British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
Less pithy but fascism is the opportunistic disease. It was our job to make a healthy democracy work but no-one really cared.
I think we all agree. I never thought we'd see the day!
Yes we should probably leave it there really.
CLOSE THE THREAD, MODS
Yes, I literally forgot all about Liz Truss. Which tells you something about me, but also something about Liz Truss.
The Sunday Times predicted that Truss, despite her large majority, might lose on Thursday night, and so might Hunt, Mordaunt and just conceivably even Sunak. There will probably be a few Portillo moments to stay up for. The trouble is that a Starmer government with a huge majority might be tempted to indulge in performative wokery without actually doing very much about anything. (Any colour you want as long as it's beige.)
On the other hand, the Corbynite faction wanted nationalisation of 'rail, mail and water' and, while that won't happen because of the cost (and remember that BR was crippled by assuming the debt of the Big Four rail companies from 1948 to 1970, when the government took the debt on, and was still crippled by ministerial cost-cutting whims even after that, up to and including the disastrous Major privatisation), Labour do have a plan to rationalise the chaotic railways under an overall 'arm's length' provider -- this is meant to avoid BR's vulnerability to ministerial mucking-about -- and to bring the TOC franchises under national ownership as they expire (which saves buy-up costs).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-6...
On water, they just say they'll regulate it better.
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/he...
On mail, despite Royal Mail's new foreign ownership, they just say they'll 'safeguard the Royal Mail as a British institution', which means whatever you want to believe.
https://www.jostevens.co.uk/2024/05/17/l...
Their NHS proposals look a bit weak, but there isn't a simple fix, it's a management rather than a funding issue, and they may be tinkering in the right areas.
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/la...
They still keep saying that Labour created the NHS, which is true, but the first politician to name and mention the NHS was Churchill in 1943, and the King's Speech at the State Opening in autumn 1944 promised a National Health Service Bill, and the NHS we actually have is the one that resulted from Conservative and BMA objections -- with independent GP surgeries and hospital trusts -- and not the Soviet centrally-controlled model that Bevan was after, with all doctors personally accountable to him.
Yes, I literally forgot all about Liz Truss. Which tells you something about me, but also something about Liz Truss.
The Sunday Times predicted that Truss, despite her large majority, might lose on Thursday night, and so might Hunt, Mordaunt and just conceivably even Sunak. There will probably be a few Portillo moments to stay up for. The trouble is that a Starmer government with a huge majority might be tempted to indulge in performative wokery without actually doing very much about anything. (A
Amusingly sometimes when people say two female leaders, it's Teresa May they forget.
Assuming a proper working majority than the extent wont make any significant difference apart from maybe to the judgement of history. The NHS proposals are huge - it's an open doot to the private sector. It may look all very well while the private sector is eyeing the prize but I doubt the NHS can survive it. Similarly there will be lots of building with promises of the goodies promised by the private sector cashing in - no prizes for prediciting how that will work out once the concrete has settled. Regulating Thames Water - regualtion is so far from sufficient for utilities that it's a sick joke now. Etc etc
Overall KS will be able to crow about benefits from the next wave of privatisation. Like with PFI but on steroids and with the inevitable consequences. Nothign will be done to seriously tackle inequality or address or the real systemic problems we face. the far right etc infections will be back with a vengence.
That's all predicated on optimistic fairly benign world events. World events will largely determine UK growth, inflation etc in the next 5 to 10 year. World events will determnine how much very serious shite hits the fan.
Our relationship with Europe is a big variable. e.g.If trump wins then will KS do a Blair or try to straddle. Maybe it could get so bad that we huddle together for warmth with europe. I bet the former but it's far from certain.
Just the phrase 'PFI on steroids' makes me want to puke.
I remember first hearing about PFI in the 90s and thinking then, 'what a bloody stupid idea', and knew any organisations in the public sector doing this would be properly leeched on a permanent basis by the private sector, who would be far more adept at manipulating the contracts to favour themselves.
Labour is putting its plans for Britain in the hands of private finance. It could end badly
The Labour party has a plan for returning to power: it will get BlackRock to rebuild Britain. Its reasoning is straightforward. A cash-strapped government that wants to avoid tax increases or austerity has no choice but to partner with big finance, attracting private investment to rebuild the infrastructure that is crumbling after years of Tory underinvestment. Labour has already done the arithmetic: to mobilise £3 of private capital from institutional investors, you need to offer them £1 in public subsidies. But every time you hear Labour announce such an infrastructure partnership, think of the hidden politics. BlackRock will privatise Britain – our housing, education, health, nature and green energy – with our taxpayer money as sweetener.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
How is anyone relometely left wing voting for this *******?
I think they're either not aware of this because the MSM doesn't cover it or they aren't actually going to vote for Starmer.
More from the wonderful MSM:
Glad I backed the 100+ but let's see.
Alan Duncan was the Foreign Office minister that Israeli embassy flack Shai Masot got caught on camera trying to flame, which terminated Masot's diplomatic career. But, a bit unfortunately for the Corbynite 'Jewish Voice for Labour', Duncan's diaries describe Corbyn as a 'farce', his supporters as 'far-left nutters' and his Commons sidekick Chris Williamson as 'odious' and 'probably the most hated man in Parliament'. (Though of course Williamson is now a back number like Masot.)
I wouldn't trust Alan Duncan's definition of far left any more than Genghis Khan's.
Sporting Index currently has Reform at 6-7.5 seats, if anyone wants the under with 7 being a push for a tenner qtb
You can get 3.0 on Betfair for 7+ so take that instead. £140 currently available.
You know, that is true, so scratch that
Yeah, Betfair exchange also has the O/U at 4.5 with an almost exactly even line (4 or less actually a slight favourite), so not sure where SI is getting 6-7.5 from.
There is a somewhat interesting phenomenon in that the odds suggest 1-2 and 3-4 seats are quite a lot more likely than 5-6 but 7+ is more likely than any of them. I guess that means that polling suggests 1-4 is most likely but if there is a systematic error in the polls then it's likely to push it all the way to 7+ rather than just up the number by a couple.
1-4 and 5+ are almost identical odds.
7+ includes many outcomes.
Well either the research is having a massive "shy Reform" thing or it isn't - if Reform's reach is as I expect it'll result in at least double digit seats, if it is worse than expected then maybe they win Clacton and one or two more, and nothing in between. I guess SI is hedging the two
7+ gives you tons of very very unlikely winning outcomes, and all the little 0.1%s add up
0 10%
1 20%
2 10%
3 10%
4 10%
5 7.5%
6 5%
7 5%
8 4%
9 3%
10 2%
11 2%
12 0.5%
13 0.4%
etc
--
truss is a dog to win her seat
last time she got 35,500 votes, next best was 9,300
I wouldn't like to be the line setter on Reform seats and I expect you're right about shy Reform and Tory voters but I don't know which is more pronounced.
Perhaps more Reform shyness in the Midlands/North and Tory shyness in the South?
I might be tempted to take bets on under LD and under Con seats as an alternative if someone wants to offer it
