I'd hate to see that chance diminished by Labour defections.
You mis-spelled "the consequences of Labour's actions".
This is the flip side of this issue and goes back to the OP; if those votes are so valuable, make a policy offer.
As it is I think the polls are likely to stay as they are or widen for a number of different reasons that each contribute a small amount to the Conservatives current woes. Having run down the public realm over 14 years along with the general air of malaise in the country, there are any number of bills that may come due - including several large Tory run councils that could collapse. The economy might pick up a little as energy prices fall, but the cost of living crisis will remain and every month more people have to remortgage with higher payments. This is also not a government particularly well placed to deal with any kind of crisis, as both major figures don't come across particularly sympathetically. Reform is probably polling higher than they would in an actual election, and they may well be bribed to selectively stand down again, but there's also a certain negative momentum about looking like the losing team.
So no, I didn't mis-spell 'the consequences of Labour's actions.'
In fairness, there is always a dilemma sewn into the Labour garment as it were. If they learn leftwards the fabric tears. If they lean rightwards the fabric tears.
That's not their 'fault' but a feature of the position they occupy and how they are portrayed or perceived.
On electoral reform ... I encounter increasing numbers of Labour supporters who seem up for that.
There's a long read in the latest issue of the New Yorker which spells out very well the problems the UK faces as well as the mental shifts required to fix them
"These have been years of loss and waste. The U.K. has yet to recover from the financial crisis that began in 2008. "
"In the fall of 2013, a staffer named Giles Wilkes, became alarmed by projections that showed ever-reducing government budgets. “I don’t wish to paint the picture of the British state as too chaotic and heedless and amateur. But I was wandering around in 2013 and 2014, saying to people, Does anyone know what this means for the Home Office or the court system, for local authorities and the social-care budget?” “Nobody was curious.” "
"And so stupid things happened. Since 2010, forty-three per cent of the courts in England and Wales have closed. No one thinks that this was a good idea. For years, the Conservatives cut prison funding and staffing while encouraging longer jail times."
And so on ad nauseam, with a final rejoinder from Osborne:
"“The underlying economic arguments have basically been accepted,” he said, of austerity. “It’s rather like the Thatcher period. Everyone complained that Thatcher did deindustrialization, and yet no one wants to unpick it.”
For me, this gets to the nub of the challenge Labour have to live up to, I just don't see them challenging this narrative, and without doing so decline can be slowed but never arrested or reversed.
Of course now the government are letting prisoners out early because the prisons are full. Labour needs to sort that out. I don’t envy the next Labour government’s job. Many believe that the Conservatives are salting the ground for Labour
Of course now the government are letting prisoners out early because the prisons are full. Labour needs to sort that out. I don’t envy the next Labour government’s job. Many believe that the Conservatives are salting the ground for Labour
Sometimes malice and incompetence are hard to disentangle.
Many believe that the Conservatives are salting the ground for Labour
To an extent this is inevitable as a result of deferred maintenance of numerous systems across the country as a whole (this is how you get to staff shortages across numerous sectors, all kinds of public infrastructure crumbling, councils selling assets to stave of bankruptcy and so on).
Mrs LB reckons, based on that video the Tories put out and had to retract because it contained scenes from New York and not London, and the language used (about Sadiq Khan "seizing power" as if he were some warlord mounting a coup rather than elected into office) that they've given up on the middle ground and are hoping to steal votes from Reform.
Laughably the video also referred to "squads of Ulez enforcers dressed in black, faces covered with masks, terrorising communities at the beck and call of their Labour mayor master, who has implemented a tax on driving, forcing people to stay inside or go underground.
“Gripped by the tendrils of rising crime, London citizens stay inside. The streets are quiet.”"
Will Scotland elect many Labour mps?
Who will win seats where the lib dems used to?
The parliamentary maths worry me tbh....
Labour will have several more MPs in Scotland than the two they currently have, gaining from both the SNP and Conservatives. They won't be returning to the days when Scotland was red. In terms of the arithmetic in the Commons it won't make any difference to the outcome.
My hand waving forecast for Scotland based on my gut feeling on the ground is:
the Lib Dems shouldn't lose any of their seats and will probably gain a couple from SNP and Conservative (especially in Aberdeenshire where the Tories took LibDem seats in 2015 and Highlands and Western Isles where the SNP took those seats). 6 or 7 LibDem seats would be a good result, getting back to 10-12 would be excellent for them (and possible, with a following wind).
the Conservatives will struggle to hold their 7 seats (the East Kilbride and Strathaven one, my constituency, is a definite loss for them). Their Aberdeenshire seats are at risk from the LibDems, the southern Scotland ones are safer but Labour should give them a run for their money. Holding 3-4 seats would be an excellent result for them, 1 or 2 probably the best they can hope for.
the SNP are in for a hammering from Labour across the Central Belt. If they get less than 20 seats it would be a disaster. 25-30 may be more reasonably what they could expect, though there's a big difference between those numbers - 25 is less than 50% of MPs, 30 is more than 50% of MPs and the SNP will fight hard to try to stay above the 50% of MPs threshold. The big question is going to be how Independence plays out, as there's currently a lot of support for independence that's not translated into support for the SNP - my impression is that at the moment there's little expectation of an opportunity to gain independence, and people are voting for changes that help them now without independence and not generally trusting the SNP for that.
and, Labour will take the rest.
In numbers, of 57 seats I expect 28-30 SNP, 16-18 Labour, 9-10 LibDem and 1-2 Conservative. But there's a ways to go until the election.
That infamous tory video (which has indeed only been slightly tweaked) will appeal to the swivel-eyed loons, along with Sid & Doris Bonkers of Neasden, and other devotees of dubious *news* channels found guilty of a lack of impartiality...
It would be funny if it were not so evil. FWIW, Sadiq Khan is one of the best politicians we have in this country, despite being brown and Muslim (or perhaps because of being brown and Muslim?).
That infamous tory video (which has indeed only been slightly tweaked) will appeal to the swivel-eyed loons, along with Sid & Doris Bonkers of Neasden, and other devotees of dubious *news* channels found guilty of a lack of impartiality...
It would be funny if it were not so evil. FWIW, Sadiq Khan is one of the best politicians we have in this country, despite being brown and Muslim (or perhaps because of being brown and Muslim?).
Would you care to explain why Sadiq Khan is so good ?
That infamous tory video (which has indeed only been slightly tweaked) will appeal to the swivel-eyed loons, along with Sid & Doris Bonkers of Neasden, and other devotees of dubious *news* channels found guilty of a lack of impartiality...
It would be funny if it were not so evil. FWIW, Sadiq Khan is one of the best politicians we have in this country, despite being brown and Muslim (or perhaps because of being brown and Muslim?).
Would you care to explain why Sadiq Khan is so good ?
Free school meals in every primary school, the “hopper” bus fare which allows unlimited travel on buses for an hour for just £1.75, more emission free buses than any other city in Europe, increased the number of cycle lanes, the “Superloop” express buses, The Elizabeth Line …
That infamous tory video (which has indeed only been slightly tweaked) will appeal to the swivel-eyed loons, along with Sid & Doris Bonkers of Neasden, and other devotees of dubious *news* channels found guilty of a lack of impartiality...
It would be funny if it were not so evil. FWIW, Sadiq Khan is one of the best politicians we have in this country, despite being brown and Muslim (or perhaps because of being brown and Muslim?).
Would you care to explain why Sadiq Khan is so good ?
Free school meals in every primary school, the “hopper” bus fare which allows unlimited travel on buses for an hour for just £1.75, more emission free buses than any other city in Europe, increased the number of cycle lanes, the “Superloop” express buses, The Elizabeth Line …
and what has he done for the owners of oldish cars ?
How can it be unlimited travel if it's only for an hour.
That infamous tory video (which has indeed only been slightly tweaked) will appeal to the swivel-eyed loons, along with Sid & Doris Bonkers of Neasden, and other devotees of dubious *news* channels found guilty of a lack of impartiality...
It would be funny if it were not so evil. FWIW, Sadiq Khan is one of the best politicians we have in this country, despite being brown and Muslim (or perhaps because of being brown and Muslim?).
Would you care to explain why Sadiq Khan is so good ?
Free school meals in every primary school, the “hopper” bus fare which allows unlimited travel on buses for an hour for just £1.75, more emission free buses than any other city in Europe, increased the number of cycle lanes, the “Superloop” express buses, The Elizabeth Line …
and what has he done for the owners of oldish cars ?
Oldish? Cars built before 2003 is more than oldish.
How can it be unlimited travel if it's only for an hour.
Perhaps unlimited isn’t a great word and maybe there’s a better one. Basically you can get on and off as many buses as you want within an hour
What has he done to fight crime in London ?
Tough one that, especially as the Tory government has cut Metropolitan Police funding by over 30%, not helped by the closure of so many police stations under his predecessor.
I don't know, but it seems to be working. Crime rates in London are lower than the UK as a whole, as is anti-social behaviour. Rates of knife and gun crimes have been falling for several years.
I don't know, but it seems to be working. Crime rates in London are lower than the UK as a whole, as is anti-social behaviour. Rates of knife and gun crimes have been falling for several years.
I don't know, but it seems to be working. Crime rates in London are lower than the UK as a whole, as is anti-social behaviour. Rates of knife and gun crimes have been falling for several years.
That's great news for those living in London.
Well, he is the London Mayor so it's sort of his job.
In other news, the Ambulance Service aren't any help at all with fixing printers.
I have been trying to hold the pragmatic line on the UK Labour Party: it must be better to be in government with compromises, rather than purist protest in opposition, especially given the chaotic horror show of the current government.
But now…
-Nuclear weapon willy-waving
-A planned 2.5% defence spend (while Tory limits on benefits remain)
-Throwing Trans people under the bus in the wake of the Cass report
This is way beyond compromise and into the territory of values that seem plain wrong to me. I can’t vote for that.
When will we have leaders who are willing to challenge the growing moral bankruptcy of our public discourse? Or is enough of the nation now so addicted to bullshit that there is no way back?
I have been trying to hold the pragmatic line on the UK Labour Party: it must be better to be in government with compromises, rather than purist protest in opposition, especially given the chaotic horror show of the current government.
But now…
-Nuclear weapon willy-waving
-A planned 2.5% defence spend (while Tory limits on benefits remain)
-Throwing Trans people under the bus in the wake of the Cass report
This is way beyond compromise and into the territory of values that seem plain wrong to me. I can’t vote for that.
When will we have leaders who are willing to challenge the growing moral bankruptcy of our public discourse? Or is enough of the nation now so addicted to bullshit that there is no way back?
I think it's the latter, unfortunately.
Remember the gammon frothing on the tellybox when Corbyn said he wouldn't commit to turning children to dust and poisoning the earth for generations to come? Shame on Starmer he doesn't have the same backbone. But if he did the press would crucify him as they did Corbyn.
As far as trans rights are concerned, in the UK particularly they are squeezed by both the predictable and expected right wing sources who mistake conformity for morality on the one side and also the otherwise generally left wing TERFs and their fellow travellers on the other.
We have a great deal of advocacy work to do to get the political values I and I'm guessing you share electable. Frankly I don't see how we can win the war of ideas when the other side has the Torygraph, the Express, the Heil and the Sun. The Grauniad is unfortunately as reliable as getting a dry weekend camping in Wasdale.
What we need to do is get in a government willing to legislate re the ownership of the press. I’d argue you could still have a free press, but specify no one person or company may have a controlling interest in more than one outlet, you can have one newspaper, or one broadcaster, you may not have a collection. They must be owned in the UK, or subsidiaries wholly managed in the uk.
It ought to be possible to get cross party support for that, because every part is screwed when the Murdoch machine swings against them.
It ought to be possible to get cross party support for that, because every part is screwed when the Murdoch machine swings against them.
The tories know that the bulk of the media will side with them most of the time, or at worst attack them from further right. They have absolutely no incentive to reform the system, which is why Cameron ducked Leveson II.
I have been trying to hold the pragmatic line on the UK Labour Party: it must be better to be in government with compromises, rather than purist protest in opposition, especially given the chaotic horror show of the current government.
But now…
-Nuclear weapon willy-waving
-A planned 2.5% defence spend (while Tory limits on benefits remain)
-Throwing Trans people under the bus in the wake of the Cass report
This is way beyond compromise and into the territory of values that seem plain wrong to me. I can’t vote for that.
When will we have leaders who are willing to challenge the growing moral bankruptcy of our public discourse? Or is enough of the nation now so addicted to bullshit that there is no way back?
I think it's the latter, unfortunately.
I don't think this is quite correct. The current polling is very much the result of a collapse in the Tory vote rather than overwhelming support for Labour. When a general election comes about in the UK I fully expect it'll be won on the basis of historically low turn out - and an appeal to the small percentage of the population who still consume print media.
We have a great deal of advocacy work to do to get the political values I and I'm guessing you share electable.
This is true, and traditionally the Labour party had a set of parallel organisations through which it could drum up support for its policies. It is clear that the current leadership prefers a much more cartelised system, which in the British case means continuing politics of austerity and managed decline.
I worry that in recent months the collapse in Tory support appears to parallel an increase in Reform support, rather than an increase in support for parties of the centre or left. Because FPTP that really benefits Labour but it’s worrying times to me.
The Culture Wars are looming large there, I think.
Stonewall posted something on that Bookface thing the other day. Almost all the comments on there were homophobic, of the "we're going to Hell in a Handbasket" variety.
I worry that in recent months the collapse in Tory support appears to parallel an increase in Reform support, rather than an increase in support for parties of the centre or left.
That's going to depend on whether Reform manage to hold onto any of their candidates by the time of the election, they seem to be falling like flies with revelations of expressions of views unacceptable even to Reform.
Though, apparently not in my constituency. Where they're sticking with a candidate who thinks the tax-payer subsidised bars and restaurants for MPs isn't good enough and wants to add subsidised brothels.
Stonewall posted something on that Bookface thing the other day. Almost all the comments on there were homophobic, of the "we're going to Hell in a Handbasket" variety.
Yeah, although facethatisbook is most heavily used by the minion-meme-death-cult demographic, and they can still be a small percentage of the population, but also number in the tens/hundreds of thousands.
I have been trying to hold the pragmatic line on the UK Labour Party: it must be better to be in government with compromises, rather than purist protest in opposition, especially given the chaotic horror show of the current government.
But now…
-Nuclear weapon willy-waving
-A planned 2.5% defence spend (while Tory limits on benefits remain)
-Throwing Trans people under the bus in the wake of the Cass report
This is way beyond compromise and into the territory of values that seem plain wrong to me. I can’t vote for that.
When will we have leaders who are willing to challenge the growing moral bankruptcy of our public discourse? Or is enough of the nation now so addicted to bullshit that there is no way back?
I think it's the latter, unfortunately.
Remember the gammon frothing on the tellybox when Corbyn said he wouldn't commit to turning children to dust and poisoning the earth for generations to come? Shame on Starmer he doesn't have the same backbone. But if he did the press would crucify him as they did Corbyn.
As far as trans rights are concerned, in the UK particularly they are squeezed by both the predictable and expected right wing sources who mistake conformity for morality on the one side and also the otherwise generally left wing TERFs and their fellow travellers on the other.
We have a great deal of advocacy work to do to get the political values I and I'm guessing you share electable. Frankly I don't see how we can win the war of ideas when the other side has the Torygraph, the Express, the Heil and the Sun. The Grauniad is unfortunately as reliable as getting a dry weekend camping in Wasdale.
Sadly I think you are right. I have an otherwise really lovely relative who reads the Heil… and it is heartbreaking how much of it they believe. As for the Grauniad, I have been shocked by some of the people they have been willing to quote in relation to the Cass report.
Well, the infamous Raynergate affair drags on - no doubt the Daily Heil has a *damning six-page dossier*, as it did for the awful Beergate affair that brought down the evil Starmer:
Right so this happened so long ago it cannot be prosecuted. It can only be about reputations damage.
The Cons get away with so much it makes you laugh.
Right so this happened so long ago it cannot be prosecuted. It can only be about reputations damage.
The Cons get away with so much it makes you laugh.
Right so this happened so long ago it cannot be prosecuted. It can only be about reputations damage.
The Cons get away with so much it makes you laugh.
Is there a limitation on this alleged offence?
Not sure, but Angela Rayner has said she will resign as Deputy Leader if she is found to have committed a crime.
It appears that she may owe the enormous sum of £1500 in unpaid capital gains tax, which is roughly the amount spent by the tories on wine for an illegal party during lockdown.
Right so this happened so long ago it cannot be prosecuted. It can only be about reputations damage.
The Cons get away with so much it makes you laugh.
Is there a limitation on this alleged offence?
The electoral law part of the allegations (that she wasn't living in what was listed as her principle residence, which is where she was registered to vote) has a 1 year limitation, so she can't be prosecuted for that.
The tax question is more complex, and I don't think the HMRC has any limitations of time on recovering unpaid tax. AIUI, and I'm not an expert by any means, Capital Gains Tax is due on the sale of property that is not one's principle residence. The argument is that when she sold the property she was already married and had already moved in with her husband, and therefore the property wasn't her principle residence and CGT should have been paid. But, it had definitely been her principle residence before she got married, and would be covered by legislation that gives Private Residence Relief (no CGT to pay) if she had lived in it as her primary residence the whole time she owned it. Given that many people would have the experience of getting married (or, otherwise moving in with someone else such that they're no longer living in a home they own) and thus having a property that's no longer their principle residence the need to pay CGT on the sale of that property could be widely applied if there's a delay in selling that property - it's unclear what's counted as a delay in this context such that the "lived in it as your main home for all the time you’ve owned it" requirement isn't met, would that include putting it on the market but not selling it for 6 month? would it include taking 3 months to clear out your stuff before putting it on the market? The question to be addressed is what she was doing with the property between 2010 and 2015 (ie: between getting married and selling it), was she living there and it could genuinely be called her principle residence (in which case there could be CGT due when selling her husbands house, because that wouldn't have been his principle residence the whole time since buying it)?
Angela Rayner's life has been rather messy round the edges, as one commentator put it, so there may well be some errors made along the way as regards CGT.
However, it's possible that she followed advice which was wrong, but that's hardly her fault.
What sticks in the craw is the evil glee with which the gobshite tories (all 100% innocent of any wrongdoing ever, of course) pursue her, in the hope of gaining a few gammon votes.
It's part of what's been a big thing in recent months, digging back through the past of senior politicians, and potential candidates for elections, to find any bit of dirt that can be slung. A lot of that being finding comments made on social media, but this sort of potential minor financial oversights fall under the same banner. There have been several examples recently, and as we approach the general election we can expect to see many more as every detail of the past of candidates is raked over.
It's part of what's been a big thing in recent months, digging back through the past of senior politicians, and potential candidates for elections, to find any bit of dirt that can be slung.
It's also not implausible that some of the dirt is coming from inside the house. Rayner isn't on the left of the party, but she isn't really on the right either and I could see some figures who are too clever by half seeing this as an opportunity to get rid of one of the few remaining figures with some kind of popular mandate within the party.
It's part of what's been a big thing in recent months, digging back through the past of senior politicians, and potential candidates for elections, to find any bit of dirt that can be slung.
It's also not implausible that some of the dirt is coming from inside the house. Rayner isn't on the left of the party, but she isn't really on the right either and I could see some figures who are too clever by half seeing this as an opportunity to get rid of one of the few remaining figures with some kind of popular mandate within the party.
Oh, absolutely. Plus Rayner actually being obviously working class and having worked her way up from the very bottom rather detracts from Starmer's "son of a toolkmaker" riff especially when he looks, sounds and behaves every inch the middle class urban lawyer.
Some of us think that a middle-class urban lawyer might make a good Prime Minister (granted, the standard of previous PMs is very low indeed), but yes, Angela Rayner's no-nonsense working-class persona is also very attractive...
Comments
This is the flip side of this issue and goes back to the OP; if those votes are so valuable, make a policy offer.
As it is I think the polls are likely to stay as they are or widen for a number of different reasons that each contribute a small amount to the Conservatives current woes. Having run down the public realm over 14 years along with the general air of malaise in the country, there are any number of bills that may come due - including several large Tory run councils that could collapse. The economy might pick up a little as energy prices fall, but the cost of living crisis will remain and every month more people have to remortgage with higher payments. This is also not a government particularly well placed to deal with any kind of crisis, as both major figures don't come across particularly sympathetically. Reform is probably polling higher than they would in an actual election, and they may well be bribed to selectively stand down again, but there's also a certain negative momentum about looking like the losing team.
So no, I didn't mis-spell 'the consequences of Labour's actions.'
In fairness, there is always a dilemma sewn into the Labour garment as it were. If they learn leftwards the fabric tears. If they lean rightwards the fabric tears.
That's not their 'fault' but a feature of the position they occupy and how they are portrayed or perceived.
On electoral reform ... I encounter increasing numbers of Labour supporters who seem up for that.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/04/01/what-have-fourteen-years-of-conservative-rule-done-to-britain (archived: https://archive.is/XE1RR )
"These have been years of loss and waste. The U.K. has yet to recover from the financial crisis that began in 2008. "
"In the fall of 2013, a staffer named Giles Wilkes, became alarmed by projections that showed ever-reducing government budgets. “I don’t wish to paint the picture of the British state as too chaotic and heedless and amateur. But I was wandering around in 2013 and 2014, saying to people, Does anyone know what this means for the Home Office or the court system, for local authorities and the social-care budget?” “Nobody was curious.” "
"And so stupid things happened. Since 2010, forty-three per cent of the courts in England and Wales have closed. No one thinks that this was a good idea. For years, the Conservatives cut prison funding and staffing while encouraging longer jail times."
And so on ad nauseam, with a final rejoinder from Osborne:
"“The underlying economic arguments have basically been accepted,” he said, of austerity. “It’s rather like the Thatcher period. Everyone complained that Thatcher did deindustrialization, and yet no one wants to unpick it.”
For me, this gets to the nub of the challenge Labour have to live up to, I just don't see them challenging this narrative, and without doing so decline can be slowed but never arrested or reversed.
Sometimes malice and incompetence are hard to disentangle.
They are. Sometimes through incompetence, sometimes carelessness and sometimes deliberately.
The issue here is not the next election but the one after.
The electoral strategy is obvious:
We fucked everything up beyond all recognition and you still haven't fixed it, vote for us!*
#Tory2029
AFZ
*Obviously, they only plan to say the second half out loud**
**yes, the Tories are stealing the US Repubs best material.
Simply because it requires a functioning party to carry out.
If the defeat is big enough, they'll need a decade, at least, to become a functioning party.
(Please God).
AFZ
Do the tories need to be a functioning party to win elections?
Above a certain baseline
To an extent this is inevitable as a result of deferred maintenance of numerous systems across the country as a whole (this is how you get to staff shortages across numerous sectors, all kinds of public infrastructure crumbling, councils selling assets to stave of bankruptcy and so on).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/25/tories-sadiq-khan-attack-ad-new-york-london
Laughably the video also referred to "squads of Ulez enforcers dressed in black, faces covered with masks, terrorising communities at the beck and call of their Labour mayor master, who has implemented a tax on driving, forcing people to stay inside or go underground.
“Gripped by the tendrils of rising crime, London citizens stay inside. The streets are quiet.”"
Who will win seats where the lib dems used to?
The parliamentary maths worry me tbh....
Although I believe they just scrubbed it slightly and re-posted it:
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1772321715713982730
Polling suggests Labour will win a lot of Scottish seats. SNP support of the wane.
LDs will probably pick up a few seats from the Tories.
Factor in tactical voting and a Tory wipe out becomes possible.
My money's on Tories reduced to 150 seats. (A disaster)
There's a good chance that it's fewer than 100 (unimaginably bad from a Tory POV).
Fewer than 50 is possible (Total wipeout and no realistic prospect of a return to government soon).
I will take anything from Labour as largest party forming a government...
But unless the polls narrow significantly, a big Labour majority is what we are looking at. The question is only how big?
AFZ
(Still counting no chickens)
My hand waving forecast for Scotland based on my gut feeling on the ground is:
the Lib Dems shouldn't lose any of their seats and will probably gain a couple from SNP and Conservative (especially in Aberdeenshire where the Tories took LibDem seats in 2015 and Highlands and Western Isles where the SNP took those seats). 6 or 7 LibDem seats would be a good result, getting back to 10-12 would be excellent for them (and possible, with a following wind).
the Conservatives will struggle to hold their 7 seats (the East Kilbride and Strathaven one, my constituency, is a definite loss for them). Their Aberdeenshire seats are at risk from the LibDems, the southern Scotland ones are safer but Labour should give them a run for their money. Holding 3-4 seats would be an excellent result for them, 1 or 2 probably the best they can hope for.
the SNP are in for a hammering from Labour across the Central Belt. If they get less than 20 seats it would be a disaster. 25-30 may be more reasonably what they could expect, though there's a big difference between those numbers - 25 is less than 50% of MPs, 30 is more than 50% of MPs and the SNP will fight hard to try to stay above the 50% of MPs threshold. The big question is going to be how Independence plays out, as there's currently a lot of support for independence that's not translated into support for the SNP - my impression is that at the moment there's little expectation of an opportunity to gain independence, and people are voting for changes that help them now without independence and not generally trusting the SNP for that.
and, Labour will take the rest.
In numbers, of 57 seats I expect 28-30 SNP, 16-18 Labour, 9-10 LibDem and 1-2 Conservative. But there's a ways to go until the election.
It would be funny if it were not so evil. FWIW, Sadiq Khan is one of the best politicians we have in this country, despite being brown and Muslim (or perhaps because of being brown and Muslim?).
Would you care to explain why Sadiq Khan is so good ?
Free school meals in every primary school, the “hopper” bus fare which allows unlimited travel on buses for an hour for just £1.75, more emission free buses than any other city in Europe, increased the number of cycle lanes, the “Superloop” express buses, The Elizabeth Line …
and what has he done for the owners of oldish cars ?
How can it be unlimited travel if it's only for an hour.
What has he done to fight crime in London ?
Tough one that, especially as the Tory government has cut Metropolitan Police funding by over 30%, not helped by the closure of so many police stations under his predecessor.
That's great news for those living in London.
Well, he is the London Mayor so it's sort of his job.
In other news, the Ambulance Service aren't any help at all with fixing printers.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/26/fact-check-has-sadiq-khan-really-overseen-a-surge-in-london
But now…
-Nuclear weapon willy-waving
-A planned 2.5% defence spend (while Tory limits on benefits remain)
-Throwing Trans people under the bus in the wake of the Cass report
This is way beyond compromise and into the territory of values that seem plain wrong to me. I can’t vote for that.
When will we have leaders who are willing to challenge the growing moral bankruptcy of our public discourse? Or is enough of the nation now so addicted to bullshit that there is no way back?
I think it's the latter, unfortunately.
Remember the gammon frothing on the tellybox when Corbyn said he wouldn't commit to turning children to dust and poisoning the earth for generations to come? Shame on Starmer he doesn't have the same backbone. But if he did the press would crucify him as they did Corbyn.
As far as trans rights are concerned, in the UK particularly they are squeezed by both the predictable and expected right wing sources who mistake conformity for morality on the one side and also the otherwise generally left wing TERFs and their fellow travellers on the other.
We have a great deal of advocacy work to do to get the political values I and I'm guessing you share electable. Frankly I don't see how we can win the war of ideas when the other side has the Torygraph, the Express, the Heil and the Sun. The Grauniad is unfortunately as reliable as getting a dry weekend camping in Wasdale.
It ought to be possible to get cross party support for that, because every part is screwed when the Murdoch machine swings against them.
The tories know that the bulk of the media will side with them most of the time, or at worst attack them from further right. They have absolutely no incentive to reform the system, which is why Cameron ducked Leveson II.
I don't think this is quite correct. The current polling is very much the result of a collapse in the Tory vote rather than overwhelming support for Labour. When a general election comes about in the UK I fully expect it'll be won on the basis of historically low turn out - and an appeal to the small percentage of the population who still consume print media.
This is true, and traditionally the Labour party had a set of parallel organisations through which it could drum up support for its policies. It is clear that the current leadership prefers a much more cartelised system, which in the British case means continuing politics of austerity and managed decline.
The Culture Wars are looming large there, I think.
Stonewall posted something on that Bookface thing the other day. Almost all the comments on there were homophobic, of the "we're going to Hell in a Handbasket" variety.
That's going to depend on whether Reform manage to hold onto any of their candidates by the time of the election, they seem to be falling like flies with revelations of expressions of views unacceptable even to Reform.
Though, apparently not in my constituency. Where they're sticking with a candidate who thinks the tax-payer subsidised bars and restaurants for MPs isn't good enough and wants to add subsidised brothels.
Yeah, although facethatisbook is most heavily used by the minion-meme-death-cult demographic, and they can still be a small percentage of the population, but also number in the tens/hundreds of thousands.
Sadly I think you are right. I have an otherwise really lovely relative who reads the Heil… and it is heartbreaking how much of it they believe. As for the Grauniad, I have been shocked by some of the people they have been willing to quote in relation to the Cass report.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/13/we-wont-let-this-derail-us-angela-rayner-to-continue-campaigning-despite-police-inquiry
The Cons get away with so much it makes you laugh.
Is there a limitation on this alleged offence?
Not sure, but Angela Rayner has said she will resign as Deputy Leader if she is found to have committed a crime.
It appears that she may owe the enormous sum of £1500 in unpaid capital gains tax, which is roughly the amount spent by the tories on wine for an illegal party during lockdown.
What @Hugal said.
The tax question is more complex, and I don't think the HMRC has any limitations of time on recovering unpaid tax. AIUI, and I'm not an expert by any means, Capital Gains Tax is due on the sale of property that is not one's principle residence. The argument is that when she sold the property she was already married and had already moved in with her husband, and therefore the property wasn't her principle residence and CGT should have been paid. But, it had definitely been her principle residence before she got married, and would be covered by legislation that gives Private Residence Relief (no CGT to pay) if she had lived in it as her primary residence the whole time she owned it. Given that many people would have the experience of getting married (or, otherwise moving in with someone else such that they're no longer living in a home they own) and thus having a property that's no longer their principle residence the need to pay CGT on the sale of that property could be widely applied if there's a delay in selling that property - it's unclear what's counted as a delay in this context such that the "lived in it as your main home for all the time you’ve owned it" requirement isn't met, would that include putting it on the market but not selling it for 6 month? would it include taking 3 months to clear out your stuff before putting it on the market? The question to be addressed is what she was doing with the property between 2010 and 2015 (ie: between getting married and selling it), was she living there and it could genuinely be called her principle residence (in which case there could be CGT due when selling her husbands house, because that wouldn't have been his principle residence the whole time since buying it)?
However, it's possible that she followed advice which was wrong, but that's hardly her fault.
What sticks in the craw is the evil glee with which the gobshite tories (all 100% innocent of any wrongdoing ever, of course) pursue her, in the hope of gaining a few gammon votes.
Quite. Let those without sin cast the first stone...
This is all a storm that will blow over. Pettiness really
Absolutely. Pettiness combined with desperation.
It's also not implausible that some of the dirt is coming from inside the house. Rayner isn't on the left of the party, but she isn't really on the right either and I could see some figures who are too clever by half seeing this as an opportunity to get rid of one of the few remaining figures with some kind of popular mandate within the party.
Oh, absolutely. Plus Rayner actually being obviously working class and having worked her way up from the very bottom rather detracts from Starmer's "son of a toolkmaker" riff especially when he looks, sounds and behaves every inch the middle class urban lawyer.
Some of us think that a middle-class urban lawyer might make a good Prime Minister (granted, the standard of previous PMs is very low indeed), but yes, Angela Rayner's no-nonsense working-class persona is also very attractive...