NPR

Excruciating!!!

_Os_ wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 10:38 am A quick review. Usual caveats about byelection turnout, and ignoring the swing from 2019 too as it's not that relevant anymore.

The one liner is that the settled will of 75%-80% of the UK electorate is they want the Tories gone. Everything else is just trying to work out how big their defeat will be through tactical voting. No one in the media puts it into these simple terms, it makes for a boring story, a lot of the stuff the media focuses on is interesting but not changing the mind of that 75%-80%.

Tories: 24.6% Wellingborough, 34.9% Kingswood. Looks quite good for them? Especially with the negatives they're carrying in Wellingborough. They're not performances below where the polling places them. Kingswood is far above the polling.

Labour: 45.9% Wellingborough, 44.9% Kingswood. Again about where polling is placing them.

Lib Dems: 4.7% Wellingborough, 3.5% Kingswood. More evidence the majority of Lib Dem voters will tactically vote for Labour if the Lib Dems cannot remove the Tory. Both performances are less than half where the Lib Dems are polling, and half their 2019 result. Bad for the Tories, good for Labour.

Reform: 13% Wellingborough (and Britain First 1.6%), 10.4% Kingswood (and 0.5% UKIP). The first time Reform polling has translated into a real election? These are good Reform results, but not stunning over performances. Wellingborough is a guide to their ceiling, the Tories didn't campaign and had a bad candidate and by all reports Reform ran a good campaign, combining the Reform and Britain First vote there gives 14.6%. Bad for the Tories, the performances are the minimum level needed for Tories that want to move further right to keep shouting, which will harm their campaign.

Green: 3.4% Wellingborough, 5.8% Kingswood. Bad for Labour, these were seats where Labour needed to overturn large majorities to win, this isn't evidence Green voters are voting tactically to remove Tories. the Wellingborough performance is the same as 2019 in % of the vote. Kingswood is a better performance than 2019 in terms of votes (more votes than 2019 with a lower turnout). Makes Brighton look like a lock in for the Greens and maybe a second seat somewhere is possible, Bristol Central is just down the road from Kingswood and the Greens are strong there.

Wellingborough and Kingswood are very Tory though - even when Wellingborough had a Labour MP under Blair the Conservatives were still getting 40% of the vote. They're down nearly ten percent on the Labour landslide in 1997.

tabascoboy wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:01 am Votes cast for "Reform" may have been the crucial factor in Wellingborough so no doubt they'll now compound the problems by trying even harder to win back those voters

Like you say focusing on Reform voters is the worst thing the Tories could do. It's what I expect the right wing media to do because their goal is to keep driving the Tories further to the right.

Polling shows half of Reform voters will never vote Tory under any circumstances because they hate them, that half of the Reform vote are loonies who would vote BNP if it was still a thing. Pointless talking to them.

C69 wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 8:53 am

sturginho wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 8:40 am Labour's election strategy has been leaked, this is huge!

That will work

It reminds me of this one:

Biffer wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 10:48 am Wellingborough and Kingswood are very Tory though - even when Wellingborough had a Labour MP under Blair the Conservatives were still getting 40% of the vote. They're down nearly ten percent on the Labour landslide in 1997.

True enough. I'm ignoring the swing from 2019 because it happens every byelection now, 2019 just isn't relevant anymore. The swing has to be the main focus of any media reporting, because they have to take into account the knowledge level of the general audience, not reporting the swing won't give an accurate reflection of where Labour are.

On this thread I'm assuming we all know the Tories are fucked and Labour will win a majority, I'm working off that.

It's more interesting comparing to 1997/2001/2005 like you have done, but doing it properly means investing more time than I have. The problem with comparing a byelection now to a GE in 1997/2001/2005, is firstly the usual stuff like turnout. But also demographic changes, especially if the constituency is in the South of England. This link is an interactive map that allows comparison between the 2011 and 2021 census (a quick way of getting a lot of info):
https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/maps/

Kingswood area has had about a 2%-6% increase in the foreign born population since 2011, 2%-6% reduction of the white population, 1%-4% reduction in households where all adults speak English as their main language, 1%-5% decline in people only having a UK identity (eg British/English/Welsh/Scots), 1%-ish reduction in those aged over 65, 0%-30% increase in population density, those in work looks about the same.

There's a lead time on all this feeding into voting and non-Commonwealth citizens cannot vote in a GE. But as a rough estimate in Kingswood the Tories got 40% in 2010, Labour 35% and never below 30% in any election since, Tories have probably shed 5% and Labour gained 5% since then just on the demographics. My guess would be the percentages of the vote for Kingswood in a GE looks similar to this byelection, 40%-ish Labour (35% + 5% added by Lib Dem voters) and 35% Tory.

Kingswood and Wellingborough both elected Labour MPs in 1997 and 2001, with Kingswood electing a Labour MP in 2005 (but Wellingborough electing Bone the Tory in 2005). They look like weathervanes.

I assume the Tories are doing their best to gerrymander the new Constituency boundaries, but the sheer size of electoral shift makes their efforts irrelevant ?

fishfoodie wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 12:24 pm I assume the Tories are doing their best to gerrymander the new Constituency boundaries, but the sheer size of electoral shift makes their efforts irrelevant ?

Good point, Kingswood is being carved up and Rees-Mogg's constituency is taking part of it to form a new constituency. Kingswood itself is forming a new Bristol seat.

A new constituency makes tactical voting harder because voters cannot look up past election results. Rees-Mogg's constituency had Labour second, and a large Lid Dem vote third. Labour will run the Tories close in the new Rees-Mogg seat if there's enough Lib Dems tactically voting Labour. Without doing a lot of work it's impossible to know how in danger Rees-Mogg is, I would say in quite a lot of danger though he was campaigning in the parts of Kingswood he has an interest in.

C69 wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 10:20 am

I like neeps wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:59 am

C69 wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:30 am
Reform are not going away and if they poll around 10% in the GE the Tories are fucked. I think for the first time since Blair came into power Tory voters are happy to switch directly to Starmer's bland insipid lot.

Switching isn't the story of last night:



Also Labours votes in Kingswood are down but by elections have low turnouts.

I think the story is tactical voting obviously huge for labour and previous Tories voters just not showing up.

Voter are abandoning the Tories and switching to Reform and Labour. I hope tactical voting decimates the Tory Party and Labour get a massive majority.
Hopefully the band insipid Starmer can at least attempt radical change with a mandate.

As we can see from everything his says, radical change sadly isn't coming and what we're getting is a better managed decline.

I like neeps wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:22 pm

C69 wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 10:20 am

I like neeps wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:59 am

Switching isn't the story of last night:



Also Labours votes in Kingswood are down but by elections have low turnouts.

I think the story is tactical voting obviously huge for labour and previous Tories voters just not showing up.

Voter are abandoning the Tories and switching to Reform and Labour. I hope tactical voting decimates the Tory Party and Labour get a massive majority.
Hopefully the band insipid Starmer can at least attempt radical change with a mandate.

As we can see from everything his says, radical change sadly isn't coming and what we're getting is a better managed decline.

I am hoping that the majority is massive and some ambition.
However I don't think he has the balls

Depends what radical change actually means. We don't have an industrial strategy, and as a result don't invest in the infrastructure, skills or research needed to develop that. We don't have a plan for demographic change other than 'push the pension date out further'. We don't have a plan for the NHS, other than emergency fixes and the odd shiny thing for a minister to stand next to. We don't have a plan for housing. We don't have an environmental plan. There are many others. The way the UK is at the moment, it'd be radical to actually have a plan for government. But Starmer is not going to lay that out for the baying wolves of the tory press until he needs to.

Looking at numbers over lunch and trying to work out how bad this could get for the Tories. Wiki pages are very good for UK polling data.

Pre-1997:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election
Pre-2005
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election
Pre-2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election
Current:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

Before the 1997 election the Tories were getting around 30% in the polls (won 30.7% in the GE), their numbers are spread out now between 20%-29% (I rate YouGov they have them at around 22%) lets say they're on 25% now.

Tory numbers now look more like the Lib Dems at their best (2005 and 2010). Lib Dem polling before 2005 was in a tight band between 20%-23% (they won 22% in the GE). Lib Dem polling increased sharply leading up to 2010, starting around 17% and reaching 30% before the election (won 23% in the GE). The Lib Dems won 62 seats in 2005 and 57 in 2010.

FPTP almost always favours the Tories because they have the optimal spread of voters, it's not like Labour where they're weighing their votes in some cities and have no one voting for them in some rural areas, the Tories in the past have just enough to be in contention in nearly all of England. FPTP disproportionately punishes parties the smaller they are and the less geographically concentrated they are. The SNP have done well in recent GEs because they're small but geographically concentrated, if they were the same size but their voters were spread over Scotland/England/Wales they would be winning <5 seats.

The problem for the Tories is if they're now less popular, and are at 20%-25% like peak strength Lib Dems, then FPTP starts working against them. They end up not quite having enough to compete anywhere. There's some similarity between the Lib Dem and Tory demographic they're both South of England focused, but that's where the good news ends for the Tories. The Lib Dems at their peak have: huge amounts of activists on the ground, know FPTP is shit and works against them so focus everything onto under 100 seats, are popular (it's a peak) so gain from tactical voting.

There's a huge difference between 20%-25% and 30% when those percentages are converted into seats. 20%-25% is peak Lib Dem level polling which produces 60 seats with a narrowly focused and popular Lib Dem campaign. But the Tories aren't running a narrow and popular campaign, it's broadly focused and unpopular, which shows in the polling gap not closing. I would be totally stunned if the Tories went under 60 seats, but it doesn't look completely impossible if this polling doesn't change.

Biffer wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:57 pm Depends what radical change actually means. We don't have an industrial strategy, and as a result don't invest in the infrastructure, skills or research needed to develop that. We don't have a plan for demographic change other than 'push the pension date out further'. We don't have a plan for the NHS, other than emergency fixes and the odd shiny thing for a minister to stand next to. We don't have a plan for housing. We don't have an environmental plan. There are many others. The way the UK is at the moment, it'd be radical to actually have a plan for government. But Starmer is not going to lay that out for the baying wolves of the tory press until he needs to.

None of this is untrue. I think, though, that there is some low hanging fruit that would make a genuine impact over a 5-10 year period:
- major investment in increasing renewable (inc. nuclear) power generation, including fast track planning processes
- planning reform to allow more large scale building projects within existing cities. Maybe deemed permission on say 5% of greenbelt land as well.
- increase in pay for junior doctors, and increased admissions to medical school
- more logical and competitive business and personal tax rates
- changes to treasury cost/benefit calculations

I’m not suggesting these are miracle cures, but they’d make the country quite a different place quite quickly

I like neeps wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:59 am

Switching isn't the story of last night:



Also Labours votes in Kingswood are down but by elections have low turnouts.

I think the story is tactical voting obviously huge for labour and previous Tories voters just not showing up.

Labour had 18k voters there as recently as 2017, so that's not everything they've got. UKIP got 10k there in 2015, those voters folded into the Tories post-referendum but a lot have now left again, despite the Tories doing everything they wanted. A bit further back in 2010 there's 1.5k for the BNP and 530 for the English Democrats, there's a far right element that was rolled into UKIP then the Tories in recent times, they're not going to be voting Sunak (or Habib in this byelection).

I would take 10k off the Tory 2019 number as the right isn't united giving the Tories 22k, and assume the Labour number is 18k. In a GE it comes down to if the Tory vote comes out and how many Lib Dems/Greens vote tactically.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 3:27 pm None of this is untrue. I think, though, that there is some low hanging fruit that would make a genuine impact over a 5-10 year period:
- major investment in increasing renewable (inc. nuclear) power generation, including fast track planning processes
...
I’m not suggesting these are miracle cures, but they’d make the country quite a different place quite quickly

Be realistic !

You're never going to "fast track" a nuclear power station; it's like trying to fast track a pregnancy; it takes as long as it takes, & there are no short cuts unless you're in a dictatorship !

fishfoodie wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:42 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 3:27 pm None of this is untrue. I think, though, that there is some low hanging fruit that would make a genuine impact over a 5-10 year period:
- major investment in increasing renewable (inc. nuclear) power generation, including fast track planning processes
...
I’m not suggesting these are miracle cures, but they’d make the country quite a different place quite quickly

Be realistic !

You're never going to "fast track" a nuclear power station; it's like trying to fast track a pregnancy; it takes as long as it takes, & there are no short cuts unless you're in a dictatorship !

Well yes if you're going to completely disallow virtually all grounds for any objections - which is the way things have been moving for a while anyway

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 3:27 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:57 pm Depends what radical change actually means. We don't have an industrial strategy, and as a result don't invest in the infrastructure, skills or research needed to develop that. We don't have a plan for demographic change other than 'push the pension date out further'. We don't have a plan for the NHS, other than emergency fixes and the odd shiny thing for a minister to stand next to. We don't have a plan for housing. We don't have an environmental plan. There are many others. The way the UK is at the moment, it'd be radical to actually have a plan for government. But Starmer is not going to lay that out for the baying wolves of the tory press until he needs to.

None of this is untrue. I think, though, that there is some low hanging fruit that would make a genuine impact over a 5-10 year period:
- major investment in increasing renewable (inc. nuclear) power generation, including fast track planning processes
- planning reform to allow more large scale building projects within existing cities. Maybe deemed permission on say 5% of greenbelt land as well.
- increase in pay for junior doctors, and increased admissions to medical school
- more logical and competitive business and personal tax rates
- changes to treasury cost/benefit calculations

I’m not suggesting these are miracle cures, but they’d make the country quite a different place quite quickly

Hose all sound great. But the planning reform required, alongside all of the other legislation to get rid of legal challenges, judicial reviews, being called in by govt etc are massive and are years of effort in themselves.changing the tax system and treasury cost benefit calculations are also massive tasks that will take years, more than one term of government

Biffer wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 5:31 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 3:27 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:57 pm Depends what radical change actually means. We don't have an industrial strategy, and as a result don't invest in the infrastructure, skills or research needed to develop that. We don't have a plan for demographic change other than 'push the pension date out further'. We don't have a plan for the NHS, other than emergency fixes and the odd shiny thing for a minister to stand next to. We don't have a plan for housing. We don't have an environmental plan. There are many others. The way the UK is at the moment, it'd be radical to actually have a plan for government. But Starmer is not going to lay that out for the baying wolves of the tory press until he needs to.

None of this is untrue. I think, though, that there is some low hanging fruit that would make a genuine impact over a 5-10 year period:
- major investment in increasing renewable (inc. nuclear) power generation, including fast track planning processes
- planning reform to allow more large scale building projects within existing cities. Maybe deemed permission on say 5% of greenbelt land as well.
- increase in pay for junior doctors, and increased admissions to medical school
- more logical and competitive business and personal tax rates
- changes to treasury cost/benefit calculations

I’m not suggesting these are miracle cures, but they’d make the country quite a different place quite quickly

Hose all sound great. But the planning reform required, alongside all of the other legislation to get rid of legal challenges, judicial reviews, being called in by govt etc are massive and are years of effort in themselves.changing the tax system and treasury cost benefit calculations are also massive tasks that will take years, more than one term of government

Yes and no. If the election goes the way we probably all think it will, the political landscape and most importantly which voters matter shifts very quickly as well. British governments that wish to use it have enormous power to change the country very fast. For differing purposes Blair and Thatcher understood this, not convinced this Tory government ever grasped it.

fishfoodie wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:42 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 3:27 pm None of this is untrue. I think, though, that there is some low hanging fruit that would make a genuine impact over a 5-10 year period:
- major investment in increasing renewable (inc. nuclear) power generation, including fast track planning processes
...
I’m not suggesting these are miracle cures, but they’d make the country quite a different place quite quickly

Be realistic !

You're never going to "fast track" a nuclear power station; it's like trying to fast track a pregnancy; it takes as long as it takes, & there are no short cuts unless you're in a dictatorship !

I’m not suggesting a sim city style click and drop. Take a look at the planning process new nuclear power stations go through here and tell me that can’t be streamlined. There’s nothing dictatorial about an elected government deciding to build something, it’s what they’re elected to do

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 8:13 am

fishfoodie wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:42 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 3:27 pm None of this is untrue. I think, though, that there is some low hanging fruit that would make a genuine impact over a 5-10 year period:
- major investment in increasing renewable (inc. nuclear) power generation, including fast track planning processes
...
I’m not suggesting these are miracle cures, but they’d make the country quite a different place quite quickly

Be realistic !

You're never going to "fast track" a nuclear power station; it's like trying to fast track a pregnancy; it takes as long as it takes, & there are no short cuts unless you're in a dictatorship !

I’m not suggesting a sim city style click and drop. Take a look at the planning process new nuclear power stations go through here and tell me that can’t be streamlined. There’s nothing dictatorial about an elected government deciding to build something, it’s what they’re elected to do

Still takes as long as it takes. We lack capacity in so many areas to go faster. There will be short cuts going on (though many won't be short cuts in reality as driven by program and costs saving and will make it take longer and cost more once you look past the short term). The UK hangers on from service industries and consultancies are a fucking burden.

Edit: many areas being mostly skilled trades people, industrial capacity (forging, material production etc...), technical decision making knowledge base (people who had previously done this retired or dead).

petej wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 8:57 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 8:13 am

fishfoodie wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:42 pm

Be realistic !

You're never going to "fast track" a nuclear power station; it's like trying to fast track a pregnancy; it takes as long as it takes, & there are no short cuts unless you're in a dictatorship !

I’m not suggesting a sim city style click and drop. Take a look at the planning process new nuclear power stations go through here and tell me that can’t be streamlined. There’s nothing dictatorial about an elected government deciding to build something, it’s what they’re elected to do

Still takes as long as it takes. We lack capacity in so many areas to go faster. There will be short cuts going on (though many won't be short cuts in reality as driven by program and costs saving and will make it take longer and cost more once you look past the short term). The UK hangers on from service industries and consultancies are a fucking burden.

Edit: many areas being mostly skilled trades people, industrial capacity (forging, material production etc...), technical decision making knowledge base (people who had previously done this retired or dead).

As I say, I appreciate a government can’t just click it’s fingers. The Lower Thames Crossing is pretty instructive on how ludicrously convoluted our planning system has become though - it doesn’t have to be like this, and shouldn’t.

Re: consultancies. A mate of mine works for a large consultancy firm in their public sector unit. He’s been attached as part of a team of four to a government department for two years. They’re billed at £1,750 a day each, they work four days a week every week for this department.

They justify it because they ‘can’t recruit’. Are we seriously saying for £300kish each a year we can’t find someone to do a somewhat skilled graduate job? Is this just total incompetence, perverse incentives, or someone taking kickbacks? Maybe all three

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:32 am

petej wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 8:57 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 8:13 am

I’m not suggesting a sim city style click and drop. Take a look at the planning process new nuclear power stations go through here and tell me that can’t be streamlined. There’s nothing dictatorial about an elected government deciding to build something, it’s what they’re elected to do

Still takes as long as it takes. We lack capacity in so many areas to go faster. There will be short cuts going on (though many won't be short cuts in reality as driven by program and costs saving and will make it take longer and cost more once you look past the short term). The UK hangers on from service industries and consultancies are a fucking burden.

Edit: many areas being mostly skilled trades people, industrial capacity (forging, material production etc...), technical decision making knowledge base (people who had previously done this retired or dead).

As I say, I appreciate a government can’t just click it’s fingers. The Lower Thames Crossing is pretty instructive on how ludicrously convoluted our planning system has become though - it doesn’t have to be like this, and shouldn’t.

Re: consultancies. A mate of mine works for a large consultancy firm in their public sector unit. He’s been attached as part of a team of four to a government department for two years. They’re billed at £1,750 a day each, they work four days a week every week for this department.

They justify it because they ‘can’t recruit’. Are we seriously saying for £300kish each a year we can’t find someone to do a somewhat skilled graduate job? Is this just total incompetence, perverse incentives, or someone taking kickbacks? Maybe all three

When they say ‘can’t recruit’ it means they’re not allowed to. We’re not allowed to increase civil service headcount at the moment, even where it’s needed. We need more engineers for projects we’re working on, fully funded, money is there, but we’re not allowed to because the Daily Mail would whine about increased numbers of civil servants.

And also consultants are a great way to latch private companies onto the public teat. As we all know distributing tax revenue to businesses (of a certain type) rather than to public services is the Tory agenda.

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 10:02 am And also consultants are a great way to latch private companies onto the public teat. As we all know distributing tax revenue to businesses (of a certain type) rather than to public services is the Tory agenda.

Yup.

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 10:02 am And also consultants are a great way to latch private companies onto the public teat. As we all know distributing tax revenue to businesses (of a certain type) rather than to public services is the Tory agenda.

I used to work as a consultant and there were only ever three reasons why we were contracted:

1. The client didn't have the skills and expertise required and needed to buy them in short term
2. The client didn't have the capacity required and needed to buy them in short term
3. The client knew the work was shit and needed someone to blame when it went tits up

I was taught by an experienced colleague to always know when you take the contract on which one it was! Many organizations, public and private, had random and arbitrary headcount limits for employees. imposed by Head Offices and were forced to use consultants as a result. Mad.

A review of HS2 and implementing the recommendations rather that putting them on a shelf and carrying on like nothing happened, will go a long way. The more that comes out about HS2 the more it sounds like a scandal.

The Economist claims HS2 was paying for 15 planning officers working for Buckinghamshire council, who then took HS2 to court. The outcome of this type of litigation, some of it paid for by HS2 it seems, was massively increased costs.

That points to another problem with the project: the way Parliament legislated for it. The bill in 2017 which gave hs2 Ltd, a public body, the power to acquire land detailed so many specifications that it ran to 50,000 pages. Critically, it gave councils the power to petition for design changes and to hold up work if they were unhappy. Having asked for tunnels, for example, councils then tried to stop them by denying access routes for lorries.
One case brought by Buckinghamshire council ran for nine months before the High Court threw it out. The council could be litigious partly because it had 15 dedicated planning officers paid for by hs2. Keep on for another 170km and, just before Lichfield, look out of the window to admire the Whittington Heath Golf Club. hs2 Ltd needed £400,000-worth of land from the club; to smooth things over it bankrolled a £7m development, including a new clubhouse (the chairman was “delighted”).
Since 2017 hs2 has had to obtain more than 8,000 planning and environmental consents. It has gone to court more than 20 times. Such hold-ups are the biggest cause of uncertainty and higher costs in Britain, says Ricardo Ferreras of Ferrovial, which has built high-speed lines around the world. Other countries, notably France, grant sweeping planning powers and take a standardised approach to compensation.

HS2 gave a cricket club (not mine) £60-70k. The line runs underground probably 3-500 yards from their ground. In the press release the club chairman said he opposed HS2. They gave another £30k a month before they folded. £7m to a golf club is just the start of it

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:59 pm HS2 gave a cricket club (not mine) £60-70k. The line runs underground probably 3-500 yards from their ground. In the press release the club chairman said he opposed HS2. They gave another £30k a month before they folded. £7m to a golf club is just the start of it

So in summary, if they'd just hired the Cray brothers*, & payed them a percentage, they could probably have saved a few billion, by changing from bribes, to; "if you don't STFU, we'll torch your fucking clubhouse/business/house !!!"

* or their latter day equivalents

I never thought I'd despise a government more than I did the Thatcher years. Never say never.

Starmer repeatedly using the C word in his speech at the Scottish Labour Conference repeatedly.
Interesting tbh to talk about class and aspirations of working people.
Can see the dividing lines being drawn now.

Pull up a chair and get the popcorn in later today following Badenochs sacking of the chair of the Post Office and his subsequent interview with the Sunday Times yesterday.

SaintK wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 10:30 am Pull up a chair and get the popcorn in later today following Badenochs sacking of the chair of the Post Office and his subsequent interview with the Sunday Times yesterday.

She's pretty adamant, which sadly in this current world makes me thinks she's bullshitting her head off and is trying to bluster her way through.

I thought his terms of reference required him to deal with the historical legal actions (or words to that effect) whilst minimising legal costs - to be frank, what you'd expect most execs would be tasked with. Not sure where the subsequently stated need for expediency came from, or if it was ever in his TOR. Even so, ultimately he's not in his role to manage Badenuff's political life or to base his actions of what is convenient for the tories from a party political basis.

It wouldn't surprise me if the tories instructed him to slow it down so they could dump the problem (one such facet of the problem being where to find the anticipated 9 figure sums for compensation) into labour's lap. That's the sort of shitshow we're now up to our necks in.

Popcorn time indeed. I suspect the corrupt Ms Moan will also wash her dirty underwear in public as well.
It's hard to keep abreast of these issues which are now going postal it seems.

Busy, busy today. Do they really think this shit is a vote winner?
Still, she's really polishing her credentials to the loons and ultras that will have a vote at the next Tory leadership contest.

Never one to turn down the chance for a good political fight, Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, hasn’t just gone to war this week with the former chair of the Post Office. She has also used an article in the Daily Mail to condemn the actor Michael Sheen over a comment he made about the steel plant in Port Talbot. She said:

Promoting his new drama The Way, Michael Sheen has said that ‘the people of Port Talbot have been let down’ regarding redundancies at its steel plant.

But he is wrong. Port Talbot is iconic to British industry and that’s why the Government is investing so much to ensure we keep its steelworks for the next century at a time when the market says we should abandon it.

The first episode of The Way goes out on BBC One tonight and it’s a drama about a workers’ uprising in response to the closure of a steel plant in south Wales. The BBC insists its fictional, and not about the Tata factory in Port Talbot. Sheen is a supporter of leftwing causes, but the quote Badenoch refers to is from a Times interview about the drama in which Sheen was not even directly criticising the government.

SaintK wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:27 am Busy, busy today. Do they really think this shit is a vote winner?
Still, she's really polishing her credentials to the loons and ultras that will have a vote at the next Tory leadership contest.

Never one to turn down the chance for a good political fight, Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, hasn’t just gone to war this week with the former chair of the Post Office. She has also used an article in the Daily Mail to condemn the actor Michael Sheen over a comment he made about the steel plant in Port Talbot. She said:

Promoting his new drama The Way, Michael Sheen has said that ‘the people of Port Talbot have been let down’ regarding redundancies at its steel plant.

But he is wrong. Port Talbot is iconic to British industry and that’s why the Government is investing so much to ensure we keep its steelworks for the next century at a time when the market says we should abandon it.

The first episode of The Way goes out on BBC One tonight and it’s a drama about a workers’ uprising in response to the closure of a steel plant in south Wales. The BBC insists its fictional, and not about the Tata factory in Port Talbot. Sheen is a supporter of leftwing causes, but the quote Badenoch refers to is from a Times interview about the drama in which Sheen was not even directly criticising the government.

I'd usually say such ultra-defensiveness is a sign of nervousness or insecurity, but I think in this case it's just that Badenoch is an arse.

C69 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:16 am Popcorn time indeed. I suspect the corrupt Ms Moan will also wash her dirty underwear in public as well.
It's hard to keep abreast of these issues which are now going postal it seems.

Heh.

SaintK wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:27 am Busy, busy today. Do they really think this shit is a vote winner?
Still, she's really polishing her credentials to the loons and ultras that will have a vote at the next Tory leadership contest.

Badenoch is the worst of the lot. Over ambitious and under qualified, gets by through a mountain of bluster and bullshit, Big Dog without the charisma. Sometimes through all the lies you can see her actual ability, what does "Port Talbot is iconic to British industry" actually mean? It's nonsense.

Tory MPs apparently dislike her. She wasn't in favour of scrapping EU laws and wasn't in favour of leaving the ECHR. Tory MPs on the party's right will not support her, which means she'll be up against Mordaunt and Cleverly (and maybe someone like Ellwood who stands no chance) for the votes of MPs that want a unity candidate. They will have to get behind a single candidate to have a candidate in the final two, and that's probably not Badenoch. In the unlikely event members select one of these candidates, it would be smart of them to do what Sunak hasn't done and purge the party (Truss and Rees-Mogg should've had the whip withdrawn for speaking at Pop Con, Braverman for all the times she went against Sunak publicly whilst in the cabinet), after which they get the likes of Stewart/Gauke/May/Hammond/Grieve (Sunak has already added Cameron) back in and start trying to become electable again. Not convinced any of them understand that they're not in a normal centre right party anymore and a lot of their MPs and members need to be removed, Badenoch definitely doesn't.

The radical right wing candidate will come from the Pop Con/Nat Con types. Which means Truss/Braverman/Patel. They must know Braverman/Truss aren't viable, they're far too extreme and incompetent. Which leaves Patel who was also at Pop Con but didn't speak, she was a Spartan, she's a maximum level right wing loony. Her odds have been falling at the bookies. Patel is very close to Big Dog ("Protect the Prit-ster!") and Farage too (danced with him at the last Tory conference and her father was a UKIP candidate), she'll bring them both in. Her pitch to Tory members will be "vote for me and get Big Dog and Farage too" and maybe also "I'll get rid of the likes of Ellwood". Which will give Farage a chance at being leader after her and then becoming PM.

Gauke is convinced it'll be Patel.

_Os_ wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 12:35 pm

SaintK wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:27 am Busy, busy today. Do they really think this shit is a vote winner?
Still, she's really polishing her credentials to the loons and ultras that will have a vote at the next Tory leadership contest.

Badenoch is the worst of the lot. Over ambitious and under qualified, gets by through a mountain of bluster and bullshit, Big Dog without the charisma. Sometimes through all the lies you can see her actual ability, what does "Port Talbot is iconic to British industry" actually mean? It's nonsense.

Tory MPs apparently dislike her. She wasn't in favour of scrapping EU laws and wasn't in favour of leaving the ECHR. Tory MPs on the party's right will not support her, which means she'll be up against Mordaunt and Cleverly (and maybe someone like Ellwood who stands no chance) for the votes of MPs that want a unity candidate. They will have to get behind a single candidate to have a candidate in the final two, and that's probably not Badenoch. In the unlikely event members select one of these candidates, it would be smart of them to do what Sunak hasn't done and purge the party (Truss and Rees-Mogg should've had the whip withdrawn for speaking at Pop Con, Braverman for all the times she went against Sunak publicly whilst in the cabinet), after which they get the likes of Stewart/Gauke/May/Hammond/Grieve (Sunak has already added Cameron) back in and start trying to become electable again. Not convinced any of them understand that they're not in a normal centre right party anymore and a lot of their MPs and members need to be removed, Badenoch definitely doesn't.

The radical right wing candidate will come from the Pop Con/Nat Con types. Which means Truss/Braverman/Patel. They must know Braverman/Truss aren't viable, they're far too extreme and incompetent. Which leaves Patel who was also at Pop Con but didn't speak, she was a Spartan, she's a maximum level right wing loony. Her odds have been falling at the bookies. Patel is very close to Big Dog ("Protect the Prit-ster!") and Farage too (danced with him at the last Tory conference and her father was a UKIP candidate), she'll bring them both in. Her pitch to Tory members will be "vote me and get Big Dog and Farage too" and maybe also "I'll get rid of the likes of Ellwood". Which will give Farage a chance at being leader after her and then becoming PM.

Gauke is convinced it'll be Patel.

Can't be arsed to attend the Commons and make a statement and take questions.. So sends the oily rag Hollinrake.

It also emerged that Badenoch herself is not expected to be in the Commons this afternoon defending her conduct in this matter. Instead Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister, is expected to address MPs.

SaintK wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 12:49 pm Can't be arsed to attend the Commons and make a statement and take questions.. So sends the oily rag Hollinrake.

It also emerged that Badenoch herself is not expected to be in the Commons this afternoon defending her conduct in this matter. Instead Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister, is expected to address MPs.

Avoiding responsibility because she doesn't want this pinned on her. All her Tory rivals will be keen to do just that. Something which should be above political battles is now right in the middle of one.

A completely mad party. I've never seen a party anywhere with a death wish like this, and I've followed a lot of African and European politics.

They've driven out anyone even vaguely able to compromise and are left with a bunch of dregs who in any sane world would either never be selected to contest a seat, or would at the very most be a Junior Minister for Biscuit Procurement.

But the elevation of these profoundly useless and often stupid people (in terms of real world ability to combine book smarts with street smarts) has given them an inflated notion of their worth, which was pretty high to begin with, and also the utter conviction that their way.is not only right, but anyone suggesting otherwise, or even suggesting a modification is both wrong and disloyal to the True Faith.

_Os_ wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 12:56 pm

SaintK wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 12:49 pm Can't be arsed to attend the Commons and make a statement and take questions.. So sends the oily rag Hollinrake.

It also emerged that Badenoch herself is not expected to be in the Commons this afternoon defending her conduct in this matter. Instead Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister, is expected to address MPs.

Avoiding responsibility because she doesn't want this pinned on her. All her Tory rivals will be keen to do just that. Something which should be above political battles is now right in the middle of one.

A completely mad party. I've never seen a party anywhere with a death wish like this, and I've followed a lot of African and European politics.

She has done a quick U turn and will now make a statement to the House at 4 15