Skip to content

Being usurped, Nigel Farage as Henry Bolingbroke to Kemi Badenoch's Richard II –politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,169
edited May 29 in General
Being usurped, Nigel Farage as Henry Bolingbroke to Kemi Badenoch's Richard II – politicalbetting.com

Who do Britons think is the main party of the right in the UK today43% say Reform (rising to 74% of 2024 Reform voters)17% say the Tories (40% of 2024 Tories)6% say Restore (rising to 12% of 2024 Reform voters)5% say the Liberal Democrats (rising to 19% of Lib Dem voters)

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,589
    Morning.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,589
    Derailed from last thread.

    theProle said:

    FF43 said:

    Sky News came to Ireland in an attempt to question Nicola Sturgeon about claims she shut down scrutiny of SNP finances at the same time her ex-husband Peter Murrell stole £400k from party. She entered the kitchen to avoid questions with security pushing me away.

    https://x.com/ConnorGillies/status/2060051358074487201?s=20

    I hope the kitchen was well stocked with 7 kettles and 3 coffee machines so she felt at home.

    Sky could spend one tenth of the effort questioning Nigel Farage about his £5 million bribe. Yes I understand bribery is a different thing from theft but (a) he actually did it unlike Sturgeon; (b) he is still party leader liable to become Prime Minister; and (c) it's a lot more money.
    I know I sound like a broken record on this, but what "Bribe"? As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected.

    To bribe someone requires them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do in return for the cash.
    Giving a political donation merely indicates that donor is probably aligned with the policy aims of the person they are hoping will be elected.

    The only notable things about this particular donation are a) that it's large by UK standards, and b) that Farage possibly played fast and loose with the rules around declaring it.

    If we want to talk about dirty political donations, and organisation which do get to influence policy in return for hard cash, can I interest anyone in the self serving relationship between a number of large trade unions and the Labour Party? Or is it only dirty cash when it's large donations to causes with which we disagree?
    Sorry to be blunt, but what utter tosh.

    Farage's gift is now under investigation for its "gift" status and whether Farage should have declared it once in the HoC. We await the result.

    Nathan Gill took money from Russia in order to promote Russia. A distinct and illegal conflict of interest. Farage took money from a Crypto billionaire and has spoken favourably about Crypto. At the very least the media chasing down Nicola Sturgeon should be having a look. But it's Farage, so we can give him a free pass.
    Added to that, it's money from someone domiciled overseas, with a very large commercial interest in crypto policy.

    ..As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected...
    Farage's "policy aims" on that are hardly the reason for his popularity with the parts of the electorate which are keen on him to do what "he was always going to do".
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,589
    ..As for the 5% of voters (and 19% of Lib Dem voters) who think the Lib Dems are the main party of the right, I am genuinely speechless..

    Since the others are clearly wrong, it makes a certain amount of sense.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,240
    Are Reform the party of the aspiring working class?

    Their hopes and dreams of a better life fanned by the Blair Years (Loadsamoney) were dashed after 2008. And a man made in the image of Loadsamoney is trashing the Tim (Nice But Dim) Tories.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,589
    edited May 29
    I'm struggling with the header.
    Is TSE suggesting Farage is planning Kemicide?

    And what part do Bushy, Bagot, and the Greens play ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,589
    Richard II is perhaps more appropriate to the issues of utility privatisation, and overseas ownership of property.

    "..This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
    Dear for her reputation through the world,
    Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
    Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
    England, bound in with the triumphant sea,
    Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
    Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
    With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds.."
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564
    Nigelb said:

    I'm struggling with the header.
    Is TSE suggesting Farage is planning Kemicide?

    And what part do Bushy, Bagot, and the Greens play ?

    Misleading Kemi obviously.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,447
    Do Your Party and Green supporters reply "Labour"?
  • franklynfranklyn Posts: 335
    The clear message that Farage's opponents need to get over is that there is no such thing as the Reform Party, there is a Nigel Farage Party ( a limited company with one shareholder, Nigel Farage) One could have made the same comment about the Conservatives under Boris Johnson; it wasn't conservatism it was Johnsonism and that didn't end well.


  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,475
    Good morning everyone.

    Does anyone have a link to the unedited version of the Richard Tice Bloomberg podcast?

    I've been listening to the version with added fact checks.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 4,466
    edited May 29
    As with many polls, I think this is one we might put down to the framing effect. I don't think it is necessarily particularly meaningful data.

    At the end of the day, Farage has a total, including defections, of 8 MPs, Badenoch has 116. I find it hard to believe that Farage can make the case that he should win in a seat that already has a Conservative MP, when whatever his vote percentage, his parliamentary party fits in a taxi.

    As a Lib Dem, we know about having large percentage votes and not gaining too many seats- as the Alliance, we got 25.4% in 1983 and got 23 seats to show for it. I understand that FPTP can throw up strange results, but as, again the Lib Dems learned and as the 2024 results show, a strong ground campaign in the right seat can still win, even if the national percentage is not that strong- the Lib Dem national vote was only 0.6% up in 2024, but a gain of 64 seats.

    Farage gets the attention of sympathetic and fash-curious figures in the media, but as we see with the chaos after the local elections, the Reform ground game is weak. More to the point, there is a consistent pattern of people voting for Farage in elections they do not deem to be important- Locals, Europeans- but not at the general election.

    So, even allowing for the FPTP capacity to give skewed results, I do not think that Farage will overtake Badenoch- his negatives are much worse than any other leader, and as Trump implodes, my judgment is that it will get worse for him, The Tories are incumbents in 109 more seats than "Reform", and they have a solid ground game in these seats, as well in others they lost narrowly to Labour. The last election says The Tories get 23.7%, Farage only 14.3%. Notwithstanding the current polling snapshot, there is a lot more inertia to overcome for the general election.

    I would favour the Tories to win a lot more seats than Farage, and this poll may create a betting opportunity for much better odds.

    I think Farage is more Falstaff in Henry V- a seemingly jolly but in fact rather dark figure- than he is Bolingbroke.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    edited May 29
    The bit missing from the analysis is how people are interpreting “main”. Perhaps the 19% of LD voters who responded LibDem isn’t as surprising as you’d think - many of the people who now back the LibDems in the Home Counties likely still see themselves as centre-right, and if they’re living somewhere that now has a LibDem MP and a LibDem council, very clearly the LibDems are the main party where they live. If you live somewhere like Richmond or Sutton or Kingston, where the Tory Party has essentially near disappeared, how could it be described as a ‘main’ party at all?

    The other interesting finding from the poll is that it gives us a rough fix that maybe 10% of Reform voters would rather vote Restore if they got the choice locally?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 26,261
    FPT

    IMO MPs should not be getting donations or contributions to office costs etc from anyone. They have a salary and expenses to run their offices. And that should be it. No donations or benefits in kind from lobby groups, charities or anyone else. These create a conflict of interest and simply listing them on a register is not sufficient to deal with the impression - and in some cases, the reality - that some MPs are bought.

    And as for second jobs I set out a workable and sensible solution here - https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/11/12/honourable-members/

    And as @Foxy has said, this should also apply to leaders of political parties.

    On topic, Badenoch - whatever her other failings - is not a tyrant and Farage is certainly not a Henry IV.

    It might be good if the Tories tried to position themselves as the sensible centre right and let Reform be the party for the loopy right. But that does not seem to have occurred to them or, if it has, they're not being very good at it.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,452
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Does anyone have a link to the unedited version of the Richard Tice Bloomberg podcast?

    I've been listening to the version with added fact checks.

    The fact checks must at least triple its length. Tice is a major league purveyor of truthiness.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,623
    Off topic, but I see that a founder member of Raise the Colours (the flag flying lot), Billy Allison, thumped a pub owner at the weekend. He's been charged with murder, as the chap he hit subsequently died. Must have been a heck of a punch.
    That's true patriotism in action, that is.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,475
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Does anyone have a link to the unedited version of the Richard Tice Bloomberg podcast?

    I've been listening to the version with added fact checks.

    The link I have listened to:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz31-LDW2yU
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,452

    Off topic, but I see that a founder member of Raise the Colours (the flag flying lot), Billy Allison, thumped a pub owner at the weekend. He's been charged with murder, as the chap he hit subsequently died. Must have been a heck of a punch.
    That's true patriotism in action, that is.

    Lovely bunch of people who are definitely not racist thugs.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,081

    Off topic, but I see that a founder member of Raise the Colours (the flag flying lot), Billy Allison, thumped a pub owner at the weekend. He's been charged with murder, as the chap he hit subsequently died. Must have been a heck of a punch.
    That's true patriotism in action, that is.

    Maybe he cracked his head when he fell.

    One punch is all it takes.

    I remember Tory MP Dehenna Davison did some campaign work on it as her Dad was killed by a single punch from a thug.

    People need to think about these things.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,475
    edited May 29

    Off topic, but I see that a founder member of Raise the Colours (the flag flying lot), Billy Allison, thumped a pub owner at the weekend. He's been charged with murder, as the chap he hit subsequently died. Must have been a heck of a punch.
    That's true patriotism in action, that is.

    That can be done far too easily, with or without intention to murder - and not making a judgement. We had one a couple of miles from me within the last couple of years:

    https://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/news/nottinghamshire/news/news/2026/april/pub-fight-peacemaker-died-after-single-punch/

    This was (imo) an individual from a family involved in organised crime. The victim had stepped in to stop a potential fight.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,081
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Does anyone have a link to the unedited version of the Richard Tice Bloomberg podcast?

    I've been listening to the version with added fact checks.

    The link I have listened to:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz31-LDW2yU
    He did one in Merryn talks money too. He was unconvincing to say the least, and lacking in specifics.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488
    franklyn said:

    The clear message that Farage's opponents need to get over is that there is no such thing as the Reform Party, there is a Nigel Farage Party ( a limited company with one shareholder, Nigel Farage) One could have made the same comment about the Conservatives under Boris Johnson; it wasn't conservatism it was Johnsonism and that didn't end well.


    Without disagreeing on the substance, technically that is no longer true as of last year:

    https://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/24950471.nigel-farage-hands-control-reform-uk-members/
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,887
    Nigelb said:

    Derailed from last thread.

    theProle said:

    FF43 said:

    Sky News came to Ireland in an attempt to question Nicola Sturgeon about claims she shut down scrutiny of SNP finances at the same time her ex-husband Peter Murrell stole £400k from party. She entered the kitchen to avoid questions with security pushing me away.

    https://x.com/ConnorGillies/status/2060051358074487201?s=20

    I hope the kitchen was well stocked with 7 kettles and 3 coffee machines so she felt at home.

    Sky could spend one tenth of the effort questioning Nigel Farage about his £5 million bribe. Yes I understand bribery is a different thing from theft but (a) he actually did it unlike Sturgeon; (b) he is still party leader liable to become Prime Minister; and (c) it's a lot more money.
    I know I sound like a broken record on this, but what "Bribe"? As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected.

    To bribe someone requires them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do in return for the cash.
    Giving a political donation merely indicates that donor is probably aligned with the policy aims of the person they are hoping will be elected.

    The only notable things about this particular donation are a) that it's large by UK standards, and b) that Farage possibly played fast and loose with the rules around declaring it.

    If we want to talk about dirty political donations, and organisation which do get to influence policy in return for hard cash, can I interest anyone in the self serving relationship between a number of large trade unions and the Labour Party? Or is it only dirty cash when it's large donations to causes with which we disagree?
    Sorry to be blunt, but what utter tosh.

    Farage's gift is now under investigation for its "gift" status and whether Farage should have declared it once in the HoC. We await the result.

    Nathan Gill took money from Russia in order to promote Russia. A distinct and illegal conflict of interest. Farage took money from a Crypto billionaire and has spoken favourably about Crypto. At the very least the media chasing down Nicola Sturgeon should be having a look. But it's Farage, so we can give him a free pass.
    Added to that, it's money from someone domiciled overseas, with a very large commercial interest in crypto policy.

    ..As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected...
    Farage's "policy aims" on that are hardly the reason for his popularity with the parts of the electorate which are keen on him to do what "he was always going to do".
    So Nigel is just Tonty in mustard cords? I suppose at least despite his clown car candidates Farage is trying to get elected while Blair issues papal encyclicals to influence who he estimates will do his and his paymasters' bidding.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,475

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Does anyone have a link to the unedited version of the Richard Tice Bloomberg podcast?

    I've been listening to the version with added fact checks.

    The fact checks must at least triple its length. Tice is a major league purveyor of truthiness.
    The added fact checks are fairly restrained/ Worth a listen.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 41,035
    MattW said:

    Off topic, but I see that a founder member of Raise the Colours (the flag flying lot), Billy Allison, thumped a pub owner at the weekend. He's been charged with murder, as the chap he hit subsequently died. Must have been a heck of a punch.
    That's true patriotism in action, that is.

    That can be done far too easily, with or without intention to murder - and not making a judgement. We had one a couple of miles from me within the last couple of years:

    https://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/news/nottinghamshire/news/news/2026/april/pub-fight-peacemaker-died-after-single-punch/

    This was (imo) an individual from a family involved in organised crime. The victim had stepped in to stop a potential fight.
    So long as there was intent to cause GBH, or recklessness, then a murder conviction could be obtained.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564
    Nigelb said:

    I'm struggling with the header.
    Is TSE suggesting Farage is planning Kemicide?

    And what part do Bushy, Bagot, and the Greens play ?

    I just think if Reform do usurp the Tories at the next election and that would be this country's greatest usurpation since Bolingbroke and Dicky II.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,926

    Nigelb said:

    I'm struggling with the header.
    Is TSE suggesting Farage is planning Kemicide?

    And what part do Bushy, Bagot, and the Greens play ?

    I just think if Reform do usurp the Tories at the next election and that would be this country's greatest usurpation since Bolingbroke and Dicky II.
    Ian Mortimer has a rather good biography of Henry IV. The first half is essentially Richard II being a devious little shit but antagonising everyone so much they're not exactly sad when he's overthrown.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,475
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    IMO MPs should not be getting donations or contributions to office costs etc from anyone. They have a salary and expenses to run their offices. And that should be it. No donations or benefits in kind from lobby groups, charities or anyone else. These create a conflict of interest and simply listing them on a register is not sufficient to deal with the impression - and in some cases, the reality - that some MPs are bought.

    And as for second jobs I set out a workable and sensible solution here - https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/11/12/honourable-members/

    And as @Foxy has said, this should also apply to leaders of political parties.

    On topic, Badenoch - whatever her other failings - is not a tyrant and Farage is certainly not a Henry IV.

    It might be good if the Tories tried to position themselves as the sensible centre right and let Reform be the party for the loopy right. But that does not seem to have occurred to them or, if it has, they're not being very good at it.

    I think the underlying question is how much "sensible" is there left in the Conservative Party?

    My not-very-complimentary analogy is that the Conservative Party currently is a gutted fish, where they have thrown away the fish and kept the stinking entrails to be the rump conservative party.

    I cannot see a straightforward way out of that.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,131
    Taz said:

    Off topic, but I see that a founder member of Raise the Colours (the flag flying lot), Billy Allison, thumped a pub owner at the weekend. He's been charged with murder, as the chap he hit subsequently died. Must have been a heck of a punch.
    That's true patriotism in action, that is.

    Maybe he cracked his head when he fell.

    One punch is all it takes.

    I remember Tory MP Dehenna Davison did some campaign work on it as her Dad was killed by a single punch from a thug.

    People need to think about these things.
    There's a play about it "Punch"

    What's happened to the one they arrested at the march in London for running someone down?
    I'd say there's greater intent to do harm running someone down with a van than punching them
  • RogerRoger Posts: 23,125
    "I wasted time and now doth time wast me..."
  • Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    I’ve said many times, whilst cutting spending on some things was fair enough, cutting the police has to be one of the dumbest decisions any government has made in history.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,858
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    IMO MPs should not be getting donations or contributions to office costs etc from anyone. They have a salary and expenses to run their offices. And that should be it. No donations or benefits in kind from lobby groups, charities or anyone else. These create a conflict of interest and simply listing them on a register is not sufficient to deal with the impression - and in some cases, the reality - that some MPs are bought.

    And as for second jobs I set out a workable and sensible solution here - https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/11/12/honourable-members/

    And as @Foxy has said, this should also apply to leaders of political parties.

    On topic, Badenoch - whatever her other failings - is not a tyrant and Farage is certainly not a Henry IV.

    It might be good if the Tories tried to position themselves as the sensible centre right and let Reform be the party for the loopy right. But that does not seem to have occurred to them or, if it has, they're not being very good at it.

    Leaving aside that Kemi and her party membership are pretty right-wing from a historical point of view, there's a reasonable theory of why they are going one step in from Reform, rather than putting clear sane water between them and the Faragists;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_law

    I'm not totally sure it works here- each time the Conservatives shuffle a bit to the right, it validates a further bit of even more right-wingery.

    And whilst there are plenty of sensible centre-right types despairing of not having a party going for them (especially outside the Waitrose belt, where the Lib Dems come closeish), there probably aren't enough of us for anyone to really bother.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,735
    Nigelb said:

    Derailed from last thread.

    theProle said:

    FF43 said:

    Sky News came to Ireland in an attempt to question Nicola Sturgeon about claims she shut down scrutiny of SNP finances at the same time her ex-husband Peter Murrell stole £400k from party. She entered the kitchen to avoid questions with security pushing me away.

    https://x.com/ConnorGillies/status/2060051358074487201?s=20

    I hope the kitchen was well stocked with 7 kettles and 3 coffee machines so she felt at home.

    Sky could spend one tenth of the effort questioning Nigel Farage about his £5 million bribe. Yes I understand bribery is a different thing from theft but (a) he actually did it unlike Sturgeon; (b) he is still party leader liable to become Prime Minister; and (c) it's a lot more money.
    I know I sound like a broken record on this, but what "Bribe"? As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected.

    To bribe someone requires them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do in return for the cash.
    Giving a political donation merely indicates that donor is probably aligned with the policy aims of the person they are hoping will be elected.

    The only notable things about this particular donation are a) that it's large by UK standards, and b) that Farage possibly played fast and loose with the rules around declaring it.

    If we want to talk about dirty political donations, and organisation which do get to influence policy in return for hard cash, can I interest anyone in the self serving relationship between a number of large trade unions and the Labour Party? Or is it only dirty cash when it's large donations to causes with which we disagree?
    Sorry to be blunt, but what utter tosh.

    Farage's gift is now under investigation for its "gift" status and whether Farage should have declared it once in the HoC. We await the result.

    Nathan Gill took money from Russia in order to promote Russia. A distinct and illegal conflict of interest. Farage took money from a Crypto billionaire and has spoken favourably about Crypto. At the very least the media chasing down Nicola Sturgeon should be having a look. But it's Farage, so we can give him a free pass.
    Added to that, it's money from someone domiciled overseas, with a very large commercial interest in crypto policy.

    ..As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected...
    Farage's "policy aims" on that are hardly the reason for his popularity with the parts of the electorate which are keen on him to do what "he was always going to do".
    A £13m donation to Reform and £5m as a gift to Farage all makes Bernie Ecclestone's £1m to Blair Labour to be a drop in the ocean. And we still, a quarter of a century later, get posters castigating New Labour for their year 2000 corruption, yet posters are giving Farage a free pass on something that looks and smells utterly rank.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 2,033
    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    Wholeheartedly agree.

    I have no strong views on Badenoch either way (but then I think I'm unusual in having no strong views on Starmer, Farage or Polanski either, though if forced I'd probably choose Badenoch followed by Farage to have a pint with).

    The Tories simply need to wait out the voters' memories. Badenoch is as good as anyone to do this.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,475
    On the header, it's worth a note that the Con problem is perhaps more deep seated.

    They also lost seats 1333 in 2019 followed by 1063 in 2023.

    In 2016 the total numbers of Local Council Seats for categories over 1000 (all of UK) were:

    Conservative and Unionist 8622
    Labour Party 6735
    Liberal Democrats 1844
    Independent / Other 1695

    In 2026 (latest) it is:

    Labour Party 4616
    Conservative and Unionist 3848
    Liberal Democrats 3361
    Reform UK 2338
    Independent / Other 1960
    Green Party (E&W) 1307

    Source: https://opencouncildata.co.uk/councillors2.php?y=0

    That highlights the issue around being a potentially regional party. Labour have a similar challenge.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,447
    Kemi and her party were certainly usurped by just about everyone in Swansea overnight. Fifth in a seat they were defending.

    Kemi fans, please explain.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564

    Nigelb said:

    I'm struggling with the header.
    Is TSE suggesting Farage is planning Kemicide?

    And what part do Bushy, Bagot, and the Greens play ?

    I just think if Reform do usurp the Tories at the next election and that would be this country's greatest usurpation since Bolingbroke and Dicky II.
    Ian Mortimer has a rather good biography of Henry IV. The first half is essentially Richard II being a devious little shit but antagonising everyone so much they're not exactly sad when he's overthrown.
    It’s a good read.
  • Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    I’ve said many times, whilst cutting spending on some things was fair enough, cutting the police has to be one of the dumbest decisions any government has made in history.
    Justice, even more so, because the sums involved are so small, but the harm caused is so great.
    I think this is the basis of why I disagree with so much of what the Tories cut. Because they cut a lot of things for the sake of cutting them, even though it was clear even then that it wasn’t going to have any tangible impact on the public finances.

    In a funny sort of way, it’s exactly the same argument Blair has made about oil and gas. I’m very much in favour of renewables and nuclear, I think it’s self-evident that we need a massive expansion and it’s the only way to get us off relying on foreign imports. It’s a decision we need to take now that WILL pay off in the future.

    But to stop using our own fossil fuel reserves and to import them instead, just seems like the ends don’t justify the means. Using it will have no tangible impact on the climate.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,887

    Nigelb said:

    Derailed from last thread.

    theProle said:

    FF43 said:

    Sky News came to Ireland in an attempt to question Nicola Sturgeon about claims she shut down scrutiny of SNP finances at the same time her ex-husband Peter Murrell stole £400k from party. She entered the kitchen to avoid questions with security pushing me away.

    https://x.com/ConnorGillies/status/2060051358074487201?s=20

    I hope the kitchen was well stocked with 7 kettles and 3 coffee machines so she felt at home.

    Sky could spend one tenth of the effort questioning Nigel Farage about his £5 million bribe. Yes I understand bribery is a different thing from theft but (a) he actually did it unlike Sturgeon; (b) he is still party leader liable to become Prime Minister; and (c) it's a lot more money.
    I know I sound like a broken record on this, but what "Bribe"? As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected.

    To bribe someone requires them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do in return for the cash.
    Giving a political donation merely indicates that donor is probably aligned with the policy aims of the person they are hoping will be elected.

    The only notable things about this particular donation are a) that it's large by UK standards, and b) that Farage possibly played fast and loose with the rules around declaring it.

    If we want to talk about dirty political donations, and organisation which do get to influence policy in return for hard cash, can I interest anyone in the self serving relationship between a number of large trade unions and the Labour Party? Or is it only dirty cash when it's large donations to causes with which we disagree?
    Sorry to be blunt, but what utter tosh.

    Farage's gift is now under investigation for its "gift" status and whether Farage should have declared it once in the HoC. We await the result.

    Nathan Gill took money from Russia in order to promote Russia. A distinct and illegal conflict of interest. Farage took money from a Crypto billionaire and has spoken favourably about Crypto. At the very least the media chasing down Nicola Sturgeon should be having a look. But it's Farage, so we can give him a free pass.
    Added to that, it's money from someone domiciled overseas, with a very large commercial interest in crypto policy.

    ..As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected...
    Farage's "policy aims" on that are hardly the reason for his popularity with the parts of the electorate which are keen on him to do what "he was always going to do".
    A £13m donation to Reform and £5m as a gift to Farage all makes Bernie Ecclestone's £1m to Blair Labour to be a drop in the ocean. And we still, a quarter of a century later, get posters castigating New Labour for their year 2000 corruption, yet posters are giving Farage a free pass on something that looks and smells utterly rank.
    Lest we forget, I believe the Tories kept the £10m from the lad who said Diane Abbott made him hate all black women and that she should be shot.
  • maxh said:

    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    Wholeheartedly agree.

    I have no strong views on Badenoch either way (but then I think I'm unusual in having no strong views on Starmer, Farage or Polanski either, though if forced I'd probably choose Badenoch followed by Farage to have a pint with).

    The Tories simply need to wait out the voters' memories. Badenoch is as good as anyone to do this.
    I think Badenoch is doing a good job and is doing it fairly similarly to how Starmer did it which turned out to be quite effective. I could even see myself voting for her party which was never the case when Johnson and co arrived. I think she’s serious and has some good ideas. Iran aside which was a stupid idea and her general manner which needs a bit of work (although improving), I don’t find much to disagree with her on generally.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,887

    maxh said:

    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    Wholeheartedly agree.

    I have no strong views on Badenoch either way (but then I think I'm unusual in having no strong views on Starmer, Farage or Polanski either, though if forced I'd probably choose Badenoch followed by Farage to have a pint with).

    The Tories simply need to wait out the voters' memories. Badenoch is as good as anyone to do this.
    I think Badenoch is doing a good job and is doing it fairly similarly to how Starmer did it which turned out to be quite effective. I could even see myself voting for her party which was never the case when Johnson and co arrived. I think she’s serious and has some good ideas. Iran aside which was a stupid idea and her general manner which needs a bit of work (although improving), I don’t find much to disagree with her on generally.
    Can we have a definitive list on the parties you might and might not vote for?

    Yes
    Lab (leadership tbc)
    Cons
    Reform

    No
    Greens

    LDs ?
    Restore ?
    Count Binface Party ?
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,113
    edited May 29

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?

    Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
    Leftwards or rightwards?

    I can't tell any more.
    Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.

    * Introduce PR (majority of public in favour)
    * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour)
    * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing)
    * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
    I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
    Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-putting-everything-line-33989167

    In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
    I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
    iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control

    Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

    I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well.
    If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working.
    It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.

    I think it's a good model.
    Less obvious how that would work with water. BusCo A and Busco B can use different buses under the TfL banner. WaterCo A and WaterCo B cannot lay their own pipes to take water from their own reservoirs to every bathtub in the land.

    And be careful about the NHS as doctors are making noises about wanting more private work in their private/NHS mix. Stealth privatisation is happening even beyond the government's control.
    I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. TfL say what buses are allowed, they do designs etc and then the companies lease them.

    They can’t just run whatever buses they want. It’s why the Boris buses have all disappeared at once.
    The point is there are lots of buses owned and operated by different companies, famously including the Paris bus company which is owned by the French state (nationalisation, eh!) whereas water companies would not be competing in the same way. It is a natural monopoly: no-one advocates building multiple pipelines from different reservoirs to the same homes. All that can change is the logo on the water bill. And natural monopolies need careful regulation, as every economist barring the ones advising HMG always knew.
    Following up on this, for over half of the country there is no alternative infrastructure to Openreach. But nobody is suggesting nationalising that.

    Openreach was doing a very bad job until the threat of splitting them off appeared. Then magically they decided FTTP was doable and they started rolling it out at record breaking speed. The result is that there is still a virtual monopoly on infrastructure however the infrastructure is much better.

    Perhaps there’s something to look at in this for water?

    I’m not necessarily advocating this approach but why can broadband providers exist that use the same infrastructure owned by one company, but this can’t also happen for water?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,735

    Nigelb said:

    Derailed from last thread.

    theProle said:

    FF43 said:

    Sky News came to Ireland in an attempt to question Nicola Sturgeon about claims she shut down scrutiny of SNP finances at the same time her ex-husband Peter Murrell stole £400k from party. She entered the kitchen to avoid questions with security pushing me away.

    https://x.com/ConnorGillies/status/2060051358074487201?s=20

    I hope the kitchen was well stocked with 7 kettles and 3 coffee machines so she felt at home.

    Sky could spend one tenth of the effort questioning Nigel Farage about his £5 million bribe. Yes I understand bribery is a different thing from theft but (a) he actually did it unlike Sturgeon; (b) he is still party leader liable to become Prime Minister; and (c) it's a lot more money.
    I know I sound like a broken record on this, but what "Bribe"? As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected.

    To bribe someone requires them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do in return for the cash.
    Giving a political donation merely indicates that donor is probably aligned with the policy aims of the person they are hoping will be elected.

    The only notable things about this particular donation are a) that it's large by UK standards, and b) that Farage possibly played fast and loose with the rules around declaring it.

    If we want to talk about dirty political donations, and organisation which do get to influence policy in return for hard cash, can I interest anyone in the self serving relationship between a number of large trade unions and the Labour Party? Or is it only dirty cash when it's large donations to causes with which we disagree?
    Sorry to be blunt, but what utter tosh.

    Farage's gift is now under investigation for its "gift" status and whether Farage should have declared it once in the HoC. We await the result.

    Nathan Gill took money from Russia in order to promote Russia. A distinct and illegal conflict of interest. Farage took money from a Crypto billionaire and has spoken favourably about Crypto. At the very least the media chasing down Nicola Sturgeon should be having a look. But it's Farage, so we can give him a free pass.
    Added to that, it's money from someone domiciled overseas, with a very large commercial interest in crypto policy.

    ..As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected...
    Farage's "policy aims" on that are hardly the reason for his popularity with the parts of the electorate which are keen on him to do what "he was always going to do".
    A £13m donation to Reform and £5m as a gift to Farage all makes Bernie Ecclestone's £1m to Blair Labour to be a drop in the ocean. And we still, a quarter of a century later, get posters castigating New Labour for their year 2000 corruption, yet posters are giving Farage a free pass on something that looks and smells utterly rank.
    Lest we forget, I believe the Tories kept the £10m from the lad who said Diane Abbott made him hate all black women and that she should be shot.
    I don't think that counts. Although since her hostility to Starmer, Diane is back on the "nice" list.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,428
    As there is no clarity at all about what 'main' and 'right' might be taken to mean the data is of little value. As so often a tiny bit of qualitative data ('why do you think this?') would illuminate much more than a mass of quantitative data.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,499
    Has this been posted?

    Who the heck is this guy?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvNYFtbOl5g
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,672
    Morning all :)

    The first problem I have with this poll is nobody seriously uses terms like "left" and "right" any longer except as perjoratives on sites like this. It's an entirely subjective classification and everyone has their own definition.

    What is "right" nowadays? To cut taxes and spending to try to bring the public finances nearer balance? To be anti-immigration or pro-mass deportation (which is called remigration to give it a friendlier name). Is it on cultural levels - to be socially liberal or conservative?

    It's perfectly possible - Labour had a big section of its identity which supported this in the day - to be anti-immigration, socially conservative and yet want a lot of State intervention and control (rather like BSW in Germany).

    What is "left" nowadays? We hear a load of old nonsense about lanyards and the "public sector class" as though it was a real thing and not just something somebody doesn't like or understand or value.

    We can go deeper and look at the relationship between the State and the citizen - what "freedoms" do we still have? Freedom of Speech? The Freedom to give Offence or simply the Freedom to take Offence?

    At its most fundamental, what power does the citizen have? A vote, which is more than exists in many countries, true. I can change the supermarket I use or the company who provides my energy or the insurance for my car or the route I take when I go to the cafe but ultimately it's not usually a choice between radically different options.

    In essence, politics can be viewed that way. A Reform Government led by Nigel Farage, a Green Government led by Zack Polanski, a Conservative Government led by Kemi Badenoch, a Liberal Democrat Government led by Ed Davey - all would face the same problems as the current incumbent and none (to my eyes) has anything approaching a seriously different or convincing offerat this time.

    Vote John Jackson - get Jack Johnson.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,589
    Roger said:

    "I wasted time and now doth time wast me..."

    That sounds more like Starmer.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,193
    edited May 29
    Two people have been injured in Romania after a Russian Shahed drone hit an apartment building.

    What will be the NATO response?

    I said before that NATO should have destroyed the factory in Russia that made these drones when they flew them into Poland. Now people have been injured because of NATO inaction.

    https://t.me/noel_reports/46975?single

    The video/photo of the apartment building on fire at the link above is quite something.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498

    Off topic, but I see that a founder member of Raise the Colours (the flag flying lot), Billy Allison, thumped a pub owner at the weekend. He's been charged with murder, as the chap he hit subsequently died. Must have been a heck of a punch.
    That's true patriotism in action, that is.

    Lovely bunch of people who are definitely not racist thugs.
    Another case of "horrible but with the inevitability of gravity"?

  • maxh said:

    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    Wholeheartedly agree.

    I have no strong views on Badenoch either way (but then I think I'm unusual in having no strong views on Starmer, Farage or Polanski either, though if forced I'd probably choose Badenoch followed by Farage to have a pint with).

    The Tories simply need to wait out the voters' memories. Badenoch is as good as anyone to do this.
    I think Badenoch is doing a good job and is doing it fairly similarly to how Starmer did it which turned out to be quite effective. I could even see myself voting for her party which was never the case when Johnson and co arrived. I think she’s serious and has some good ideas. Iran aside which was a stupid idea and her general manner which needs a bit of work (although improving), I don’t find much to disagree with her on generally.
    Can we have a definitive list on the parties you might and might not vote for?

    Yes
    Lab (leadership tbc)
    Cons
    Reform

    No
    Greens

    LDs ?
    Restore ?
    Count Binface Party ?
    Since you asked so nicely.

    Labour
    Conservative
    Lib Dems

    That's it. I won't vote Reform now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    Kemi isn't leader of the nation unlike Richard II so that role is more held by Starmer, the question for him is whether Farage or Burnham are Bolingbroke. In the Wars of the Roses between the Tories and Reform to lead the right as the MiC chart shows Reform now clearly lead but the Tories are closest to Reform with those most comfortable financially and Restore are closest to Reform with those who can only just or cannot afford their costs.

    So Kemi if she is shrewd will do an indirect pact with Lowe, focusing the Tories on well off areas and letting Restore undercut Reform in less well off areas. Given most LD seats now were won by Cameron in 2015, there are a number of southern anti Brexit former Tories now voting LD who will consider they are still voting for a centre right party and still not voting Labour or Green
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    Kemi isn't leader of the nation unlike Richard II so that role is more held by Starmer, the question for him is whether Farage or Burnham are Bolingbroke. In the Wars of the Roses between the Tories and Reform to lead the right as the MiC chart shows Reform now clearly lead but the Tories are closest to Reform with those most comfortable financially and Restore are closest to Reform with those who can only just or cannot afford their costs.

    So Kemi if she is shrewd will do an indirect pact with Lowe, focusing the Tories on well off areas and letting Restore undercut Reform in less well off areas. Given most LD seats now were won by Cameron in 2015, there are a number of southern anti Brexit former Tories now voting LD who will consider they are still voting for a centre right party and still not voting Labour or Green
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564
    He reminds me more and more of the Green leader Walter Titty.

    Makerfield 'born and bred' Reform candidate Rob Kenyon 'grew up' and went to primary school in Merseyside

    'Plucky plumber' Rob Kenyon's family home and primary school were in the St Helens village of Haydock


    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/makerfield-born-bred-reform-candidate-34027795
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?

    Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
    Leftwards or rightwards?

    I can't tell any more.
    Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.

    * Introduce PR (majority of public in favour)
    * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour)
    * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing)
    * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
    I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
    Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-putting-everything-line-33989167

    In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
    I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
    iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control

    Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

    I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well.
    If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working.
    It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.

    I think it's a good model.
    Less obvious how that would work with water. BusCo A and Busco B can use different buses under the TfL banner. WaterCo A and WaterCo B cannot lay their own pipes to take water from their own reservoirs to every bathtub in the land.

    And be careful about the NHS as doctors are making noises about wanting more private work in their private/NHS mix. Stealth privatisation is happening even beyond the government's control.
    I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. TfL say what buses are allowed, they do designs etc and then the companies lease them.

    They can’t just run whatever buses they want. It’s why the Boris buses have all disappeared at once.
    The point is there are lots of buses owned and operated by different companies, famously including the Paris bus company which is owned by the French state (nationalisation, eh!) whereas water companies would not be competing in the same way. It is a natural monopoly: no-one advocates building multiple pipelines from different reservoirs to the same homes. All that can change is the logo on the water bill. And natural monopolies need careful regulation, as every economist barring the ones advising HMG always knew.
    Following up on this, for over half of the country there is no alternative infrastructure to Openreach. But nobody is suggesting nationalising that.

    Openreach was doing a very bad job until the threat of splitting them off appeared. Then magically they decided FTTP was doable and they started rolling it out at record breaking speed. The result is that there is still a virtual monopoly on infrastructure however the infrastructure is much better.

    Perhaps there’s something to look at in this for water?

    I’m not necessarily advocating this approach but why can broadband providers exist that use the same infrastructure owned by one company, but this can’t also happen for water?
    In the case of OpenReach, a lot of people started lobbying the government to light a fire under the regulator and get something done.

    Once again, ownership doesn't solve everything by itself. We need effective governance and independent, proactive regulation.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,131

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?

    Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
    Leftwards or rightwards?

    I can't tell any more.
    Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.

    * Introduce PR (majority of public in favour)
    * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour)
    * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing)
    * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
    I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
    Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-putting-everything-line-33989167

    In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
    I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
    iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control

    Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

    I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well.
    If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working.
    It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.

    I think it's a good model.
    Less obvious how that would work with water. BusCo A and Busco B can use different buses under the TfL banner. WaterCo A and WaterCo B cannot lay their own pipes to take water from their own reservoirs to every bathtub in the land.

    And be careful about the NHS as doctors are making noises about wanting more private work in their private/NHS mix. Stealth privatisation is happening even beyond the government's control.
    I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. TfL say what buses are allowed, they do designs etc and then the companies lease them.

    They can’t just run whatever buses they want. It’s why the Boris buses have all disappeared at once.
    The point is there are lots of buses owned and operated by different companies, famously including the Paris bus company which is owned by the French state (nationalisation, eh!) whereas water companies would not be competing in the same way. It is a natural monopoly: no-one advocates building multiple pipelines from different reservoirs to the same homes. All that can change is the logo on the water bill. And natural monopolies need careful regulation, as every economist barring the ones advising HMG always knew.
    Following up on this, for over half of the country there is no alternative infrastructure to Openreach. But nobody is suggesting nationalising that.

    Openreach was doing a very bad job until the threat of splitting them off appeared. Then magically they decided FTTP was doable and they started rolling it out at record breaking speed. The result is that there is still a virtual monopoly on infrastructure however the infrastructure is much better.

    Perhaps there’s something to look at in this for water?

    I’m not necessarily advocating this approach but why can broadband providers exist that use the same infrastructure owned by one company, but this can’t also happen for water?
    Because if you have several water companies supplying treated water into the same system and one is shit they poison everybody and the whole system.
    Water pipes, water and sewage are not comparable to copper, fibre and electrical signals.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,193
    In other Ukraine War news another oil refinery in Russia is burning, and Ukrainian attacks against Russian logistics in southern Ukraine are intensifying. If Russia can no longer supply the front line with fuel, ammunition, drones, food, etc, then they are going to face severe difficulties.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498
    Dopermean said:

    Taz said:

    Off topic, but I see that a founder member of Raise the Colours (the flag flying lot), Billy Allison, thumped a pub owner at the weekend. He's been charged with murder, as the chap he hit subsequently died. Must have been a heck of a punch.
    That's true patriotism in action, that is.

    Maybe he cracked his head when he fell.

    One punch is all it takes.

    I remember Tory MP Dehenna Davison did some campaign work on it as her Dad was killed by a single punch from a thug.

    People need to think about these things.
    There's a play about it "Punch"

    What's happened to the one they arrested at the march in London for running someone down?
    I'd say there's greater intent to do harm running someone down with a van than punching them
    An old friend got "life changing injuries" from hitting his head on a pavement curb as he fell accidentally, when being mugged. At least that's what his attackers said happened in court.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564
    Q: Which singer can’t decide whether he’s human or bovine?

    A: Roy Or Bison
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    Rishi did tighten visa controls though and net immigration to the UK is now falling
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,193
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    Rishi did tighten visa controls though and net immigration to the UK is now falling
    Voters tend to remember that a party created a mess, more that they then started to clean up the mess they had created.
  • Dopermean said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?

    Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
    Leftwards or rightwards?

    I can't tell any more.
    Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.

    * Introduce PR (majority of public in favour)
    * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour)
    * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing)
    * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
    I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
    Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-putting-everything-line-33989167

    In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
    I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
    iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control

    Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

    I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well.
    If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working.
    It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.

    I think it's a good model.
    Less obvious how that would work with water. BusCo A and Busco B can use different buses under the TfL banner. WaterCo A and WaterCo B cannot lay their own pipes to take water from their own reservoirs to every bathtub in the land.

    And be careful about the NHS as doctors are making noises about wanting more private work in their private/NHS mix. Stealth privatisation is happening even beyond the government's control.
    I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. TfL say what buses are allowed, they do designs etc and then the companies lease them.

    They can’t just run whatever buses they want. It’s why the Boris buses have all disappeared at once.
    The point is there are lots of buses owned and operated by different companies, famously including the Paris bus company which is owned by the French state (nationalisation, eh!) whereas water companies would not be competing in the same way. It is a natural monopoly: no-one advocates building multiple pipelines from different reservoirs to the same homes. All that can change is the logo on the water bill. And natural monopolies need careful regulation, as every economist barring the ones advising HMG always knew.
    Following up on this, for over half of the country there is no alternative infrastructure to Openreach. But nobody is suggesting nationalising that.

    Openreach was doing a very bad job until the threat of splitting them off appeared. Then magically they decided FTTP was doable and they started rolling it out at record breaking speed. The result is that there is still a virtual monopoly on infrastructure however the infrastructure is much better.

    Perhaps there’s something to look at in this for water?

    I’m not necessarily advocating this approach but why can broadband providers exist that use the same infrastructure owned by one company, but this can’t also happen for water?
    Because if you have several water companies supplying treated water into the same system and one is shit they poison everybody and the whole system.
    Water pipes, water and sewage are not comparable to copper, fibre and electrical signals.
    You obviously have very little understanding of how our FTTP infrastructure works then.

    Every provider uses the same set of cables to supply your home, it is totally analogous to water.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    edited May 29

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    IMO MPs should not be getting donations or contributions to office costs etc from anyone. They have a salary and expenses to run their offices. And that should be it. No donations or benefits in kind from lobby groups, charities or anyone else. These create a conflict of interest and simply listing them on a register is not sufficient to deal with the impression - and in some cases, the reality - that some MPs are bought.

    And as for second jobs I set out a workable and sensible solution here - https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/11/12/honourable-members/

    And as @Foxy has said, this should also apply to leaders of political parties.

    On topic, Badenoch - whatever her other failings - is not a tyrant and Farage is certainly not a Henry IV.

    It might be good if the Tories tried to position themselves as the sensible centre right and let Reform be the party for the loopy right. But that does not seem to have occurred to them or, if it has, they're not being very good at it.

    Leaving aside that Kemi and her party membership are pretty right-wing from a historical point of view, there's a reasonable theory of why they are going one step in from Reform, rather than putting clear sane water between them and the Faragists;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_law

    I'm not totally sure it works here- each time the Conservatives shuffle a bit to the right, it validates a further bit of even more right-wingery.

    And whilst there are plenty of sensible centre-right types despairing of not having a party going for them (especially outside the Waitrose belt, where the Lib Dems come closeish), there probably aren't enough of us for anyone to really bother.
    You can overlap your offering with that of a competitor as long as you take about equal market share at least. Once a competitor clearly overtakes you in terms of your consumers of that offering though you need to offer something different and to attract a different set of customers as well
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,589

    Q: Which singer can’t decide whether he’s human or bovine?

    A: Roy Or Bison

    So bad it had me Crying.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,672

    Two people have been injured in Romania after a Russian Shahed drone hit an apartment building.

    What will be the NATO response?

    I said before that NATO should have destroyed the factory in Russia that made these drones when they flew them into Poland. Now people have been injured because of NATO inaction.

    https://t.me/noel_reports/46975?single

    The video/photo of the apartment building on fire at the link above is quite something.

    You and I both know there won't be a "NATO" response because a direct provoked NATO attack on Russian territory crosses all sorts of lines and puts us in a very dangerous place.

    It's probable (not certain) this was an accident and an off-course missile has strayed into Romanian territory and doubtless diplomatic channels are all over it so best to leave it to those channels.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    Rishi did tighten visa controls though and net immigration to the UK is now falling
    Voters tend to remember that a party created a mess, more that they then started to clean up the mess they had created.
    Boris also to be fair to him ended EU free movement even if he launched the Boriswave Rishi cut. Blair was also responsible for massively increasing immigration from inside and outside the EU
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,921

    Dopermean said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?

    Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
    Leftwards or rightwards?

    I can't tell any more.
    Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.

    * Introduce PR (majority of public in favour)
    * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour)
    * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing)
    * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
    I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
    Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-putting-everything-line-33989167

    In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
    I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
    iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control

    Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

    I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well.
    If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working.
    It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.

    I think it's a good model.
    Less obvious how that would work with water. BusCo A and Busco B can use different buses under the TfL banner. WaterCo A and WaterCo B cannot lay their own pipes to take water from their own reservoirs to every bathtub in the land.

    And be careful about the NHS as doctors are making noises about wanting more private work in their private/NHS mix. Stealth privatisation is happening even beyond the government's control.
    I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. TfL say what buses are allowed, they do designs etc and then the companies lease them.

    They can’t just run whatever buses they want. It’s why the Boris buses have all disappeared at once.
    The point is there are lots of buses owned and operated by different companies, famously including the Paris bus company which is owned by the French state (nationalisation, eh!) whereas water companies would not be competing in the same way. It is a natural monopoly: no-one advocates building multiple pipelines from different reservoirs to the same homes. All that can change is the logo on the water bill. And natural monopolies need careful regulation, as every economist barring the ones advising HMG always knew.
    Following up on this, for over half of the country there is no alternative infrastructure to Openreach. But nobody is suggesting nationalising that.

    Openreach was doing a very bad job until the threat of splitting them off appeared. Then magically they decided FTTP was doable and they started rolling it out at record breaking speed. The result is that there is still a virtual monopoly on infrastructure however the infrastructure is much better.

    Perhaps there’s something to look at in this for water?

    I’m not necessarily advocating this approach but why can broadband providers exist that use the same infrastructure owned by one company, but this can’t also happen for water?
    Because if you have several water companies supplying treated water into the same system and one is shit they poison everybody and the whole system.
    Water pipes, water and sewage are not comparable to copper, fibre and electrical signals.
    You obviously have very little understanding of how our FTTP infrastructure works then.

    Every provider uses the same set of cables to supply your home, it is totally analogous to water.
    I think STV infrastructure would be better.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 50,671
    edited May 29
    Macca: I hope I'm fretting needlessly but what I'd hate to see happen is this fruity 'plumber' character assuming the shape of some folk antihero. Remember how Jezza's chaotic manifesto launch worked to his advantage? So, that type thing. People are strange. Let's not risk it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,842
    'EU says Russia has crossed 'another line' after drone hits Romanian apartment block'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cdepwzz23j0t
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,193
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    Rishi did tighten visa controls though and net immigration to the UK is now falling
    Voters tend to remember that a party created a mess, more that they then started to clean up the mess they had created.
    Boris also to be fair to him ended EU free movement even if he launched the Boriswave Rishi cut. Blair was also responsible for massively increasing immigration from inside and outside the EU
    A lot of politicians are responsible, and the dishonesty over the issue is one of the main reasons why so many voters are willing to listen to Farage.

    You cannot promise the voters to control immigration to the tens of thousands, deliver the opposite, and not expect the voters to react accordingly.
  • lloyds0lloyds0 Posts: 6
    ‘As for the 5% of voters (and 19% of Lib Dem voters) who think the Lib Dems are the main party of the right, I am genuinely speechless, we let these people vote?‘

    My thoughts exactly!!
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 8,254

    He reminds me more and more of the Green leader Walter Titty.

    Makerfield 'born and bred' Reform candidate Rob Kenyon 'grew up' and went to primary school in Merseyside

    'Plucky plumber' Rob Kenyon's family home and primary school were in the St Helens village of Haydock


    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/makerfield-born-bred-reform-candidate-34027795

    This does sound like picking nits. Makerfield is a traditional area larger than the constituency, part of which is indeed in Merseyside. At the very best, Haydock is right on the border. "Born and bred" doesn't have to mean you spent your whole childhood in the area.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,193
    stodge said:

    Two people have been injured in Romania after a Russian Shahed drone hit an apartment building.

    What will be the NATO response?

    I said before that NATO should have destroyed the factory in Russia that made these drones when they flew them into Poland. Now people have been injured because of NATO inaction.

    https://t.me/noel_reports/46975?single

    The video/photo of the apartment building on fire at the link above is quite something.

    You and I both know there won't be a "NATO" response because a direct provoked NATO attack on Russian territory crosses all sorts of lines and puts us in a very dangerous place.

    It's probable (not certain) this was an accident and an off-course missile has strayed into Romanian territory and doubtless diplomatic channels are all over it so best to leave it to those channels.
    I think that a NATO attack on the Russian factory that produces Shahed drones would be a proportionate response and would re-establish NATO deterrence against Russia.

    Russia isn't worried about what NATO might do in response and so it acts with impunity. Failing to act is more dangerous in the present circumstances. It invites Russia to do more.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,411
    Good morning everyone.
    Although it isn't as good; looks, and feels, as if the heatwave is over. Significantly cooler today, and the unbroken sunshine has been replaced by high, sometimes grey-ish clouds.

    More or less on topic, the new Reform Leader of Essex County Council has rubbished the idea of 'net zero'; we wait to see what he's actually going to with the previous council's policies.
    To be fair, he's scrapped a small charge the Tories had put on library reservations.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,921
    US Supreme Court continues not to be in corrupt in any way… https://www.rawstory.com/samuel-alito-conflict-of-interest/

    Samuel Alito hit by new scandal as son found secretly working for Trump's Treasury: report
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,131

    Dopermean said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?

    Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
    Leftwards or rightwards?

    I can't tell any more.
    Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.

    * Introduce PR (majority of public in favour)
    * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour)
    * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing)
    * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
    I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
    Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-putting-everything-line-33989167

    In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
    I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
    iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control

    Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

    I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well.
    If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working.
    It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.

    I think it's a good model.
    Less obvious how that would work with water. BusCo A and Busco B can use different buses under the TfL banner. WaterCo A and WaterCo B cannot lay their own pipes to take water from their own reservoirs to every bathtub in the land.

    And be careful about the NHS as doctors are making noises about wanting more private work in their private/NHS mix. Stealth privatisation is happening even beyond the government's control.
    I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. TfL say what buses are allowed, they do designs etc and then the companies lease them.

    They can’t just run whatever buses they want. It’s why the Boris buses have all disappeared at once.
    The point is there are lots of buses owned and operated by different companies, famously including the Paris bus company which is owned by the French state (nationalisation, eh!) whereas water companies would not be competing in the same way. It is a natural monopoly: no-one advocates building multiple pipelines from different reservoirs to the same homes. All that can change is the logo on the water bill. And natural monopolies need careful regulation, as every economist barring the ones advising HMG always knew.
    Following up on this, for over half of the country there is no alternative infrastructure to Openreach. But nobody is suggesting nationalising that.

    Openreach was doing a very bad job until the threat of splitting them off appeared. Then magically they decided FTTP was doable and they started rolling it out at record breaking speed. The result is that there is still a virtual monopoly on infrastructure however the infrastructure is much better.

    Perhaps there’s something to look at in this for water?

    I’m not necessarily advocating this approach but why can broadband providers exist that use the same infrastructure owned by one company, but this can’t also happen for water?
    Because if you have several water companies supplying treated water into the same system and one is shit they poison everybody and the whole system.
    Water pipes, water and sewage are not comparable to copper, fibre and electrical signals.
    You obviously have very little understanding of how our FTTP infrastructure works then.

    Every provider uses the same set of cables to supply your home, it is totally analogous to water.
    I think STV infrastructure would be better.
    If you choose a cheap broadband provider then you, and only you, get a poor broadband service.
    If you choose a cheap water supplier then they can pollute the entire system for everybody and cause harm.

    It might all come down the same fibre, through the same cabinets but the data packets are separate not coalesced and you don't ingest it.

    Those are key differences which means broadband is not analogous to water.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,589
    His boy Vance still has a shot at being president, and yet.

    Per the NYT, Peter Thiel is planning to relocate to Argentina because he is concerned about the future of the U.S. and is no longer aligned with American leadership.
    https://x.com/officialrnintel/status/2060054204215869664
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    I agree. I’d also suggest that, perverse though it might seem, as people turn against Brexit that policy is identified more with the Tories, who gave us both the referendum and its implementation and determined the type of Brexit we would have, than with Reform, despite Farage’s key role in the whole debacle. Governments always get the blame for unpopular things that happen on their watch, as I’ve said before. Hence the whole Brexit fiasco is a further drag on the Tories recovering; indeed I feel this myself, as I’d have a preference for Reform over Tory, if that were a forced choice, despite being an ardent Remainer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,589

    US Supreme Court continues not to be in corrupt in any way… https://www.rawstory.com/samuel-alito-conflict-of-interest/

    Samuel Alito hit by new scandal as son found secretly working for Trump's Treasury: report

    I'd be interested in Cyclefree's comment on a Supreme Court Justicd failing one of her basic tests.

    Samuel Alito’s son has worked as a lawyer inside Trump’s Treasury Department since early last year. The administration hid it.

    No public resume, no LinkedIn, no mention on the Treasury website, outdated bar listings. Four former officials confirmed it.

    The public was never told.

    Here is why that matters.

    Philip Alito served as an attorney-adviser in Treasury’s general counsel office, briefed on department matters across the board, while the Supreme Court took up a case in which the Treasury Department was a named defendant.

    The department never disclosed the connection in court.

    Justice Alito did not recuse.

    The federal recusal law is plain. A justice must step aside in any case where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

    That is the test.

    Not whether anyone can prove influence but whether a reasonable person looking at this would doubt it. A justice ruling on cases involving the very agency that employs his son fails that test on its face...

    https://x.com/MikeLevin/status/2060049428434518037
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,672
    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    I'd love to know what these "different circumstances" are or would have been. Had there been no Farage intervention or Reform rise before the election, yes, it's likely Starmer would have won but with a smaller majority.

    Of course, if there were no Reform or Restore, Badenoch's Conservatives would be ahead but we're in the real world here and whether you like it or not, Reform has emerged as an existential challenge to the Conservatives to which, frankly, Badenoch is struggling to respond.

    From being a national party and the main alternative to those not willing to vote Labour, the Conservatives now have to compete with Reform, Greens and perhaps even Restore. They are driven back to their heartlands and are becoming uncompetititive elsewhere.

    The London results, good as they were in parts of the north, the west and south east, include being virtually wiped out in the south west and Havering and no longer being represented on ten of the thirty two Boroughs (not as bad as the LDs true but hardly the sign of a main opposition party in full vim and vigour).

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,411
    edited May 29
    IanB2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    I agree. I’d also suggest that, perverse though it might seem, as people turn against Brexit that policy is identified more with the Tories, who gave us both the referendum and its implementation and determined the type of Brexit we would have, than with Reform, despite Farage’s key role in the whole debacle. Governments always get the blame for unpopular things that happen on their watch, as I’ve said before. Hence the whole Brexit fiasco is a further drag on the Tories recovering; indeed I feel this myself, as I’d have a preference for Reform over Tory, if that were a forced choice, despite being an ardent Remainer.
    I understand your feelings; as a resident of Essex who is resident in Priti Patel's constituency, should I still be alive and voting at the next election I fear I could find myself very torn.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,887
    Hasbara HQ: Aw naw, we've lost Max!

    'I grieve for the Israel I once admired so much'

    https://www.thetimes.com/article/1879284a-c9d9-40f3-9b7d-9ebc24fc853d?shareToken=0b37013547f6e5ec81677ee58eed3459

    Though afflicted by the sentimentalism that Hastings can be prone to, some telling points. Perhaps the most meaningful is this exchange with Amos Oz.

    'Seven years later, I was having lunch in Jerusalem with the great Israeli novelist Amos Oz, and fulminating against prime minister Menachem Begin’s treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Amos, a liberal peacenik, responded: “People like you, who have loved Israel as a European country, are doomed to disappointment. Israel is becoming a Middle Eastern country. I hope that it will never behave worse than other Middle Eastern countries. But do not expect it to behave better.”'
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,564

    He reminds me more and more of the Green leader Walter Titty.

    Makerfield 'born and bred' Reform candidate Rob Kenyon 'grew up' and went to primary school in Merseyside

    'Plucky plumber' Rob Kenyon's family home and primary school were in the St Helens village of Haydock


    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/makerfield-born-bred-reform-candidate-34027795

    This does sound like picking nits. Makerfield is a traditional area larger than the constituency, part of which is indeed in Merseyside. At the very best, Haydock is right on the border. "Born and bred" doesn't have to mean you spent your whole childhood in the area.
    These Lancastrians are very parochial.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    edited May 29
    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    I'd love to know what these "different circumstances" are or would have been. Had there been no Farage intervention or Reform rise before the election, yes, it's likely Starmer would have won but with a smaller majority.

    Of course, if there were no Reform or Restore, Badenoch's Conservatives would be ahead but we're in the real world here and whether you like it or not, Reform has emerged as an existential challenge to the Conservatives to which, frankly, Badenoch is struggling to respond.

    From being a national party and the main alternative to those not willing to vote Labour, the Conservatives now have to compete with Reform, Greens and perhaps even Restore. They are driven back to their heartlands and are becoming uncompetititive elsewhere.

    The London results, good as they were in parts of the north, the west and south east, include being virtually wiped out in the south west and Havering and no longer being represented on ten of the thirty two Boroughs (not as bad as the LDs true but hardly the sign of a main opposition party in full vim and vigour).

    Voters stuck with Blair despite the Iraq war (insofar as ‘stuck with’ can describe a majority won on a minority vote) and with Thatcher and Major despite the poll tax and the rest, in both cases because the opposition choice on offer wasn’t seen as up to scratch. To get elected, at least in the past, the government has to be unpopular AND the opposition has to be seen as a competent and credible replacement, and the truth for the Tories is that they haven’t yet got back to a point where the latter is true.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,542
    lloyds0 said:

    ‘As for the 5% of voters (and 19% of Lib Dem voters) who think the Lib Dems are the main party of the right, I am genuinely speechless, we let these people vote?‘

    My thoughts exactly!!

    Continuity SDP refugees perhaps?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    Dopermean said:

    Dopermean said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?

    Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
    Leftwards or rightwards?

    I can't tell any more.
    Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.

    * Introduce PR (majority of public in favour)
    * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour)
    * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing)
    * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
    I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
    Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-putting-everything-line-33989167

    In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
    I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
    iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control

    Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

    I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well.
    If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working.
    It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.

    I think it's a good model.
    Less obvious how that would work with water. BusCo A and Busco B can use different buses under the TfL banner. WaterCo A and WaterCo B cannot lay their own pipes to take water from their own reservoirs to every bathtub in the land.

    And be careful about the NHS as doctors are making noises about wanting more private work in their private/NHS mix. Stealth privatisation is happening even beyond the government's control.
    I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. TfL say what buses are allowed, they do designs etc and then the companies lease them.

    They can’t just run whatever buses they want. It’s why the Boris buses have all disappeared at once.
    The point is there are lots of buses owned and operated by different companies, famously including the Paris bus company which is owned by the French state (nationalisation, eh!) whereas water companies would not be competing in the same way. It is a natural monopoly: no-one advocates building multiple pipelines from different reservoirs to the same homes. All that can change is the logo on the water bill. And natural monopolies need careful regulation, as every economist barring the ones advising HMG always knew.
    Following up on this, for over half of the country there is no alternative infrastructure to Openreach. But nobody is suggesting nationalising that.

    Openreach was doing a very bad job until the threat of splitting them off appeared. Then magically they decided FTTP was doable and they started rolling it out at record breaking speed. The result is that there is still a virtual monopoly on infrastructure however the infrastructure is much better.

    Perhaps there’s something to look at in this for water?

    I’m not necessarily advocating this approach but why can broadband providers exist that use the same infrastructure owned by one company, but this can’t also happen for water?
    Because if you have several water companies supplying treated water into the same system and one is shit they poison everybody and the whole system.
    Water pipes, water and sewage are not comparable to copper, fibre and electrical signals.
    You obviously have very little understanding of how our FTTP infrastructure works then.

    Every provider uses the same set of cables to supply your home, it is totally analogous to water.
    I think STV infrastructure would be better.
    If you choose a cheap broadband provider then you, and only you, get a poor broadband service.
    If you choose a cheap water supplier then they can pollute the entire system for everybody and cause harm.

    It might all come down the same fibre, through the same cabinets but the data packets are separate not coalesced and you don't ingest it.

    Those are key differences which means broadband is not analogous to water.
    I don’t think you can choose your water supplier, anyway.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 1,137

    Dopermean said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?

    Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
    Leftwards or rightwards?

    I can't tell any more.
    Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.

    * Introduce PR (majority of public in favour)
    * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour)
    * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing)
    * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
    I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
    Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-putting-everything-line-33989167

    In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
    I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
    iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control

    Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

    I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well.
    If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working.
    It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.

    I think it's a good model.
    Less obvious how that would work with water. BusCo A and Busco B can use different buses under the TfL banner. WaterCo A and WaterCo B cannot lay their own pipes to take water from their own reservoirs to every bathtub in the land.

    And be careful about the NHS as doctors are making noises about wanting more private work in their private/NHS mix. Stealth privatisation is happening even beyond the government's control.
    I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. TfL say what buses are allowed, they do designs etc and then the companies lease them.

    They can’t just run whatever buses they want. It’s why the Boris buses have all disappeared at once.
    The point is there are lots of buses owned and operated by different companies, famously including the Paris bus company which is owned by the French state (nationalisation, eh!) whereas water companies would not be competing in the same way. It is a natural monopoly: no-one advocates building multiple pipelines from different reservoirs to the same homes. All that can change is the logo on the water bill. And natural monopolies need careful regulation, as every economist barring the ones advising HMG always knew.
    Following up on this, for over half of the country there is no alternative infrastructure to Openreach. But nobody is suggesting nationalising that.

    Openreach was doing a very bad job until the threat of splitting them off appeared. Then magically they decided FTTP was doable and they started rolling it out at record breaking speed. The result is that there is still a virtual monopoly on infrastructure however the infrastructure is much better.

    Perhaps there’s something to look at in this for water?

    I’m not necessarily advocating this approach but why can broadband providers exist that use the same infrastructure owned by one company, but this can’t also happen for water?
    Because if you have several water companies supplying treated water into the same system and one is shit they poison everybody and the whole system.
    Water pipes, water and sewage are not comparable to copper, fibre and electrical signals.
    You obviously have very little understanding of how our FTTP infrastructure works then.

    Every provider uses the same set of cables to supply your home, it is totally analogous to water.
    Except Virgin, I think, who acquired the old cable TV infrastructure. Correct me if I'm wrong!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,755

    While I might have enjoyed Winston trying and failing not to be publicly racist towards Ghandi, Question Time can still get in the fucking sea.

    https://x.com/bbcquestiontime/status/2060089645673640380?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    I saw it (I'm visiting relatives). The AI Churchill, Gandhi, Kahlo and Pankhurst were a 30-second teaser at the beginning of the program just after the titles, not part of it. The program had a round table of five(?) people as normal.

    It wasn't bad: in fact considerably better than a normal episode.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 1,137
    lloyds0 said:

    ‘As for the 5% of voters (and 19% of Lib Dem voters) who think the Lib Dems are the main party of the right, I am genuinely speechless, we let these people vote?‘

    My thoughts exactly!!

    I wonder if that's because someone people view the others as extreme right, as opposed to mainstream.

    You could argue Labour is right of centre, as its policies are largely continuation of the Sunak government and it is certainly 'conservative'.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498

    Hasbara HQ: Aw naw, we've lost Max!

    'I grieve for the Israel I once admired so much'

    https://www.thetimes.com/article/1879284a-c9d9-40f3-9b7d-9ebc24fc853d?shareToken=0b37013547f6e5ec81677ee58eed3459

    Though afflicted by the sentimentalism that Hastings can be prone to, some telling points. Perhaps the most meaningful is this exchange with Amos Oz.

    'Seven years later, I was having lunch in Jerusalem with the great Israeli novelist Amos Oz, and fulminating against prime minister Menachem Begin’s treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Amos, a liberal peacenik, responded: “People like you, who have loved Israel as a European country, are doomed to disappointment. Israel is becoming a Middle Eastern country. I hope that it will never behave worse than other Middle Eastern countries. But do not expect it to behave better.”'

    The comment from Amos on Israel being a European or Middle Eastern country is on the money.

    As Israel’s behaviour has got worse, its relationship with many of its neighbours has got better. Could easily see MBS and Netanyahu being besties.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,646
    Sean_F said:

    I think that in different circumstances, Kemi would be heading for victory. She is the highest-rated of the party leaders.

    Her problem is the record of the last Conservative, and Conservative-dominated, government. And, not just the madness of Truss, and the corruption and incompetence of Boris, damaging though they were.

    The longer-term, and malign, influence of George Osborne is a factor. Osborne was a brilliant tactician, but a dire strategist. Cuts to the policing, justice and defence budgets (issues that matter to right of centre voters), were bad in themselves, and destroyed the Conservatives' reputation, on issues that are supposed to be their strengths. Exempting pensioners from austerity meant that the brunt of the burden was borne by young people. In the short term, that worked to the Conservatives' advantage, by boosting pensioner support. In the long term, it turned new generations of voters against them.

    And, over all, there was immigration, where the Conservatives talked tough, and were sometimes, performatively cruel, but actually allowed record numbers in.

    This argument requires us to separate Kemi Badenoch from the party she leads. She could take the party to a different place from where it is but she's not doing that.

    I do think there's a large addressable market for people who don't want social democracy but also despise hard right nihilism. An Osborne party in a new form. But that's not Badenoch.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,498
    For those who are interested.

    The Blue Origin rocket exploded on the pad during a static fire

    https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/cvgz0n93jzro

    Taylor–von Neumann–Sedov blast wave theory suggests a yield of 1.2kt of TNT equivalent.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    MattW said:

    On the header, it's worth a note that the Con problem is perhaps more deep seated.

    They also lost seats 1333 in 2019 followed by 1063 in 2023.

    In 2016 the total numbers of Local Council Seats for categories over 1000 (all of UK) were:

    Conservative and Unionist 8622
    Labour Party 6735
    Liberal Democrats 1844
    Independent / Other 1695

    In 2026 (latest) it is:

    Labour Party 4616
    Conservative and Unionist 3848
    Liberal Democrats 3361
    Reform UK 2338
    Independent / Other 1960
    Green Party (E&W) 1307

    Source: https://opencouncildata.co.uk/councillors2.php?y=0

    That highlights the issue around being a potentially regional party. Labour have a similar challenge.

    The Tories were at 28% in the polls back in 2023, so the 2027 local elections offer the LibDems and Reform further opportunities to make inroads into Tory councillor numbers - although in England I think it’s mostly the authorities that have elections by thirds that will be up next year, plus all council seats in Scotland (using STV) and Wales. Does the Welsh assembly have devolved power to change the voting system for Welsh councils, I wonder?

    I think I am right in saying that 2027 will also be the first round of local elections where Reform will have a significant number of seats to defend, which could be interesting.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,323
    Stocky said:

    Has this been posted?

    Who the heck is this guy?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvNYFtbOl5g

    You've not listened to the end then? Or maybe you did but are confused because he got his own X handle wrong!

    Frank Wright
    https://x.com/frankwrighter
    https://www.frankwrighter.com/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,488

    Nigelb said:

    I'm struggling with the header.
    Is TSE suggesting Farage is planning Kemicide?

    And what part do Bushy, Bagot, and the Greens play ?

    I just think if Reform do usurp the Tories at the next election and that would be this country's greatest usurpation since Bolingbroke and Dicky II.
    What about Richard of Gloucester and 'Eleven Week' Eddy?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,475
    edited May 29
    Stocky said:

    Has this been posted?

    Who the heck is this guy?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvNYFtbOl5g

    He identifies himself at the end as Frank Right. I'd say articulate and speaks in full sentences almost in the manner of Enoch Powell, but most of it is articulating fairly standard positions that I am familiar with.

    https://youtu.be/lvNYFtbOl5g?t=774

    Here:

    https://x.com/frankwrighter
    https://www.frankwrighter.com/

    I'm not going to try and do a full thumbnail, but I note a link to "Catholic Social Teaching" on his web page, and a series of articles about the 13 Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII. Leo XIII was Pope from 1878 to 1903. His most significant Encyclical was perhaps Rerum Novarum, which was a consideration of private and public morality, and consider capitalism, socialism, and rights of workers. I'd consider that in some ways a parallel to the work done on the evangelical side by the likes of social reformer Lord Shaftesbury.

    That is interesting.

    On that basis I would speculate (and it would be largely speculation) that he aligns with right wing social conservatism / more left wing on the economics. So I'd suggest that could be with the Distributionism of Hilaire Belloc / GK Chesterton.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,428
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The first problem I have with this poll is nobody seriously uses terms like "left" and "right" any longer except as perjoratives on sites like this. It's an entirely subjective classification and everyone has their own definition.

    What is "right" nowadays? To cut taxes and spending to try to bring the public finances nearer balance? To be anti-immigration or pro-mass deportation (which is called remigration to give it a friendlier name). Is it on cultural levels - to be socially liberal or conservative?

    It's perfectly possible - Labour had a big section of its identity which supported this in the day - to be anti-immigration, socially conservative and yet want a lot of State intervention and control (rather like BSW in Germany).

    What is "left" nowadays? We hear a load of old nonsense about lanyards and the "public sector class" as though it was a real thing and not just something somebody doesn't like or understand or value.

    We can go deeper and look at the relationship between the State and the citizen - what "freedoms" do we still have? Freedom of Speech? The Freedom to give Offence or simply the Freedom to take Offence?

    At its most fundamental, what power does the citizen have? A vote, which is more than exists in many countries, true. I can change the supermarket I use or the company who provides my energy or the insurance for my car or the route I take when I go to the cafe but ultimately it's not usually a choice between radically different options.

    In essence, politics can be viewed that way. A Reform Government led by Nigel Farage, a Green Government led by Zack Polanski, a Conservative Government led by Kemi Badenoch, a Liberal Democrat Government led by Ed Davey - all would face the same problems as the current incumbent and none (to my eyes) has anything approaching a seriously different or convincing offerat this time.

    Vote John Jackson - get Jack Johnson.

    Yes. Any party leading a government faces identical well known difficulties. They also face another identical thing: the fact that all our politics since WWII is social democratic and almost everything is fixed in position, and only subject to better or worse policies for maintaining it.

    By this I mean: regulated private enterprise, state oversight of essentials and monopolies, civil order and policing, NHS or equivalent, welfare safety net, social housing, universal state pensions, free education to 18, NATO and sound defence, rule of law, separation of powers, participation in international order, freedom of speech opinion and religion within the rule of law.

    Which is why, despite the talk of 'change', competence matters much more than tinkering at the edges. At heart most people don't want much real change, and they are not interested in how the engineering of the state works, they want the social democrat consensus run really well.

    This is the context in which 'left' and 'right' mean almost nothing.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 4,466
    lloyds0 said:

    ‘As for the 5% of voters (and 19% of Lib Dem voters) who think the Lib Dems are the main party of the right, I am genuinely speechless, we let these people vote?‘

    My thoughts exactly!!

    Well, probably the majority of Lib Dem activists would mostly call themselves "Radical", but the Waitrose wing of the Lib Dems is certainly a thing: the kinds of people who were solidly Tory for decades, but regarded themselves a moderate, "pink" Tories, and who were shocked by the EU referendum and what it revealed about people like Gove and Johnson. Which is why the good voters of Camberley, for example, once in the most solidly Tory seat in the country and who voted Gove five times, have moved en bloc to the Lib Dems for Council and MP.

    The point about the Lib Dems is that they are moderate, and moderate Tories feel very at home with Ed Davey, whereas the strident and pretty extreme policies and tone of the current Tories has become a very big turn off. The more Badenoch flirts with Reform, the more likely that the Lib Dems grip on the Gail's and Waitrose belt become permanent.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,113
    edited May 29
    PJH said:

    Dopermean said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?

    Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
    Leftwards or rightwards?

    I can't tell any more.
    Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.

    * Introduce PR (majority of public in favour)
    * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour)
    * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing)
    * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
    I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
    Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-putting-everything-line-33989167

    In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
    I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
    iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control

    Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

    I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well.
    If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working.
    It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.

    I think it's a good model.
    Less obvious how that would work with water. BusCo A and Busco B can use different buses under the TfL banner. WaterCo A and WaterCo B cannot lay their own pipes to take water from their own reservoirs to every bathtub in the land.

    And be careful about the NHS as doctors are making noises about wanting more private work in their private/NHS mix. Stealth privatisation is happening even beyond the government's control.
    I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. TfL say what buses are allowed, they do designs etc and then the companies lease them.

    They can’t just run whatever buses they want. It’s why the Boris buses have all disappeared at once.
    The point is there are lots of buses owned and operated by different companies, famously including the Paris bus company which is owned by the French state (nationalisation, eh!) whereas water companies would not be competing in the same way. It is a natural monopoly: no-one advocates building multiple pipelines from different reservoirs to the same homes. All that can change is the logo on the water bill. And natural monopolies need careful regulation, as every economist barring the ones advising HMG always knew.
    Following up on this, for over half of the country there is no alternative infrastructure to Openreach. But nobody is suggesting nationalising that.

    Openreach was doing a very bad job until the threat of splitting them off appeared. Then magically they decided FTTP was doable and they started rolling it out at record breaking speed. The result is that there is still a virtual monopoly on infrastructure however the infrastructure is much better.

    Perhaps there’s something to look at in this for water?

    I’m not necessarily advocating this approach but why can broadband providers exist that use the same infrastructure owned by one company, but this can’t also happen for water?
    Because if you have several water companies supplying treated water into the same system and one is shit they poison everybody and the whole system.
    Water pipes, water and sewage are not comparable to copper, fibre and electrical signals.
    You obviously have very little understanding of how our FTTP infrastructure works then.

    Every provider uses the same set of cables to supply your home, it is totally analogous to water.
    Except Virgin, I think, who acquired the old cable TV infrastructure. Correct me if I'm wrong!
    There were mainly two companies, NTL and Telewest, who "competed" but strangely decided to not rollout in the same areas.

    They then magically announced a merger which worked perfectly as there was no overlap, brilliant! They become NTL Telewest. They then did a deal with Virgin Enterprises (?) to license the Virgin name and become "Virgin Media". I believe Virgin Enterprises purchased some of the shares.

    Liberty Global then bought most of the company and kept the name.

    Liberty Global then merged the company with Telefonica UK ("O2") in a 50/50 deal, becoming "Virgin Media O2". The new company is owned half by Liberty Global, half by Telefonica.

    Telefonica are partially owned by the Spanish state, so you could make an argument we're subsidising their FTTP rollout.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,323
    PJH said:

    Dopermean said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?

    Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
    Leftwards or rightwards?

    I can't tell any more.
    Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.

    * Introduce PR (majority of public in favour)
    * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour)
    * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing)
    * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
    I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
    Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-putting-everything-line-33989167

    In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
    I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
    iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control

    Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

    I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well.
    If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working.
    It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.

    I think it's a good model.
    Less obvious how that would work with water. BusCo A and Busco B can use different buses under the TfL banner. WaterCo A and WaterCo B cannot lay their own pipes to take water from their own reservoirs to every bathtub in the land.

    And be careful about the NHS as doctors are making noises about wanting more private work in their private/NHS mix. Stealth privatisation is happening even beyond the government's control.
    I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. TfL say what buses are allowed, they do designs etc and then the companies lease them.

    They can’t just run whatever buses they want. It’s why the Boris buses have all disappeared at once.
    The point is there are lots of buses owned and operated by different companies, famously including the Paris bus company which is owned by the French state (nationalisation, eh!) whereas water companies would not be competing in the same way. It is a natural monopoly: no-one advocates building multiple pipelines from different reservoirs to the same homes. All that can change is the logo on the water bill. And natural monopolies need careful regulation, as every economist barring the ones advising HMG always knew.
    Following up on this, for over half of the country there is no alternative infrastructure to Openreach. But nobody is suggesting nationalising that.

    Openreach was doing a very bad job until the threat of splitting them off appeared. Then magically they decided FTTP was doable and they started rolling it out at record breaking speed. The result is that there is still a virtual monopoly on infrastructure however the infrastructure is much better.

    Perhaps there’s something to look at in this for water?

    I’m not necessarily advocating this approach but why can broadband providers exist that use the same infrastructure owned by one company, but this can’t also happen for water?
    Because if you have several water companies supplying treated water into the same system and one is shit they poison everybody and the whole system.
    Water pipes, water and sewage are not comparable to copper, fibre and electrical signals.
    You obviously have very little understanding of how our FTTP infrastructure works then.

    Every provider uses the same set of cables to supply your home, it is totally analogous to water.
    Except Virgin, I think, who acquired the old cable TV infrastructure. Correct me if I'm wrong!
    Much the same with shared phone masts aiui.

    But is this a good idea? Shared infrastructure is more efficient but denies the role of free market competition in driving innovation. That was what the boss of America's Verizon, then rolling out 5g while we had 4g as cutting edge, said to the EU some years back. What is the incentive for, say, EE to research and develop better technology if they will then be forced to share it with Vodafone?

    Is our half-and-half position with competitors sharing infrastructure better or worse than publicly-owned national champions on the one hand, or unbridled free market competition on the other?
Sign In or Register to comment.