro
The UK's youngest council leader is facing a vote of no confidence after being accused of bringing the authority "into disrepute". Reform UK's George Finch, who leads Warwickshire County Council, was appointed last summer at the age of 19.
Green Party councillors called for a vote on Finch's position at the next full council meeting on 17 March, suggesting he has "abused the office of leader".
It's soon to be down to about 740 members after the hereditaries go, plus around the 25 or so who will be given a Life sentence.
If the retirement age of "end of the Parliament when you turn 80" arrives, that will be another 300+ gone by 2029, who will be approx:
1/3 of Tories.
1/2 of Labour.
1/2 of Lib Dems.
1/2 of Crossbenchers.
So it will be 440 plus extra appointments.
What we need then is a look at the appointment process.
I'm sure there will be a different set of complaints by then.
Potentially by people with extreme ideas, such as believing in God. As opposed to vague niceness and weak tea.
The whole point of the Establish Church is to keep that dangerous God Bothering stuff out of public life.
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
It’s very hard to create an ideology of repression and violence out of vague niceness and weak tea.
It’s very easy to do that from Knowing that you believe in God in exactly the right fashion.
Hence the CoE
Murdo here screaming 'SCons need HELP!'. I think hes struggling to get Kerr over the line with him on the list
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Every replacement on offer either recreates patronage with extra steps or creates a rival Commons. Until someone proposes a workable alternative, “reform” usually means “make it more partisan”.
I'll offer this gem - the LDs start with about 150 Councillors in London - when Paddy was in charge, there were over 300 LD London Councillors - there are currently 19 London Boroughs with no LD councillors so the party has withdrawn to islands of strength surrounded by oceans of weakness.
There are already Con/Ref battles as you put it in a number of constituencies and clearly the Conservatives will be hoping those not enamoured of the propect of a Reform Government will be tempted to support the Conservatives to prevent that.
Perhaps but in turn that perception will be coloured by the approach Badenoch takes (or is perceived to be taking) vis-a-vis Reform in the run up to the election. If it looks as though the Conservative Party she leads will enable a minority Reform Government (via Confidence & Supply for example), the anti-Reform tactical vote will go elsewhere. IF she distances herself from Reform, the question will then be the Conservative line in respect of a minority Labour Government and that in itself will cause problems.
As you see, being the third (or even fourth) party is much harder than being the first or second party and it's all about seats, not votes. Labour could easily poll slightly fewer votes yet end up with more seats.
I can't buttonhole him in a niche in Northern Irish protestant politics yet, as I am not up to date with all the nuances. I would need to ask Mick Fealty for a steer. He has a touch of the Paisleyite stentorian, and I can imagine him fitting in the Orange Order, but that's not detailed enough for NI.
Here he is celebrating Rupert Lowe's arrival:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBuhQuv-iDM&t=592s
* I'm ignoring the various Chaplains to Tommy Robinson, who I suspect are mainly cross with the Church of England because it smoked them out and either stopped them becoming Vicars or got rid later. And for that mindset the idea that the "Christian State" aspire to inclusiveness and tolerance (however imperfectly) is a rebuke.
The polling suggests that Reform voters back Trump over the UK, so I think they'd be appalled.
“Recent Pandemic Viruses Jumped to Humans Without Prior Adaptation, UC San Diego Study Finds
“Large-scale evolutionary analysis shows most zoonotic viruses emerge without prior adaptation, while passing through a laboratory leaves detectable genetic signatures, offering a new tool to interpret outbreak origins”
Law - what is it good for? Deciding what is legal. Which this isn't.
I guess at some point the physical reality of whether there is a shortage of oil or not will overcome sentiment and decisively send prices in one direction or the other.
Perhaps RCS or Eagles can remember?
Offensive bombing is done by people like Hesgeth: "Yeah, take that you camel jockeys!"
Defensive bombing is done by people like Starmer: "Terribly sorry old chap, but you've forced us to do this."
The HOL does play an important role and seems a lot more thoughtful than the Commons .
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/house-of-lords-data-dashboard-peerage-creations/
Nigel Farage interviewed by @freddiejh8 in Palm Beach this weekend. The Reform leader told the NS:
💥A written offer to help with Trump admin was made privately to Starmer in September - the PM ignored Farage
💥Iran poses a “potentially bigger” threat to UK than Russia
💥He is “reasonably optimistic” about the war
💥His back channel communications with Trump team are “not against the national interest”
Trigger warning for those who despise the Spectator, but he is not a Spectator hack, is an expert, and is quite adamant that it is legal, on multiple grounds.
https://spectator.com/article/international-law-is-not-a-suicide-pact/
As too did Carney, initially, until he realised it was unpopular and reverse ferreted which is politics not law.
She is the least relevant Tory Leader since IDS, as the Tories are increasingly irrelevant.
People in the Street have no other view on her other than she is aggressive, sounds like a man and won't apologise for 14 years of Tory Government.
She is less well known than any of the other 4 main Party Leaders
Farage
Starmer
Davey
Polanski
My fascination with her is purely the fact that she spouts lies, acts like a spoilt brat, behaves against all parliamentary conventions (last week pmq, refusing to acknowledge passing of non tory mps, breaking convention of letting actual shadow minister talk in debates) are recent examples.
I call out lies, her wriggling trying to deny she clearly called for aggressive action on Iran and supporting US and Israel a clear example yesterday which turned in to a comedy skit about vows and arrows...
She is what she is, out if her depth intellectually challenged, over aggressive with temper issues not avery nice personality and increasingly comedy gold.
Disestablishment also removes the automatic right to a wedding or funeral in your local C of E Parish church
I was hoping to get some actual work done today... shít
YouGov: 40%
MoreInCommon: 52%
That's quite a difference.
https://electionmaps.uk/polling/vi
The point about 3rd/4th is well made. I think the Tories have a mountain to climb to ever look like a majority winning party again (and indeed Labour might find themselves there too). The damage they will suffer in the Red Wall areas they made progress in to 2019 will take many parliaments to repair and nay never be undone if Reform stay in the game.
Im condfident Reform's campaign of 5 years of rage into a landslide simply won't work. Im less confident of how far they fall back when it doesnt.