'I have been married for 40 years now - four children, two grandchildren. The best decision was ever made was building our family. It is an appalling shame that so many British men and women feel unable to do the same for reasons outside of their control. My generation has spectacularly failed them all. We need to own up to that, and we need to fix it.
There is finally a pro-family political party that will reverse so much of the damage done - Restore Britain.
How?
Tax breaks for parents. Let working men and women keep more of what they earn to spend how they choose. This is THE most important policy above all else. Merge tax allowances for married couples. Trust families to spend their money, not the Government.
A Restore Britain Government will front-load child benefit. Pay more in the earlier years when the help is needed. Wouldn’t cost a penny, but would mean that parents get help when they really need it buying prams, cots, nappies etc.
This would be exclusively for British children with one or two British parents....'
'I have been married for 40 years now - four children, two grandchildren. The best decision was ever made was building our family. It is an appalling shame that so many British men and women feel unable to do the same for reasons outside of their control. My generation has spectacularly failed them all. We need to own up to that, and we need to fix it.
There is finally a pro-family political party that will reverse so much of the damage done - Restore Britain.
How?
Tax breaks for parents. Let working men and women keep more of what they earn to spend how they choose. This is THE most important policy above all else. Merge tax allowances for married couples. Trust families to spend their money, not the Government.
A Restore Britain Government will front-load child benefit. Pay more in the earlier years when the help is needed. Wouldn’t cost a penny, but would mean that parents get help when they really need it buying prams, cots, nappies etc.
This would be exclusively for British children with one or two British parents....'
Australia has enjoyed decent economic growth and successfully "stopped the boats", so the strong support for the far right is difficult to rationalise from the perspective of the UK and the reasons often given for the rise of Reform.
Also the same anti woke agenda from One Nation as Reform have
And yet Australia is not exactly a bastion of wokeness that is crying out for a correction. In my opinion the rise of the far right is really driven by two fundamental factors. The first is passage of time, with the post World War Two settlement passing into history. An important part of that settlement in Western countries was a kind of unwritten prohibition on supporting parties or political platforms on the far right, based on the experience with fascism and Naziism, that held across a sufficienly broad section of the population to lock these parties out. As that inoculation against the far right wears off, so these parties have gained support. The second factor is the rise of social media as a radicalisation tool, including its exploitation by malign foreign actors. English speaking countries have been most affected by this, as the US is at the epicentre of these efforts.
More broadly, the English speaking world is at the epicentre of driven-mad-by-social-media - in all respects - because English is the world language so there is just such a huge volume of malign shit. This includes malign shit created by bad actors paid for by hostile powers (see, for example, the reaction to black footballers missing penalties in that football tournament a few years ago).
Interesting snippet from the SpaceX IPO prospectus: the “Space launch” part of the business has a gross profit margin of 67%.
FAANG level margins in the physical world is impressive, whatever you think of Musk. I guess eventually there will be launch competitors that have re-usable rockets with a similar cost basis, but until they get there SpaceX is the only game in town.
The Falcon 9 first stage is damn close to “just drag it back to the pad and refuel it”, which is totally crazy. The new Starship v3 might well be the one that actually goes to production, and will be able to launch hundreds of tonnes to orbit in short order.
Starlink also has a massive first-mover advantage, and now offers broadband pretty much anywhere on the planet, land, sea, or air. They’re a couple of years ahead of the competition there too, and already have the majority of airlines on board.
Then add in the xAI business, and what used to be called Twitter, and it’s quite the company.
A seriously strong price for the IPO though, the early investors will do very well indeed, but there’s somehow still a lot of potential for exponential growth in the next 2-4 years timespan.
Although I suspect all that exponential growth is already included in the IPO price - especially at the point the general public can buy.
The irony is that the strongest parts of SpaceX are the boring bits: rockets that launch on time and internet subscriptions that get paid every month. The weakest part of the valuation is the bit investors are currently paying the most excitement premium for: AI
80% of votes cast are posted; on the day votes have always skewed massively.
One thing the state could do is spend about $50m in grants that every county could afford to buy and staff automatic counting machines (or in the case of LA acquire more than the two it now has). It wouldn't solve everything, but would improve counting speed considerably.
Since Trump took over, the GOP have alleged fraud in almost every election they've lost. They've yet to present any substantive evidence (see for example the recent Trump interview).
Here’s an actual conviction for election fraud, only a month ago.
Marina del Rey resident Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, was charged with a felony count of paying another person to register to vote. She'd worked as a petition circulator for about 20 years, where she'd collect voter signatures on petitions that would then qualify initiatives for California ballot measures.
As part of her job, which would pay her per signature obtained, she drove around LA in an effort to find registered voters who could sign those petitions. She would not be paid for signatures provided by individuals who weren't registered to vote, prosecutors said.
Dhillon said Armstrong would occasionally go to LA's Skid Row neighborhood, regarded as the epicenter of the city's homelessness crisis, to collect signatures, knowing that its population would be willing to sign for money.
"She did this in exchange for cash and other items of value," including cigarettes and prepaid cellphone gift cards, Dhillon said.
That’s around petitions in California, so it isn’t proof of any fraud affecting Trump/GOP.
Clearly, there are some individual cases of election fraud in the US. But there is no evidence that Trump really won the 2020 Presidential election. He filed 62 lawsuits and lost all of them.
Interesting snippet from the SpaceX IPO prospectus: the “Space launch” part of the business has a gross profit margin of 67%.
FAANG level margins in the physical world is impressive, whatever you think of Musk. I guess eventually there will be launch competitors that have re-usable rockets with a similar cost basis, but until they get there SpaceX is the only game in town.
The Falcon 9 first stage is damn close to “just drag it back to the pad and refuel it”, which is totally crazy. The new Starship v3 might well be the one that actually goes to production, and will be able to launch hundreds of tonnes to orbit in short order.
Starlink also has a massive first-mover advantage, and now offers broadband pretty much anywhere on the planet, land, sea, or air. They’re a couple of years ahead of the competition there too, and already have the majority of airlines on board.
Then add in the xAI business, and what used to be called Twitter, and it’s quite the company.
A seriously strong price for the IPO though, the early investors will do very well indeed, but there’s somehow still a lot of potential for exponential growth in the next 2-4 years timespan.
Although I suspect all that exponential growth is already included in the IPO price - especially at the point the general public can buy.
The irony is that the strongest parts of SpaceX are the boring bits: rockets that launch on time and internet subscriptions that get paid every month. The weakest part of the valuation is the bit investors are currently paying the most excitement premium for: AI
80% of votes cast are posted; on the day votes have always skewed massively.
One thing the state could do is spend about $50m in grants that every county could afford to buy and staff automatic counting machines (or in the case of LA acquire more than the two it now has). It wouldn't solve everything, but would improve counting speed considerably.
Since Trump took over, the GOP have alleged fraud in almost every election they've lost. They've yet to present any substantive evidence (see for example the recent Trump interview).
Here’s an actual conviction for election fraud, only a month ago.
Marina del Rey resident Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, was charged with a felony count of paying another person to register to vote. She'd worked as a petition circulator for about 20 years, where she'd collect voter signatures on petitions that would then qualify initiatives for California ballot measures.
As part of her job, which would pay her per signature obtained, she drove around LA in an effort to find registered voters who could sign those petitions. She would not be paid for signatures provided by individuals who weren't registered to vote, prosecutors said.
Dhillon said Armstrong would occasionally go to LA's Skid Row neighborhood, regarded as the epicenter of the city's homelessness crisis, to collect signatures, knowing that its population would be willing to sign for money.
"She did this in exchange for cash and other items of value," including cigarettes and prepaid cellphone gift cards, Dhillon said.
Pretty thin gruel, with an interesting detail.
..Essayli on Monday confirmed that Armstrong became known to the DOJ after an undercover video was posted online by James O'Keefe, the founder of conservative nonprofit Project Veritas.
Essayli declined to state Armstrong's party affiliation, calling it "irrelevant" to the case.
Dhillon said more similar cases will be presented in the near future.
"Untold numbers of fraudulent voter registrations can be created [in California]," she said.
No specific election was pointed to in Armstrong's case. The Trump Administration has pledged to secure elections since the president's 2020 defeat to Joe Biden in the presidential election.
The administration has lost dozens of legal cases claiming that the election was rigged. There remains no evidence of widespread voter fraud in a way that would alter the outcomes of elections. ..
Interesting snippet from the SpaceX IPO prospectus: the “Space launch” part of the business has a gross profit margin of 67%.
FAANG level margins in the physical world is impressive, whatever you think of Musk. I guess eventually there will be launch competitors that have re-usable rockets with a similar cost basis, but until they get there SpaceX is the only game in town.
The Falcon 9 first stage is damn close to “just drag it back to the pad and refuel it”, which is totally crazy. The new Starship v3 might well be the one that actually goes to production, and will be able to launch hundreds of tonnes to orbit in short order.
Starlink also has a massive first-mover advantage, and now offers broadband pretty much anywhere on the planet, land, sea, or air. They’re a couple of years ahead of the competition there too, and already have the majority of airlines on board.
Then add in the xAI business, and what used to be called Twitter, and it’s quite the company.
A seriously strong price for the IPO though, the early investors will do very well indeed, but there’s somehow still a lot of potential for exponential growth in the next 2-4 years timespan.
Although I suspect all that exponential growth is already included in the IPO price - especially at the point the general public can buy.
The irony is that the strongest parts of SpaceX are the boring bits: rockets that launch on time and internet subscriptions that get paid every month. The weakest part of the valuation is the bit investors are currently paying the most excitement premium for: AI
The point isn't so much that there isn't a potential bullish case for the future of the enterprise; it's more that the valuation completely dismisses the possibility of future commercial downside risk .
80% of votes cast are posted; on the day votes have always skewed massively.
One thing the state could do is spend about $50m in grants that every county could afford to buy and staff automatic counting machines (or in the case of LA acquire more than the two it now has). It wouldn't solve everything, but would improve counting speed considerably.
Since Trump took over, the GOP have alleged fraud in almost every election they've lost. They've yet to present any substantive evidence (see for example the recent Trump interview).
Here’s an actual conviction for election fraud, only a month ago.
Marina del Rey resident Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, was charged with a felony count of paying another person to register to vote. She'd worked as a petition circulator for about 20 years, where she'd collect voter signatures on petitions that would then qualify initiatives for California ballot measures.
As part of her job, which would pay her per signature obtained, she drove around LA in an effort to find registered voters who could sign those petitions. She would not be paid for signatures provided by individuals who weren't registered to vote, prosecutors said.
Dhillon said Armstrong would occasionally go to LA's Skid Row neighborhood, regarded as the epicenter of the city's homelessness crisis, to collect signatures, knowing that its population would be willing to sign for money.
"She did this in exchange for cash and other items of value," including cigarettes and prepaid cellphone gift cards, Dhillon said.
That’s around petitions in California, so it isn’t proof of any fraud affecting Trump/GOP.
Clearly, there are some individual cases of election fraud in the US. But there is no evidence that Trump really won the 2020 Presidential election. He filed 62 lawsuits and lost all of them.
Trump's ego couldn't cope with the rejection of losing in 2020.
Fascinating that so many other people were prepared to go to jail/storm Congress to massage that ego.
regarding SpaceX, I find the evolution of Raptor engine astonishing.
SpaceX threw away a perfectly successful engine family in Merlin and started again with a full-flow staged combustion design that most of the industry had largely written off - The Soviets came closest in the '60s
As a software guy, the fascinating bit isn’t the performance. It’s the iteration. Raptor 1 looked like a plumber's nightmare. Raptor 3 looks suspiciously simple, despite producing ~280 tonnes of thrust at ~350 bar chamber pressure.
Aerospace usually optimises for stability. SpaceX seem to be optimising for continuous improvement and manufacturability.
Interesting snippet from the SpaceX IPO prospectus: the “Space launch” part of the business has a gross profit margin of 67%.
FAANG level margins in the physical world is impressive, whatever you think of Musk. I guess eventually there will be launch competitors that have re-usable rockets with a similar cost basis, but until they get there SpaceX is the only game in town.
The Falcon 9 first stage is damn close to “just drag it back to the pad and refuel it”, which is totally crazy. The new Starship v3 might well be the one that actually goes to production, and will be able to launch hundreds of tonnes to orbit in short order.
Starlink also has a massive first-mover advantage, and now offers broadband pretty much anywhere on the planet, land, sea, or air. They’re a couple of years ahead of the competition there too, and already have the majority of airlines on board.
Then add in the xAI business, and what used to be called Twitter, and it’s quite the company.
A seriously strong price for the IPO though, the early investors will do very well indeed, but there’s somehow still a lot of potential for exponential growth in the next 2-4 years timespan.
Although I suspect all that exponential growth is already included in the IPO price - especially at the point the general public can buy.
The irony is that the strongest parts of SpaceX are the boring bits: rockets that launch on time and internet subscriptions that get paid every month. The weakest part of the valuation is the bit investors are currently paying the most excitement premium for: AI
The point isn't so much that there isn't a potential bullish case for the future of the enterprise; it's more that the valuation completely dismisses the possibility of future commercial downside risk .
I don't debate that at all. xAI is the weak link, IMO.
80% of votes cast are posted; on the day votes have always skewed massively.
One thing the state could do is spend about $50m in grants that every county could afford to buy and staff automatic counting machines (or in the case of LA acquire more than the two it now has). It wouldn't solve everything, but would improve counting speed considerably.
Since Trump took over, the GOP have alleged fraud in almost every election they've lost. They've yet to present any substantive evidence (see for example the recent Trump interview).
Here’s an actual conviction for election fraud, only a month ago.
Marina del Rey resident Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, was charged with a felony count of paying another person to register to vote. She'd worked as a petition circulator for about 20 years, where she'd collect voter signatures on petitions that would then qualify initiatives for California ballot measures.
As part of her job, which would pay her per signature obtained, she drove around LA in an effort to find registered voters who could sign those petitions. She would not be paid for signatures provided by individuals who weren't registered to vote, prosecutors said.
Dhillon said Armstrong would occasionally go to LA's Skid Row neighborhood, regarded as the epicenter of the city's homelessness crisis, to collect signatures, knowing that its population would be willing to sign for money.
"She did this in exchange for cash and other items of value," including cigarettes and prepaid cellphone gift cards, Dhillon said.
Pretty thin gruel, with an interesting detail.
..Essayli on Monday confirmed that Armstrong became known to the DOJ after an undercover video was posted online by James O'Keefe, the founder of conservative nonprofit Project Veritas.
Essayli declined to state Armstrong's party affiliation, calling it "irrelevant" to the case.
Dhillon said more similar cases will be presented in the near future.
"Untold numbers of fraudulent voter registrations can be created [in California]," she said.
No specific election was pointed to in Armstrong's case. The Trump Administration has pledged to secure elections since the president's 2020 defeat to Joe Biden in the presidential election.
The administration has lost dozens of legal cases claiming that the election was rigged. There remains no evidence of widespread voter fraud in a way that would alter the outcomes of elections. ..
This DHS Official Oversees the Security of Federal Elections. He Wants to Ban Voting Machines. David Harvilicz, who co-founded a firm with a 2020 election denier, oversees voting machine security for the Department of Homeland Security while the Trump administration is relitigating the president’s baseless claims that the 2020 vote was stolen. https://www.propublica.org/article/david-harvilicz-homeland-security-voting-machines
...In his top post at the Department of Homeland Security, David Harvilicz sets policy on protecting the nation’s elections infrastructure, including voting machines. He’s also the co-founder of a company with James Penrose, who helped hatch debunked conspiracy theories blaming hacked voting machines for Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election. Penrose assisted in a push to seize voting machines to overturn Trump’s defeat. On social media, Harvilicz has called for doing away with voting machines, saying they are “eminently vulnerable to exploitation.” In a March post, he wrote that “DHS needs to ban voting machines for all federal elections. The time is now.” He also has repeatedly questioned the validity of Democratic electoral victories and pushed for Republicans to overhaul electoral systems to their advantage...
He also studied at Moscow State University, apparently.
80% of votes cast are posted; on the day votes have always skewed massively.
One thing the state could do is spend about $50m in grants that every county could afford to buy and staff automatic counting machines (or in the case of LA acquire more than the two it now has). It wouldn't solve everything, but would improve counting speed considerably.
Since Trump took over, the GOP have alleged fraud in almost every election they've lost. They've yet to present any substantive evidence (see for example the recent Trump interview).
Here’s an actual conviction for election fraud, only a month ago.
Marina del Rey resident Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, was charged with a felony count of paying another person to register to vote. She'd worked as a petition circulator for about 20 years, where she'd collect voter signatures on petitions that would then qualify initiatives for California ballot measures.
As part of her job, which would pay her per signature obtained, she drove around LA in an effort to find registered voters who could sign those petitions. She would not be paid for signatures provided by individuals who weren't registered to vote, prosecutors said.
Dhillon said Armstrong would occasionally go to LA's Skid Row neighborhood, regarded as the epicenter of the city's homelessness crisis, to collect signatures, knowing that its population would be willing to sign for money.
"She did this in exchange for cash and other items of value," including cigarettes and prepaid cellphone gift cards, Dhillon said.
That’s around petitions in California, so it isn’t proof of any fraud affecting Trump/GOP.
Clearly, there are some individual cases of election fraud in the US. But there is no evidence that Trump really won the 2020 Presidential election. He filed 62 lawsuits and lost all of them.
Trump's ego couldn't cope with the rejection of losing in 2020.
Fascinating that so many other people were prepared to go to jail/storm Congress to massage that ego.
To be fair, it's quite unusual for an incumbent president to increase their raw vote total by more than 10 million and still lose.
Who from the Labour Party is campaigning for Burnham?
Nick Palmer. And I.
This is what I posted on 5 June based on a visit 8 days ago: "I spent half a day doorknocking in Makerfield last Sunday, in two different locations. There were some favourable responses for Burnham who had good name recognition and was personally known to a couple of people I met, but there were quite a few Reform and hostile against responses too. We did quite a bit of driving across about 5 miles of the constituency and in that time and during doorknocking I spotted about 20 homes with Reform stakes/posters compared with about 10 for Labour and 1 Restore, although I don't think you can take too much heed of the relative numbers for Reform v Labour (based on an appreciation that if willingness to display a poster was a reliable indicator of relative support, the Conservatives wouldn't have won a general election in my lifetime.) What was striking was just how many people were not aware of the national implications if Burnham won and the Labour campaign approach was not to mention that. That approach might change a bit now that Burnham has made clear his intentions. A couple of Reform supporters appeared to genuinely equivocate once I went off script and pointed out that if Burnham wins Starmer would probably be out of the door in months.
The overall impression was that it certainly wasn't in the bag for Burnham so I would counsel against going all in on Burnham based on the latest Survation polling. With a lot still in play I don't find odds of 2/9 on attractive although Burnham should still be favourite."
Next question. What's in it for the people of Makerfield. They elected the last MP two years ago only for him to abandon them. Now you have another self-important political type inserting himself into their lives for a clear motive of self-aggrandisement. The only plus point for Burnham is the poor quality of the other candidates. But is there really enthusiasm for him from Labour supporters locally (if you have to bus people in)?
I don’t know what the people of Makerfield think, but were I one of them, I’d be excited to put Makerfield on the map, by making it the PM’s seat. Obviously Burnham is doing this to promote himself, but he is a local boy who is going to represent the needs of local people. Isn’t that a possible strong reason to vote for him?
Well, in 4 2-hour canvass sessions I didn't meet anyone who cared about the former MP standing down, or conversely anyone who was excited to be potentially represented by the next PM. I don't think that busing people in bothers anyone either - certainly all parties do it in a close by-election. I had an amicable chat with a group of 4 Reform canvassers - none were local either (interestingly they said their best response was in the poorest areas, and Makerfield doesn't actually have many really poor areas - it's WWC but doing quite well with lots of cars a lot bigger than mine).
There was a degree of enthusiasm about Burnham personally, and a definite degree of "stop Reform" moving supporters of other parties to back him (though one voter said wistfully that he disliked Burnham but didn't want to be represented by Reform, what was he to do? Voting for another party hadn't occurred to him). I only met 1 Restore voter, and zero Tories, LibDems or Greens. Today's poll suggests that Burnham's lead is increasing, though my impression (necessarily from scattered bits of Makerfield) remains that it's very close.
The seat is very scattered - basically lots of small towns and villages in the Greater Manchester area. It takes 30 minutes to drive across it!
Makerfield has been described as having a lot of Left-Behind Patriots. Yes, it's another label amongst many labels. See if the description echoes. I'd say it pivots to Reform more than Labour.
"Left-Behind Patriots want Britain to be more equal and think the better off are not taxed enough. However, their left-wing views appear rooted in the value of work, and they aren’t supportive of generous welfare benefits. At the same time, they are sceptical about equal opportunities policies for minority groups, and believe in stricter sentencing, including the death penalty. They split down the middle when asked for their views on trade unions.
They are highly patriotic. The group is more common in England than in Scotland, and they often regard themselves as English rather than British. They are proud of Britain’s history, though not so much its present. That helps explain why immigration is a key concern for them, and why they voted decisively to leave the EU. "
Nick Palmer's constituency report suggests it might be squeaky bum time for Burnham.
I’d trust NPXMP’s informed comments absolutely.
But I can’t shake my uninformed view that Burnham will win easily.
I wouldn't. NPXMP infamously got it badly wrong in his own constituency in the run up to GE2015.
He's probably concerned about turnout. Burnham will win because he's the root to getting rid of Starmer.
And that's as far as most people's thinking will go.
Here's the thing - what do Conservatives actually want from this by-election?
IF Burnham wins, it's likely Starmer will soon be gone and there'll be a new PM in town and life may get tougher for Badenoch in the Commons, OTOH, Reform will be badly dented and that will increase the chances of the Conservatives moving back into a clear second and re-establishing themselves as the alternative "Right wing" option to Labour.
However, let's say Reform wins - Starmer stays, weakened and humiliated BUT Reform will be buoyant and look more like a Government in waiting with the Conservatives becoming less and less relevant.
Interesting times?
Yes. I don't want Starmer to go and be replaced by an even more left-wing PM with a high opinion of himself.
I expect we'll pay for it in the markets, and in our pockets.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
I want Mahmood or Phillipson. But I know that is very unlikely to happen.
I don't want Burnham, due to his arrogance and sense of entitlement.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Who from the Labour Party is campaigning for Burnham?
Nick Palmer. And I.
This is what I posted on 5 June based on a visit 8 days ago: "I spent half a day doorknocking in Makerfield last Sunday, in two different locations. There were some favourable responses for Burnham who had good name recognition and was personally known to a couple of people I met, but there were quite a few Reform and hostile against responses too. We did quite a bit of driving across about 5 miles of the constituency and in that time and during doorknocking I spotted about 20 homes with Reform stakes/posters compared with about 10 for Labour and 1 Restore, although I don't think you can take too much heed of the relative numbers for Reform v Labour (based on an appreciation that if willingness to display a poster was a reliable indicator of relative support, the Conservatives wouldn't have won a general election in my lifetime.) What was striking was just how many people were not aware of the national implications if Burnham won and the Labour campaign approach was not to mention that. That approach might change a bit now that Burnham has made clear his intentions. A couple of Reform supporters appeared to genuinely equivocate once I went off script and pointed out that if Burnham wins Starmer would probably be out of the door in months.
The overall impression was that it certainly wasn't in the bag for Burnham so I would counsel against going all in on Burnham based on the latest Survation polling. With a lot still in play I don't find odds of 2/9 on attractive although Burnham should still be favourite."
Next question. What's in it for the people of Makerfield. They elected the last MP two years ago only for him to abandon them. Now you have another self-important political type inserting himself into their lives for a clear motive of self-aggrandisement. The only plus point for Burnham is the poor quality of the other candidates. But is there really enthusiasm for him from Labour supporters locally (if you have to bus people in)?
I don’t know what the people of Makerfield think, but were I one of them, I’d be excited to put Makerfield on the map, by making it the PM’s seat. Obviously Burnham is doing this to promote himself, but he is a local boy who is going to represent the needs of local people. Isn’t that a possible strong reason to vote for him?
Well, in 4 2-hour canvass sessions I didn't meet anyone who cared about the former MP standing down, or conversely anyone who was excited to be potentially represented by the next PM. I don't think that busing people in bothers anyone either - certainly all parties do it in a close by-election. I had an amicable chat with a group of 4 Reform canvassers - none were local either (interestingly they said their best response was in the poorest areas, and Makerfield doesn't actually have many really poor areas - it's WWC but doing quite well with lots of cars a lot bigger than mine).
There was a degree of enthusiasm about Burnham personally, and a definite degree of "stop Reform" moving supporters of other parties to back him (though one voter said wistfully that he disliked Burnham but didn't want to be represented by Reform, what was he to do? Voting for another party hadn't occurred to him). I only met 1 Restore voter, and zero Tories, LibDems or Greens. Today's poll suggests that Burnham's lead is increasing, though my impression (necessarily from scattered bits of Makerfield) remains that it's very close.
The seat is very scattered - basically lots of small towns and villages in the Greater Manchester area. It takes 30 minutes to drive across it!
Did you meet anyone who wants Starmer to remain and is hesitant about voting for Burnham for that reason? That's the only way I can see that Burnham can lose this.
Who from the Labour Party is campaigning for Burnham?
Nick Palmer. And I.
This is what I posted on 5 June based on a visit 8 days ago: "I spent half a day doorknocking in Makerfield last Sunday, in two different locations. There were some favourable responses for Burnham who had good name recognition and was personally known to a couple of people I met, but there were quite a few Reform and hostile against responses too. We did quite a bit of driving across about 5 miles of the constituency and in that time and during doorknocking I spotted about 20 homes with Reform stakes/posters compared with about 10 for Labour and 1 Restore, although I don't think you can take too much heed of the relative numbers for Reform v Labour (based on an appreciation that if willingness to display a poster was a reliable indicator of relative support, the Conservatives wouldn't have won a general election in my lifetime.) What was striking was just how many people were not aware of the national implications if Burnham won and the Labour campaign approach was not to mention that. That approach might change a bit now that Burnham has made clear his intentions. A couple of Reform supporters appeared to genuinely equivocate once I went off script and pointed out that if Burnham wins Starmer would probably be out of the door in months.
The overall impression was that it certainly wasn't in the bag for Burnham so I would counsel against going all in on Burnham based on the latest Survation polling. With a lot still in play I don't find odds of 2/9 on attractive although Burnham should still be favourite."
Next question. What's in it for the people of Makerfield. They elected the last MP two years ago only for him to abandon them. Now you have another self-important political type inserting himself into their lives for a clear motive of self-aggrandisement. The only plus point for Burnham is the poor quality of the other candidates. But is there really enthusiasm for him from Labour supporters locally (if you have to bus people in)?
I don’t know what the people of Makerfield think, but were I one of them, I’d be excited to put Makerfield on the map, by making it the PM’s seat. Obviously Burnham is doing this to promote himself, but he is a local boy who is going to represent the needs of local people. Isn’t that a possible strong reason to vote for him?
Well, in 4 2-hour canvass sessions I didn't meet anyone who cared about the former MP standing down, or conversely anyone who was excited to be potentially represented by the next PM. I don't think that busing people in bothers anyone either - certainly all parties do it in a close by-election. I had an amicable chat with a group of 4 Reform canvassers - none were local either (interestingly they said their best response was in the poorest areas, and Makerfield doesn't actually have many really poor areas - it's WWC but doing quite well with lots of cars a lot bigger than mine).
There was a degree of enthusiasm about Burnham personally, and a definite degree of "stop Reform" moving supporters of other parties to back him (though one voter said wistfully that he disliked Burnham but didn't want to be represented by Reform, what was he to do? Voting for another party hadn't occurred to him). I only met 1 Restore voter, and zero Tories, LibDems or Greens. Today's poll suggests that Burnham's lead is increasing, though my impression (necessarily from scattered bits of Makerfield) remains that it's very close.
The seat is very scattered - basically lots of small towns and villages in the Greater Manchester area. It takes 30 minutes to drive across it!
Did you meet anyone who wants Starmer to remain and is hesitant about voting for Burnham for that reason? That's the only way I can see that Burnham can lose this.
Yes. If you want Starmer to stay you might have to tactically vote for Reform.
Did you meet anyone who wants Starmer to remain and is hesitant about voting for Burnham for that reason? That's the only way I can see that Burnham can lose this.
Who from the Labour Party is campaigning for Burnham?
Nick Palmer. And I.
This is what I posted on 5 June based on a visit 8 days ago: "I spent half a day doorknocking in Makerfield last Sunday, in two different locations. There were some favourable responses for Burnham who had good name recognition and was personally known to a couple of people I met, but there were quite a few Reform and hostile against responses too. We did quite a bit of driving across about 5 miles of the constituency and in that time and during doorknocking I spotted about 20 homes with Reform stakes/posters compared with about 10 for Labour and 1 Restore, although I don't think you can take too much heed of the relative numbers for Reform v Labour (based on an appreciation that if willingness to display a poster was a reliable indicator of relative support, the Conservatives wouldn't have won a general election in my lifetime.) What was striking was just how many people were not aware of the national implications if Burnham won and the Labour campaign approach was not to mention that. That approach might change a bit now that Burnham has made clear his intentions. A couple of Reform supporters appeared to genuinely equivocate once I went off script and pointed out that if Burnham wins Starmer would probably be out of the door in months.
The overall impression was that it certainly wasn't in the bag for Burnham so I would counsel against going all in on Burnham based on the latest Survation polling. With a lot still in play I don't find odds of 2/9 on attractive although Burnham should still be favourite."
Next question. What's in it for the people of Makerfield. They elected the last MP two years ago only for him to abandon them. Now you have another self-important political type inserting himself into their lives for a clear motive of self-aggrandisement. The only plus point for Burnham is the poor quality of the other candidates. But is there really enthusiasm for him from Labour supporters locally (if you have to bus people in)?
I don’t know what the people of Makerfield think, but were I one of them, I’d be excited to put Makerfield on the map, by making it the PM’s seat. Obviously Burnham is doing this to promote himself, but he is a local boy who is going to represent the needs of local people. Isn’t that a possible strong reason to vote for him?
Well, in 4 2-hour canvass sessions I didn't meet anyone who cared about the former MP standing down, or conversely anyone who was excited to be potentially represented by the next PM. I don't think that busing people in bothers anyone either - certainly all parties do it in a close by-election. I had an amicable chat with a group of 4 Reform canvassers - none were local either (interestingly they said their best response was in the poorest areas, and Makerfield doesn't actually have many really poor areas - it's WWC but doing quite well with lots of cars a lot bigger than mine).
There was a degree of enthusiasm about Burnham personally, and a definite degree of "stop Reform" moving supporters of other parties to back him (though one voter said wistfully that he disliked Burnham but didn't want to be represented by Reform, what was he to do? Voting for another party hadn't occurred to him). I only met 1 Restore voter, and zero Tories, LibDems or Greens. Today's poll suggests that Burnham's lead is increasing, though my impression (necessarily from scattered bits of Makerfield) remains that it's very close.
The seat is very scattered - basically lots of small towns and villages in the Greater Manchester area. It takes 30 minutes to drive across it!
Did you meet anyone who wants Starmer to remain and is hesitant about voting for Burnham for that reason? That's the only way I can see that Burnham can lose this.
Yes. If you want Starmer to stay you might have to tactically vote for Reform.
Not sure that's a large market.
I agree its not a large market but 2-3K direct switchers across the Constituency could make a real difference. FWIW I think Burnham will win relatively easily.
Who from the Labour Party is campaigning for Burnham?
Nick Palmer. And I.
This is what I posted on 5 June based on a visit 8 days ago: "I spent half a day doorknocking in Makerfield last Sunday, in two different locations. There were some favourable responses for Burnham who had good name recognition and was personally known to a couple of people I met, but there were quite a few Reform and hostile against responses too. We did quite a bit of driving across about 5 miles of the constituency and in that time and during doorknocking I spotted about 20 homes with Reform stakes/posters compared with about 10 for Labour and 1 Restore, although I don't think you can take too much heed of the relative numbers for Reform v Labour (based on an appreciation that if willingness to display a poster was a reliable indicator of relative support, the Conservatives wouldn't have won a general election in my lifetime.) What was striking was just how many people were not aware of the national implications if Burnham won and the Labour campaign approach was not to mention that. That approach might change a bit now that Burnham has made clear his intentions. A couple of Reform supporters appeared to genuinely equivocate once I went off script and pointed out that if Burnham wins Starmer would probably be out of the door in months.
The overall impression was that it certainly wasn't in the bag for Burnham so I would counsel against going all in on Burnham based on the latest Survation polling. With a lot still in play I don't find odds of 2/9 on attractive although Burnham should still be favourite."
Next question. What's in it for the people of Makerfield. They elected the last MP two years ago only for him to abandon them. Now you have another self-important political type inserting himself into their lives for a clear motive of self-aggrandisement. The only plus point for Burnham is the poor quality of the other candidates. But is there really enthusiasm for him from Labour supporters locally (if you have to bus people in)?
Every party "buses" activists in to help with by-elections and have done since time began. Are you new to this politics lark?
Reform have emailed me to ask if I want to join a coach from London to canvass for Reform in Makerfield.
Pace @JohnLilburne ’s question presumably that *would* count as a donation to reform? But may be not spending?
I don't know. But I won't be taking them up on the offer!
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
I want Mahmood or Phillipson. But I know that is very unlikely to happen.
I don't want Burnham, due to his arrogance and sense of entitlement.
Everyone else falls between those two poles.
That's a bit like me wanting Rory Stewart for the Tory leadership in 2019.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Would it not be more insane for a left-wing party to have a (hard IMO) right-winger in charge? Would Reform welcome Ken Clarke as a defector if he kept to his European policies as before? There is a reason why we have the different parties.
Who from the Labour Party is campaigning for Burnham?
Nick Palmer. And I.
This is what I posted on 5 June based on a visit 8 days ago: "I spent half a day doorknocking in Makerfield last Sunday, in two different locations. There were some favourable responses for Burnham who had good name recognition and was personally known to a couple of people I met, but there were quite a few Reform and hostile against responses too. We did quite a bit of driving across about 5 miles of the constituency and in that time and during doorknocking I spotted about 20 homes with Reform stakes/posters compared with about 10 for Labour and 1 Restore, although I don't think you can take too much heed of the relative numbers for Reform v Labour (based on an appreciation that if willingness to display a poster was a reliable indicator of relative support, the Conservatives wouldn't have won a general election in my lifetime.) What was striking was just how many people were not aware of the national implications if Burnham won and the Labour campaign approach was not to mention that. That approach might change a bit now that Burnham has made clear his intentions. A couple of Reform supporters appeared to genuinely equivocate once I went off script and pointed out that if Burnham wins Starmer would probably be out of the door in months.
The overall impression was that it certainly wasn't in the bag for Burnham so I would counsel against going all in on Burnham based on the latest Survation polling. With a lot still in play I don't find odds of 2/9 on attractive although Burnham should still be favourite."
Next question. What's in it for the people of Makerfield. They elected the last MP two years ago only for him to abandon them. Now you have another self-important political type inserting himself into their lives for a clear motive of self-aggrandisement. The only plus point for Burnham is the poor quality of the other candidates. But is there really enthusiasm for him from Labour supporters locally (if you have to bus people in)?
I don’t know what the people of Makerfield think, but were I one of them, I’d be excited to put Makerfield on the map, by making it the PM’s seat. Obviously Burnham is doing this to promote himself, but he is a local boy who is going to represent the needs of local people. Isn’t that a possible strong reason to vote for him?
Well, in 4 2-hour canvass sessions I didn't meet anyone who cared about the former MP standing down, or conversely anyone who was excited to be potentially represented by the next PM. I don't think that busing people in bothers anyone either - certainly all parties do it in a close by-election. I had an amicable chat with a group of 4 Reform canvassers - none were local either (interestingly they said their best response was in the poorest areas, and Makerfield doesn't actually have many really poor areas - it's WWC but doing quite well with lots of cars a lot bigger than mine).
There was a degree of enthusiasm about Burnham personally, and a definite degree of "stop Reform" moving supporters of other parties to back him (though one voter said wistfully that he disliked Burnham but didn't want to be represented by Reform, what was he to do? Voting for another party hadn't occurred to him). I only met 1 Restore voter, and zero Tories, LibDems or Greens. Today's poll suggests that Burnham's lead is increasing, though my impression (necessarily from scattered bits of Makerfield) remains that it's very close.
The seat is very scattered - basically lots of small towns and villages in the Greater Manchester area. It takes 30 minutes to drive across it!
Thanks for the information Nick.
I'm spending today walking around the constituency to see if I can get an impression of which party I should place a bet on. Currently in Wetherpoons just outside the boundaries of the seat.
Illustrating that having your vote concentrated in half the wards (or fewer) is better than having them spread across the borough
Who has ended up running the show there?
I know our dramas in Kirklees have been well reported in the papers and on social media, and we have the chief exec still running the council as it stands, but I've seen less from your manor.
Who from the Labour Party is campaigning for Burnham?
Nick Palmer. And I.
This is what I posted on 5 June based on a visit 8 days ago: "I spent half a day doorknocking in Makerfield last Sunday, in two different locations. There were some favourable responses for Burnham who had good name recognition and was personally known to a couple of people I met, but there were quite a few Reform and hostile against responses too. We did quite a bit of driving across about 5 miles of the constituency and in that time and during doorknocking I spotted about 20 homes with Reform stakes/posters compared with about 10 for Labour and 1 Restore, although I don't think you can take too much heed of the relative numbers for Reform v Labour (based on an appreciation that if willingness to display a poster was a reliable indicator of relative support, the Conservatives wouldn't have won a general election in my lifetime.) What was striking was just how many people were not aware of the national implications if Burnham won and the Labour campaign approach was not to mention that. That approach might change a bit now that Burnham has made clear his intentions. A couple of Reform supporters appeared to genuinely equivocate once I went off script and pointed out that if Burnham wins Starmer would probably be out of the door in months.
The overall impression was that it certainly wasn't in the bag for Burnham so I would counsel against going all in on Burnham based on the latest Survation polling. With a lot still in play I don't find odds of 2/9 on attractive although Burnham should still be favourite."
Next question. What's in it for the people of Makerfield. They elected the last MP two years ago only for him to abandon them. Now you have another self-important political type inserting himself into their lives for a clear motive of self-aggrandisement. The only plus point for Burnham is the poor quality of the other candidates. But is there really enthusiasm for him from Labour supporters locally (if you have to bus people in)?
I don’t know what the people of Makerfield think, but were I one of them, I’d be excited to put Makerfield on the map, by making it the PM’s seat. Obviously Burnham is doing this to promote himself, but he is a local boy who is going to represent the needs of local people. Isn’t that a possible strong reason to vote for him?
Well, in 4 2-hour canvass sessions I didn't meet anyone who cared about the former MP standing down, or conversely anyone who was excited to be potentially represented by the next PM. I don't think that busing people in bothers anyone either - certainly all parties do it in a close by-election. I had an amicable chat with a group of 4 Reform canvassers - none were local either (interestingly they said their best response was in the poorest areas, and Makerfield doesn't actually have many really poor areas - it's WWC but doing quite well with lots of cars a lot bigger than mine).
There was a degree of enthusiasm about Burnham personally, and a definite degree of "stop Reform" moving supporters of other parties to back him (though one voter said wistfully that he disliked Burnham but didn't want to be represented by Reform, what was he to do? Voting for another party hadn't occurred to him). I only met 1 Restore voter, and zero Tories, LibDems or Greens. Today's poll suggests that Burnham's lead is increasing, though my impression (necessarily from scattered bits of Makerfield) remains that it's very close.
The seat is very scattered - basically lots of small towns and villages in the Greater Manchester area. It takes 30 minutes to drive across it!
Thanks for the information Nick.
I'm spending today walking around the constituency to see if I can get an impression of which party I should place a bet on. Currently in Wetherpoons just outside the boundaries of the seat.
I think that's going to be the OMRLP campaign headquarters.
Nick Palmer's constituency report suggests it might be squeaky bum time for Burnham.
I’d trust NPXMP’s informed comments absolutely.
But I can’t shake my uninformed view that Burnham will win easily.
I wouldn't. NPXMP infamously got it badly wrong in his own constituency in the run up to GE2015.
He's probably concerned about turnout. Burnham will win because he's the root to getting rid of Starmer.
And that's as far as most people's thinking will go.
Here's the thing - what do Conservatives actually want from this by-election?
IF Burnham wins, it's likely Starmer will soon be gone and there'll be a new PM in town and life may get tougher for Badenoch in the Commons, OTOH, Reform will be badly dented and that will increase the chances of the Conservatives moving back into a clear second and re-establishing themselves as the alternative "Right wing" option to Labour.
However, let's say Reform wins - Starmer stays, weakened and humiliated BUT Reform will be buoyant and look more like a Government in waiting with the Conservatives becoming less and less relevant.
Interesting times?
Yes. I don't want Starmer to go and be replaced by an even more left-wing PM with a high opinion of himself.
I expect we'll pay for it in the markets, and in our pockets.
There is no positive outcome for the Tories.
They are one step from extinction.
They have one chance. That chance is to elect a credible centre right MP of gravitas to stop swinging Right and to show empathy and contrition.
That person would succeed if maintaining current number of MPs or adding 20 to 30 to see off Farage post 2029 and to build for 2034.
It requires leadership change in 2027 to have any chance of doing that.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Mahmood would be my preferred but as it’s between Starmer and Burnham it has to Burnham.
Illustrating that having your vote concentrated in half the wards (or fewer) is better than having them spread across the borough
Who has ended up running the show there?
I know our dramas in Kirklees have been well reported in the papers and on social media, and we have the chief exec still running the council as it stands, but I've seen less from your manor.
EDIT: checks internet.
Reform, yuck, though I suppose they had experience enough for everyone else to be prepared to acceed to it.
There is no such backing down in Kirklees yet, Reform are the largest single party but with not a jot of experience in their ranks, the left grouping have more councillors and much more ecperience and the Conservatives are voting against both sides and insisting on a unity council.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Mahmood would be my preferred but as it’s between Starmer and Burnham it has to Burnham.
From what I was being told over the weekend the election of a Muslim (sounding, anyway) woman would create hysteria in some parts of 'official' USA.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Mahmood would be my preferred but as it’s between Starmer and Burnham it has to Burnham.
Hard to argue with that. Starmer has .....disappointed.
The other point not mentioned is that while Reform has lots of dosh it probably doesn’t have a very good election fighting machine. It takes experience and time and training to build up a good campaigning organisation, and I strongly suspect that - like my previously posted experience of helping the Greens here - it’s likely they don’t know what they are doing.
Mind, even the major parties sometimes don’t have good data or organisation in seats that have been safe for a very long time
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Mahmood would be my preferred but as it’s between Starmer and Burnham it has to Burnham.
From what I was being told over the weekend the election of a Muslim (sounding, anyway) woman would create hysteria in some parts of 'official' USA.
And?
Just another reason to conclude that our values are no longer their values. It was good while it lasted.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Mahmood would be my preferred but as it’s between Starmer and Burnham it has to Burnham.
Hard to argue with that. Starmer has .....disappointed.
Things can only get better, eh?
Just needs some fresh energy I think.
I’m of the view that if Starmer hadn’t stepped on so many rakes he’d probably be significantly more popular. Burnham seems better at that.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Mahmood would be my preferred but as it’s between Starmer and Burnham it has to Burnham.
From what I was being told over the weekend the election of a Muslim (sounding, anyway) woman would create hysteria in some parts of 'official' USA.
And?
Just another reason to conclude that our values are no longer their values. It was good while it lasted.
Inclined to agree with you, personally. So was my informant. Just making the point that relationships would probably only get worse, despite Lanny's best efforts.
Who from the Labour Party is campaigning for Burnham?
Nick Palmer. And I.
This is what I posted on 5 June based on a visit 8 days ago: "I spent half a day doorknocking in Makerfield last Sunday, in two different locations. There were some favourable responses for Burnham who had good name recognition and was personally known to a couple of people I met, but there were quite a few Reform and hostile against responses too. We did quite a bit of driving across about 5 miles of the constituency and in that time and during doorknocking I spotted about 20 homes with Reform stakes/posters compared with about 10 for Labour and 1 Restore, although I don't think you can take too much heed of the relative numbers for Reform v Labour (based on an appreciation that if willingness to display a poster was a reliable indicator of relative support, the Conservatives wouldn't have won a general election in my lifetime.) What was striking was just how many people were not aware of the national implications if Burnham won and the Labour campaign approach was not to mention that. That approach might change a bit now that Burnham has made clear his intentions. A couple of Reform supporters appeared to genuinely equivocate once I went off script and pointed out that if Burnham wins Starmer would probably be out of the door in months.
The overall impression was that it certainly wasn't in the bag for Burnham so I would counsel against going all in on Burnham based on the latest Survation polling. With a lot still in play I don't find odds of 2/9 on attractive although Burnham should still be favourite."
Next question. What's in it for the people of Makerfield. They elected the last MP two years ago only for him to abandon them. Now you have another self-important political type inserting himself into their lives for a clear motive of self-aggrandisement. The only plus point for Burnham is the poor quality of the other candidates. But is there really enthusiasm for him from Labour supporters locally (if you have to bus people in)?
I don’t know what the people of Makerfield think, but were I one of them, I’d be excited to put Makerfield on the map, by making it the PM’s seat. Obviously Burnham is doing this to promote himself, but he is a local boy who is going to represent the needs of local people. Isn’t that a possible strong reason to vote for him?
Well, in 4 2-hour canvass sessions I didn't meet anyone who cared about the former MP standing down, or conversely anyone who was excited to be potentially represented by the next PM. I don't think that busing people in bothers anyone either - certainly all parties do it in a close by-election. I had an amicable chat with a group of 4 Reform canvassers - none were local either (interestingly they said their best response was in the poorest areas, and Makerfield doesn't actually have many really poor areas - it's WWC but doing quite well with lots of cars a lot bigger than mine).
There was a degree of enthusiasm about Burnham personally, and a definite degree of "stop Reform" moving supporters of other parties to back him (though one voter said wistfully that he disliked Burnham but didn't want to be represented by Reform, what was he to do? Voting for another party hadn't occurred to him). I only met 1 Restore voter, and zero Tories, LibDems or Greens. Today's poll suggests that Burnham's lead is increasing, though my impression (necessarily from scattered bits of Makerfield) remains that it's very close.
The seat is very scattered - basically lots of small towns and villages in the Greater Manchester area. It takes 30 minutes to drive across it!
Thanks for the information Nick.
I'm spending today walking around the constituency to see if I can get an impression of which party I should place a bet on. Currently in Wetherpoons just outside the boundaries of the seat.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Mahmood would be my preferred but as it’s between Starmer and Burnham it has to Burnham.
From what I was being told over the weekend the election of a Muslim (sounding, anyway) woman would create hysteria in some parts of 'official' USA.
And?
Just another reason to conclude that our values are no longer their values. It was good while it lasted.
Russia, the USA, Israel/Iran. The axis triangle of evil.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Mahmood would be my preferred but as it’s between Starmer and Burnham it has to Burnham.
From what I was being told over the weekend the election of a Muslim (sounding, anyway) woman would create hysteria in some parts of 'official' USA.
And?
Just another reason to conclude that our values are no longer their values. It was good while it lasted.
Russia, the USA, Israel/Iran. The axis triangle of evil.
Australia has enjoyed decent economic growth and successfully "stopped the boats", so the strong support for the far right is difficult to rationalise from the perspective of the UK and the reasons often given for the rise of Reform.
Also the same anti woke agenda from One Nation as Reform have
And yet Australia is not exactly a bastion of wokeness that is crying out for a correction. In my opinion the rise of the far right is really driven by two fundamental factors. The first is passage of time, with the post World War Two settlement passing into history. An important part of that settlement in Western countries was a kind of unwritten prohibition on supporting parties or political platforms on the far right, based on the experience with fascism and Naziism, that held across a sufficienly broad section of the population to lock these parties out. As that inoculation against the far right wears off, so these parties have gained support. The second factor is the rise of social media as a radicalisation tool, including its exploitation by malign foreign actors. English speaking countries have been most affected by this, as the US is at the epicentre of these efforts.
Yet Bardella, of the far right RN, leads French presidential polls for next year. The nationalist Meloni is Italian PM and the AfD lead German polls and the Sweden Democrats are in a coalition government.
So it is certainly not the Anglosphere West just affected by the nationalist right surge, indeed in Canada and New Zealand the nationalist right still do not even have parties in the top 2
Illustrating that having your vote concentrated in half the wards (or fewer) is better than having them spread across the borough
Who has ended up running the show there?
I know our dramas in Kirklees have been well reported in the papers and on social media, and we have the chief exec still running the council as it stands, but I've seen less from your manor.
Reform is in charge with (sort of) Tory support, although the Tories are also the official opposition. A bit of Bozo-style cake and eat it there.
However, everyone other than Reform got together to divvy up the committee chairs, freezing out Reform from these positions.
Makerfield has been described as having a lot of Left-Behind Patriots. Yes, it's another label amongst many labels. See if the description echoes. I'd say it pivots to Reform more than Labour.
"Left-Behind Patriots want Britain to be more equal and think the better off are not taxed enough. However, their left-wing views appear rooted in the value of work, and they aren’t supportive of generous welfare benefits. At the same time, they are sceptical about equal opportunities policies for minority groups, and believe in stricter sentencing, including the death penalty. They split down the middle when asked for their views on trade unions.
They are highly patriotic. The group is more common in England than in Scotland, and they often regard themselves as English rather than British. They are proud of Britain’s history, though not so much its present. That helps explain why immigration is a key concern for them, and why they voted decisively to leave the EU. "
They were the groups who marched for Enoch back in the day.
The socially conservative "left" (or working class) voters who were once the backbone of "old Labour".
This is the dilemma of Reform - the leadership are Thatcherites who would slash taxes and spending but many Reform voters are interventionist tax and spenders.
Not the only one today either, alongside rumours of an almost total collapse for the enemy across large areas of the front line, out of fuel and food. https://x.com/actfast/status/2063734056081297612
Makerfield has been described as having a lot of Left-Behind Patriots. Yes, it's another label amongst many labels. See if the description echoes. I'd say it pivots to Reform more than Labour.
"Left-Behind Patriots want Britain to be more equal and think the better off are not taxed enough. However, their left-wing views appear rooted in the value of work, and they aren’t supportive of generous welfare benefits. At the same time, they are sceptical about equal opportunities policies for minority groups, and believe in stricter sentencing, including the death penalty. They split down the middle when asked for their views on trade unions.
They are highly patriotic. The group is more common in England than in Scotland, and they often regard themselves as English rather than British. They are proud of Britain’s history, though not so much its present. That helps explain why immigration is a key concern for them, and why they voted decisively to leave the EU. "
They were the groups who marched for Enoch back in the day.
The socially conservative "left" (or working class) voters who were once the backbone of "old Labour".
This is the dilemma of Reform - the leadership are Thatcherites who would slash taxes and spending but many Reform voters are interventionist tax and spenders.
Does it matter to the Reform leadership who supports them as long as they get elected?
Makerfield has been described as having a lot of Left-Behind Patriots. Yes, it's another label amongst many labels. See if the description echoes. I'd say it pivots to Reform more than Labour.
"Left-Behind Patriots want Britain to be more equal and think the better off are not taxed enough. However, their left-wing views appear rooted in the value of work, and they aren’t supportive of generous welfare benefits. At the same time, they are sceptical about equal opportunities policies for minority groups, and believe in stricter sentencing, including the death penalty. They split down the middle when asked for their views on trade unions.
They are highly patriotic. The group is more common in England than in Scotland, and they often regard themselves as English rather than British. They are proud of Britain’s history, though not so much its present. That helps explain why immigration is a key concern for them, and why they voted decisively to leave the EU. "
They were the groups who marched for Enoch back in the day.
The socially conservative "left" (or working class) voters who were once the backbone of "old Labour".
This is the dilemma of Reform - the leadership are Thatcherites who would slash taxes and spending but many Reform voters are interventionist tax and spenders.
Only in traditional Labour seats like Makerfield which even voted for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. Makerfield is the 29th Reform target seat though so it needs seats like Makerfield to win a majority or even most seats
Australia has enjoyed decent economic growth and successfully "stopped the boats", so the strong support for the far right is difficult to rationalise from the perspective of the UK and the reasons often given for the rise of Reform.
Also the same anti woke agenda from One Nation as Reform have
And yet Australia is not exactly a bastion of wokeness that is crying out for a correction. In my opinion the rise of the far right is really driven by two fundamental factors. The first is passage of time, with the post World War Two settlement passing into history. An important part of that settlement in Western countries was a kind of unwritten prohibition on supporting parties or political platforms on the far right, based on the experience with fascism and Naziism, that held across a sufficienly broad section of the population to lock these parties out. As that inoculation against the far right wears off, so these parties have gained support. The second factor is the rise of social media as a radicalisation tool, including its exploitation by malign foreign actors. English speaking countries have been most affected by this, as the US is at the epicentre of these efforts.
Yet Bardella, of the far right RN, leads French presidential polls for next year. The nationalist Meloni is Italian PM and the AfD lead German polls and the Sweden Democrats are in a coalition government.
So it is certainly not the Anglosphere West just affected by the nationalist right surge, indeed in Canada and New Zealand the nationalist right still do not even have parties in the top 2
Yes. I think the first point is the main one. Democracies tend to veer into fascism in the absence of periodic reminders that this is not a great idea. The Nazi era inoculation has worn off.
I'm spending today walking around the constituency to see if I can get an impression of which party I should place a bet on. Currently in Wetherpoons just outside the boundaries of the seat.
I think Reform leads on posters, don't you? Not sure how much that means. As per other signs, almost none of Andy's posters mention Labour, and none of the Reform posters mention their candidate.
If I had to guess I'd think Andy will win, on the basis of the polls, but I wouldn't bet on him at current odds.
There is apparently a substantial portion of Labour members who want to keep Starmer.
If some of them live in Makersfield, I wonder how they would vote in this by- election?
I don't want Starmer to stay.
I don't want Burnham to replace him.
If I lived in Makerfield I would spoil my ballot.
...which would allow Starmer to stay.
I hesitate to say it but the best way to achieve your twin aims would be to vote Reform, because if Burnham loses I still think Starmer is toast... it's just that Rayner will be taking over.
It was all going so well until those last 8 words.
Well that's my point. Does @SandyRentool want Burnham to replace Starmer? Or Rayner? Because that's the choice imo.
He told me he would prefer Mahmood or Phillipson yesterday when I put the same point to him. So would I but I don't see any way that happens. The Labour party is in no mood for sanity.
Mahmood would be my preferred but as it’s between Starmer and Burnham it has to Burnham.
From what I was being told over the weekend the election of a Muslim (sounding, anyway) woman would create hysteria in some parts of 'official' USA.
And?
Just another reason to conclude that our values are no longer their values. It was good while it lasted.
Russia, the USA, Israel/Iran. The axis triangle of evil.
Makerfield has been described as having a lot of Left-Behind Patriots. Yes, it's another label amongst many labels. See if the description echoes. I'd say it pivots to Reform more than Labour.
"Left-Behind Patriots want Britain to be more equal and think the better off are not taxed enough. However, their left-wing views appear rooted in the value of work, and they aren’t supportive of generous welfare benefits. At the same time, they are sceptical about equal opportunities policies for minority groups, and believe in stricter sentencing, including the death penalty. They split down the middle when asked for their views on trade unions.
They are highly patriotic. The group is more common in England than in Scotland, and they often regard themselves as English rather than British. They are proud of Britain’s history, though not so much its present. That helps explain why immigration is a key concern for them, and why they voted decisively to leave the EU. "
I didn't talk long enough with voters to get a clear impression of detailed views, but it mostly sounds credible, though nobody mentioned immigration at all. The constituency seems notably more middle-aged than average - very few young people or elderly folk.
Incidentally, there was absolutely no aggro - we read of people being nervous about canvassing, but for the umpteenth time I didn't get any hostility (I never have, in 60 years of door-knocking), merely a few people saying "no way" or the like. I think we sometimes imagine Britain to be more fiercely divided than it is. Most people, for better or worse, don't actually care enough to be nasty to someone polite on their doorstep.
(a) Labour to win more than 50% of the vote. and (b) Reform to win.
My rationale is that there's a hell of a lot of tactical squeezing to come, and there's only a very small window where Labour wins on 45-50% of the vote.
(a) Labour to win more than 50% of the vote. and (b) Reform to win.
My rationale is that there's a hell of a lot of tactical squeezing to come, and there's only a very small window where Labour wins on 45-50% of the vote.
Will any bookies allow this bet as a doubke, or does one have to do two separate bets?
Makerfield has been described as having a lot of Left-Behind Patriots. Yes, it's another label amongst many labels. See if the description echoes. I'd say it pivots to Reform more than Labour.
"Left-Behind Patriots want Britain to be more equal and think the better off are not taxed enough. However, their left-wing views appear rooted in the value of work, and they aren’t supportive of generous welfare benefits. At the same time, they are sceptical about equal opportunities policies for minority groups, and believe in stricter sentencing, including the death penalty. They split down the middle when asked for their views on trade unions.
They are highly patriotic. The group is more common in England than in Scotland, and they often regard themselves as English rather than British. They are proud of Britain’s history, though not so much its present. That helps explain why immigration is a key concern for them, and why they voted decisively to leave the EU. "
I didn't talk long enough with voters to get a clear impression of detailed views, but it mostly sounds credible, though nobody mentioned immigration at all. The constituency seems notably more middle-aged than average - very few young people or elderly folk.
Incidentally, there was absolutely no aggro - we read of people being nervous about canvassing, but for the umpteenth time I didn't get any hostility (I never have, in 60 years of door-knocking), merely a few people saying "no way" or the like. I think we sometimes imagine Britain to be more fiercely divided than it is. Most people, for better or worse, don't actually care enough to be nasty to someone polite on their doorstep.
Yes, I got a Lib Dem on the doorstep during the Locals and notwithstanding me recalling very well how they enabled Tory austerity after GE 2010 we ended up having a nice albeit brief exchange. I said I was a Labour party member. He said ok fine but if there was anything he could do if he was elected to just get in touch. I said I would and wished him luck. It caused me to check the detailed ward results to see if he did get elected. He didn't. Just missed.
I'm spending today walking around the constituency to see if I can get an impression of which party I should place a bet on. Currently in Wetherpoons just outside the boundaries of the seat.
I think Reform leads on posters, don't you? Not sure how much that means. As per other signs, almost none of Andy's posters mention Labour, and none of the Reform posters mention their candidate.
If I had to guess I'd think Andy will win, on the basis of the polls, but I wouldn't bet on him at current odds.
Reminds me a bit of the "Liberal Revival" back in the 60's, and the SDP almost twenty years later. Plenty of posters, apparent enthusiastic support, but melted away like the snow in springtime when push came to shove and there was an actual, change-meaning, election.
I'm spending today walking around the constituency to see if I can get an impression of which party I should place a bet on. Currently in Wetherpoons just outside the boundaries of the seat.
I think Reform leads on posters, don't you? Not sure how much that means. As per other signs, almost none of Andy's posters mention Labour, and none of the Reform posters mention their candidate.
If I had to guess I'd think Andy will win, on the basis of the polls, but I wouldn't bet on him at current odds.
Reminds me a bit of the "Liberal Revival" back in the 60's, and the SDP almost twenty years later. Plenty of posters, apparent enthusiastic support, but melted away like the snow in springtime when push came to shove and there was an actual, change-meaning, election.
In a Jack Nicholson voice: Change, you can't handle change.
Makerfield has been described as having a lot of Left-Behind Patriots. Yes, it's another label amongst many labels. See if the description echoes. I'd say it pivots to Reform more than Labour.
"Left-Behind Patriots want Britain to be more equal and think the better off are not taxed enough. However, their left-wing views appear rooted in the value of work, and they aren’t supportive of generous welfare benefits. At the same time, they are sceptical about equal opportunities policies for minority groups, and believe in stricter sentencing, including the death penalty. They split down the middle when asked for their views on trade unions.
They are highly patriotic. The group is more common in England than in Scotland, and they often regard themselves as English rather than British. They are proud of Britain’s history, though not so much its present. That helps explain why immigration is a key concern for them, and why they voted decisively to leave the EU. "
I didn't talk long enough with voters to get a clear impression of detailed views, but it mostly sounds credible, though nobody mentioned immigration at all. The constituency seems notably more middle-aged than average - very few young people or elderly folk.
Incidentally, there was absolutely no aggro - we read of people being nervous about canvassing, but for the umpteenth time I didn't get any hostility (I never have, in 60 years of door-knocking), merely a few people saying "no way" or the like. I think we sometimes imagine Britain to be more fiercely divided than it is. Most people, for better or worse, don't actually care enough to be nasty to someone polite on their doorstep.
I got bitten by a dog once, while canvassing. Not badly, and the voter to whom I was speaking, a doctors wife, was most apologetic, insisted on dressing my wound and that I should contact her husband if anything should go amiss.
(a) Labour to win more than 50% of the vote. and (b) Reform to win.
My rationale is that there's a hell of a lot of tactical squeezing to come, and there's only a very small window where Labour wins on 45-50% of the vote.
Will any bookies allow this bet as a doubke, or does one have to do two separate bets?
(a) Labour to win more than 50% of the vote. and (b) Reform to win.
My rationale is that there's a hell of a lot of tactical squeezing to come, and there's only a very small window where Labour wins on 45-50% of the vote.
Will any bookies allow this bet as a doubke, or does one have to do two separate bets?
It's two separate bets. Basically, one is buying Labour 50-55% (7/2), 55-60 (12/1), and Reform to win (6/1).
If we convert them into probabilities, we're talking about almost exactly a 50% chance to come in, for something I think is probably more like a 70-80% chance. Which is a pretty big margin.
(a) Labour to win more than 50% of the vote. and (b) Reform to win.
My rationale is that there's a hell of a lot of tactical squeezing to come, and there's only a very small window where Labour wins on 45-50% of the vote.
Will any bookies allow this bet as a doubke, or does one have to do two separate bets?
It's two separate bets. Basically, one is buying Labour 50-55% (7/2), 55-60 (12/1), and Reform to win (6/1).
If we convert them into probabilities, we're talking about almost exactly a 50% chance to come in, for something I think is probably more like a 70-80% chance. Which is a pretty big margin.
That sounds like the kind of 'cover all eventualities except one' bet that I always end up on the wrong end of.
Comments
https://x.com/Sacha_Lord/status/2063938351061778675
I was in Makerfield yesterday.
Anyone who thinks this is a two horse race, is wrong.
It's a three horse race, Labour, Reform AND Restore.
Clearly, there are some individual cases of election fraud in the US. But there is no evidence that Trump really won the 2020 Presidential election. He filed 62 lawsuits and lost all of them.
https://www.itv.com/news/central/2026-06-08/reform-uk-councillor-defects-to-tories-after-bullying-and-sexism-claims
As someone once said
..Essayli on Monday confirmed that Armstrong became known to the DOJ after an undercover video was posted online by James O'Keefe, the founder of conservative nonprofit Project Veritas.
Essayli declined to state Armstrong's party affiliation, calling it "irrelevant" to the case.
Dhillon said more similar cases will be presented in the near future.
"Untold numbers of fraudulent voter registrations can be created [in California]," she said.
No specific election was pointed to in Armstrong's case. The Trump Administration has pledged to secure elections since the president's 2020 defeat to Joe Biden in the presidential election.
The administration has lost dozens of legal cases claiming that the election was rigged. There remains no evidence of widespread voter fraud in a way that would alter the outcomes of elections. ..
I can't find much here, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_electoral_fraud_in_the_United_States#2010s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_electoral_fraud_in_the_United_States#2020s
https://x.com/warmonitor3/status/2063948343743500431
Fascinating that so many other people were prepared to go to jail/storm Congress to massage that ego.
SpaceX threw away a perfectly successful engine family in Merlin and started again with a full-flow staged combustion design that most of the industry had largely written off - The Soviets came closest in the '60s
As a software guy, the fascinating bit isn’t the performance. It’s the iteration. Raptor 1 looked like a plumber's nightmare. Raptor 3 looks suspiciously simple, despite producing ~280 tonnes of thrust at ~350 bar chamber pressure.
Aerospace usually optimises for stability. SpaceX seem to be optimising for continuous improvement and manufacturability.
xAI is the weak link, IMO.
This DHS Official Oversees the Security of Federal Elections. He Wants to Ban Voting Machines.
David Harvilicz, who co-founded a firm with a 2020 election denier, oversees voting machine security for the Department of Homeland Security while the Trump administration is relitigating the president’s baseless claims that the 2020 vote was stolen.
https://www.propublica.org/article/david-harvilicz-homeland-security-voting-machines
...In his top post at the Department of Homeland Security, David Harvilicz sets policy on protecting the nation’s elections infrastructure, including voting machines.
He’s also the co-founder of a company with James Penrose, who helped hatch debunked conspiracy theories blaming hacked voting machines for Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election. Penrose assisted in a push to seize voting machines to overturn Trump’s defeat.
On social media, Harvilicz has called for doing away with voting machines, saying they are “eminently vulnerable to exploitation.” In a March post, he wrote that “DHS needs to ban voting machines for all federal elections. The time is now.” He also has repeatedly questioned the validity of Democratic electoral victories and pushed for Republicans to overhaul electoral systems to their advantage...
He also studied at Moscow State University, apparently.
You've been drO(w)ned
There was a degree of enthusiasm about Burnham personally, and a definite degree of "stop Reform" moving supporters of other parties to back him (though one voter said wistfully that he disliked Burnham but didn't want to be represented by Reform, what was he to do? Voting for another party hadn't occurred to him). I only met 1 Restore voter, and zero Tories, LibDems or Greens. Today's poll suggests that Burnham's lead is increasing, though my impression (necessarily from scattered bits of Makerfield) remains that it's very close.
The seat is very scattered - basically lots of small towns and villages in the Greater Manchester area. It takes 30 minutes to drive across it!
"Left-Behind Patriots want Britain to be more equal and think the better off are not taxed enough. However, their left-wing views appear rooted in the value of work, and they aren’t supportive of generous welfare benefits. At the same time, they are sceptical about equal opportunities policies for minority groups, and believe in stricter sentencing, including the death penalty. They split down the middle when asked for their views on trade unions.
They are highly patriotic. The group is more common in England than in Scotland, and they often regard themselves as English rather than British. They are proud of Britain’s history, though not so much its present. That helps explain why immigration is a key concern for them, and why they voted decisively to leave the EU. "
https://natcen.ac.uk/left-behind-patriots
I expect we'll pay for it in the markets, and in our pockets.
I don't want Burnham, due to his arrogance and sense of entitlement.
Everyone else falls between those two poles.
Not sure that's a large market.
But I won't be taking them up on the offer!
Reform: 93k votes, 29 seats
Labour: 90k votes, 17 seats
Green: 90k votes, 9 seats
Tory: 73k votes, 18 seats
Your Bradford: 40k votes, 9 seats
Illustrating that having your vote concentrated in half the wards (or fewer) is better than having them spread across the borough
There is a reason why we have the different parties.
I'm spending today walking around the constituency to see if I can get an impression of which party I should place a bet on. Currently in Wetherpoons just outside the boundaries of the seat.
I know our dramas in Kirklees have been well reported in the papers and on social media, and we have the chief exec still running the council as it stands, but I've seen less from your manor.
They are one step from extinction.
They have one chance. That chance is to elect a credible centre right MP of gravitas to stop swinging Right and to show empathy and contrition.
That person would succeed if maintaining current number of MPs or adding 20 to 30 to see off Farage post 2029 and to build for 2034.
It requires leadership change in 2027 to have any chance of doing that.
( :, ^, #, |, ~~ )
Reform, yuck, though I suppose they had experience enough for everyone else to be prepared to acceed to it.
There is no such backing down in Kirklees yet, Reform are the largest single party but with not a jot of experience in their ranks, the left grouping have more councillors and much more ecperience and the Conservatives are voting against both sides and insisting on a unity council.
Things can only get better, eh?
Mind, even the major parties sometimes don’t have good data or organisation in seats that have been safe for a very long time
Just another reason to conclude that our values are no longer their values. It was good while it lasted.
I’m of the view that if Starmer hadn’t stepped on so many rakes he’d probably be significantly more popular. Burnham seems better at that.
Oh no. How Sad. Nevermind.
So it is certainly not the Anglosphere West just affected by the nationalist right surge, indeed in Canada and New Zealand the nationalist right still do not even have parties in the top 2
However, everyone other than Reform got together to divvy up the committee chairs, freezing out Reform from these positions.
https://x.com/RestoreBritain/status/2063962966832091577
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/2063971695640134013
The socially conservative "left" (or working class) voters who were once the backbone of "old Labour".
This is the dilemma of Reform - the leadership are Thatcherites who would slash taxes and spending but many Reform voters are interventionist tax and spenders.
Not the only one today either, alongside rumours of an almost total collapse for the enemy across large areas of the front line, out of fuel and food. https://x.com/actfast/status/2063734056081297612
Here’s Novorossiysk oil depot https://x.com/iaponomarenko/status/2063884378673950979
Rail line to Crimea suspended: https://x.com/chuckpfarrer/status/2063955825429807377
Which is a bit of shame, becuase there’s no diesel fuel there either. https://x.com/gerashchenko_en/status/2063961887239258523
And the road bridge onto the island got bombed https://x.com/tendar/status/2063906230305771787
If I had to guess I'd think Andy will win, on the basis of the polls, but I wouldn't bet on him at current odds.
Incidentally, there was absolutely no aggro - we read of people being nervous about canvassing, but for the umpteenth time I didn't get any hostility (I never have, in 60 years of door-knocking), merely a few people saying "no way" or the like. I think we sometimes imagine Britain to be more fiercely divided than it is. Most people, for better or worse, don't actually care enough to be nasty to someone polite on their doorstep.
However, I think the *really* smart bet is on:
(a) Labour to win more than 50% of the vote.
and
(b) Reform to win.
My rationale is that there's a hell of a lot of tactical squeezing to come, and there's only a very small window where Labour wins on 45-50% of the vote.
Ireland is battling a PR nightmare over its continued sales of alumina to Russia.
The scandal comes as Dublin prepares to take the reins of the EU Council presidency.
If we convert them into probabilities, we're talking about almost exactly a 50% chance to come in, for something I think is probably more like a 70-80% chance. Which is a pretty big margin.
NEW THREAD