General election '29

[Brightonian]

Nigel Farage is bookies' favourite to become the next PM.

a flurry of bets on Reform UK winning most seats at the next General Election

Next UK Prime Minister odds: The favourites for 10 Downing Street

Well, the bookies were right about Trump '24, so maybe I'll bet the farm on Farage.

[Grumble]

With Musk funding him there’s no limit is there?

[bob sterman]

Megalomaniac billionaire with vast network of satellites trying to interfere with UK elections?

Sounds like a movie plot and we may need to watch this betting market closely for our only hope...

https://www.oddschecker.com/tv/bond-26/next-james-bond

[philbo]

Well, the bookies were right about Trump '24, so maybe I'll bet the farm on Farage.

Well, I guess that's a way to avoid inheritance tax

OT: I can't help but think that anyone who reckons Farage will be PM, *really* doesn't understand our electoral system

[IvanV]

Well, I guess that's a way to avoid inheritance tax

An acquaintance of mine who is filthy rich, and has some skill in minimising his tax liabilities, was pointing out that that when you look at the small print of the right wing "cancel inheritance tax" project, it is a bit of a poisoned chalice. What they are loudly giving with one hand, they are quietly proposing to take away with another hand.

For the loud proposals to remove or reduce inheritance tax generally quietly propose to remove the exemption from capital gains tax on death that currently exists. If the wealthy deceased had sold their assets moments before death, they may potentially have had a capital gains tax liability, indeed a large liability. But this liability falls away on death. Inheritors acquire the assets at their valuation at time of death, for the purposes of their own potential future capital gains tax liability. Inheritance tax is charged on the estate, but not capital gains tax.

I suppose to charge both capital gains tax and inheritance tax on the same asset might be seen as a kind of double taxation, though it is far from obvious to me that is true. Capital gains tax is a kind of deferred income tax. Why shouldn't the exchequer take the income tax it has been waiting for, as well as tax the remains of the estate on inheritance?

My acquaintance complained that he has been carefully tax planning his estate to take advantage of the capital gains tax exemption on death, and now finds he doesn't know what to do, as an administration might come in and completely bugger up his careful tax planning. And, should he die shortly after, he would not have had time to re-plan, as often these things take many years to arrange gradually.

We can of course call this "rich people's problems" and consider their inheritance tax planning a nasty trick to play on the rest of us. Tax systems should seek to motivate behaviour in the broader public interest. Not just maximising your chance of avoiding it, of little broader practical effect. It is the folly of tax systems that they present such opportunities.

Nevertheless, I think it is useful to know that what is proposed isn't necessarily a straight giveaway to the wealthy. It may actually result in quite a lot of people paying more tax on their estates. At least for a while until people can start to tax plan for a new system.

[IvanV]

With Musk funding him there’s no limit is there?

Which takes us to What are the political donation rules in the UK (Electoral reform society). They are much more constrained than in the US. It is a bit harder to buy an election in Britain, because we have rules against splashing the cash.

In principle, foreigners can't make donations. But UK-registed companies, that actually trade in the UK - ie not shell companies - can make donations. I suspect Musk does actually have a UK-registered company that does business in the UK, and that he has sufficient control of to instruct it to make donations.

British billionaire Nick Candy has just become one of Farage's new best friends. Being an actual British voter, he would be freer to make substantial donations. So underfunded are British political parties that you can achieve a lot with relatively small sums of money by US standards.

Then when it comes to an actual election, there are rules limiting how much can be spent campaigning. The US used to have such rules, but they got thrown out on "free speech" grounds.

Doubtless there is sufficient laxity in the system to enable generous donors to bankroll publicity and opinion-forming, at least outside of an actual election, even if splashing the cash is a bit tricky in an actual election period.

It is our first-pass-the-post election system that makes it possible for parties to go from nowhere to a large majority, and back, with relatively small changes in voting. Our present government is the most extraordinary case ever, massive majority on smallest ever vote to achieve a majority. Farage is, apparently, a recent convert to PR, being the most under-represented party in parliament in relation to vote share. But would PR also keep him out of power - or usher him into power as part of a right-wing coalition?

[Grumble]

There’s nothing to stop him running Reform ads on Xitter though, and buying loads of ads on Facebook. Who’s going to stop him?

[Sciolus]

There’s nothing to stop him running Reform ads on Xitter though, and buying loads of ads on Facebook. Who’s going to stop him?

The Electoral Commission might give him a minuscule fine, but not until long after the election's been and gone.

I've long supported state funding for parties, with a ban on donations from organisations and a cap on donations from individuals. Too many people get pissy about the public paying for politicians, though, unaware that if they don't, someone else will.

[Grumble]

There’s nothing to stop him running Reform ads on Xitter though, and buying loads of ads on Facebook. Who’s going to stop him?

The Electoral Commission might give him a minuscule fine, but not until long after the election's been and gone.

Exactly. We have relied on people adhering to the rules in spirit as well as letter.

[IvanV]

There’s nothing to stop him running Reform ads on Xitter though, and buying loads of ads on Facebook. Who’s going to stop him?

I should have made clear the Electoral Reform society link is to an article complaining that the enforcement of political funding controls is very lax, and increasingly ineffective. Free gifts of on-line advertising is probably an example of something that is particularly hard to write effective rules against, at least within our democratic rule-of-law tradition. In less well ruled places, it depends who's in charge. When the Brazilian government - currently left wing - had a beef with Xitter recently, a judge found it guilty of an offence and turned it off. And Musk had to go all humble pie to get it turned on again.

[noggins]

If i volunteer to deliver leaflets for a party, and

a)just bin them,

Or

b)
Deliver a counter-leaflet with them

is there anything the party can do about that?

[dyqik]

If i volunteer to deliver leaflets for a party, and

a)just bin them,

Or

b)
Deliver a counter-leaflet with them

is there anything the party can do about that?

Depends on what agreement you make to get the leaflets.

[wilsontown]

My instinctive take here is that Farage is too divisive, the same problem that Corbyn had. While lots of people think he's great and will vote for him, there are many more who find him utterly repellant and will vote, tactically if necessary, to keep him out.

But 2029 is a long way away.

[dyqik]

My instinctive take here is that Farage is too divisive, the same problem that Corbyn had. While lots of people think he's great and will vote for him, there are many more who find him utterly repellant and will vote, tactically if necessary, to keep him out.

But 2029 is a long way away.

And he really doesn't have a few hundred electable hangers on.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Tbh I don't think the hangers on matter - what matters is momentum (lower case 'm'). Corbyn was hated by the shouty press, Farage is loved. Farage could have literally the same policies and opinions as Corbyn in 99% of matters but as long as he spaffs them whilst taking a metaphorical sh.t on an immigrant's head, the shouty press will adore him for it.

I think what may happen, in all honesty, is a total split of the tory vote, some depression in Labour's, and god knows what with the Lib Dems. Genuinely could end up with roughly even polling numbers for all four main national parties. Scotland could swing back to SNP in many areas. Greens will continue hold their own too.

The story in the UK is now that of a country that believes it has a proportional system when it doesn't. In a FPTP system, that's going to lead to wildly unpredictable outcomes even six weeks out from an election, never mind four and a half years. Farage has a similar chance of becoming prime minister to Sir Ed Davey in my opinion, and that's not even an insult.

[sTeamTraen]

If I was Reform, I would take a leaf out of the French RN's book and keep Farage in the (close) background as the godfather, while pushing someone younger forward as the modern face of the party. I don't think that Farage has many more potential converts to make — his name recognition is enormous and he has a permanent negative personal approval rating.

Of course Jordan Bardella (the RN's poster boy) couldn't run a bath, but that doesn't matter. His job is to look good and also to look a bit like the people that the party needs to attract in order to grow, i.e., poorly-to-medium educated, not necessarily racist but not anti-racist, younger white people. Parents of young children living in lotissements are one of the key RN target demographics.

So maybe Reform will get lucky with a winnable by-election and a candidate who scrubs up well and has never been filmed shaking hands with Tommy Robinson.

The danger of a Reform GE win is small (they probably need 40% for a majority of seats since they don't have large regional fiefs like the North-East for Labour, the South-East for the Tories, or even the West Country for the LibDems), but it's not to be discounted. RN scored 37.17% in the second round of the 2024 French parliamentary elections. That's more than the Tories polled in 2015, when they got a majority, and quite a lot more than Labour got recently.

One thing that I think/hope might happen, if we get to 2028 and Reform is polling 30% with the Tories on 10, is a Lib-Lab electoral pact to ensure that Reform loses. I don't think they would be able to win more than 100 two-horse races. And if they do, well, the UK probably deserves it. There does come a time where nice liberal right-thinking do-gooders — a group with which I broadly at least try to identify — you have to accept that a lot of people are morons, c.nts, or moronic c.nts.

[IvanV]

[/quote]

The story in the UK is now that of a country that believes it has a proportional system when it doesn't. In a FPTP system, that's going to lead to wildly unpredictable outcomes even six weeks out from an election, never mind four and a half years. Farage has a similar chance of becoming prime minister to Sir Ed Davey in my opinion, and that's not even an insult.

Some bits of PR are coming in, in the next couple of years or so. There's the Welsh Assembly, and something else I forget. So Reform could get some decent number of representatives in various assemblies. Previously UKIP won quite a few reps in local council elections, even taking control of some local councils. But being the typical kind of people who stand for UKIP, they did not cover themselves in glory, anywhere near, and got greatly reduced representation at the next election.

So maybe Reform will get lucky with a winnable by-election and a candidate who scrubs up well and has never been filmed shaking hands with Tommy Robinson.

Musk has been making noises in favour ofYaxley-Lennon. Yaxley-Lennon is in prison for something that is an offence even in the Great Land of Freedom of Speech, though Google AI tells me there is a maximum sentence of 1 year. (Couldn't be arsed checking it.) Even right-wingers' definition of Freedom of Speech doesn't extend to repealing defamation laws.

Farage is carefully distancing himself from it.

[jimbob]

The story in the UK is now that of a country that believes it has a proportional system when it doesn't. In a FPTP system, that's going to lead to wildly unpredictable outcomes even six weeks out from an election, never mind four and a half years. Farage has a similar chance of becoming prime minister to Sir Ed Davey in my opinion, and that's not even an insult.

Some bits of PR are coming in, in the next couple of years or so. There's the Welsh Assembly, and something else I forget. So Reform could get some decent number of representatives in various assemblies. Previously UKIP won quite a few reps in local council elections, even taking control of some local councils. But being the typical kind of people who stand for UKIP, they did not cover themselves in glory, anywhere near, and got greatly reduced representation at the next election.

So maybe Reform will get lucky with a winnable by-election and a candidate who scrubs up well and has never been filmed shaking hands with Tommy Robinson.

Musk has been making noises in favour ofYaxley-Lennon. Yaxley-Lennon is in prison for something that is an offence even in the Great Land of Freedom of Speech, though Google AI tells me there is a maximum sentence of 1 year. (Couldn't be arsed checking it.) Even right-wingers' definition of Freedom of Speech doesn't extend to repealing defamation laws.

Farage is carefully distancing himself from it.

Though given Musk's slanderous tendencies ("paedo" isn't a common banter, especially if one then hires private detectives to see if one's supposed banter insult was actually valid) he probably would be in favour of that in some instances, at least for him.

[Brightonian]

Musk sacks Farage (in his dreams): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70ep8lp4jjo

[Martin Y]

It warmed my heart to see Farage realise those dazzling dollar signs in his eyes were merely blinding him to the world's richest face-eating leopard.

[IvanV]

Musk sacks Farage (in his dreams): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70ep8lp4jjo

It warmed my heart to see Farage realise those dazzling dollar signs in his eyes were merely blinding him to the world's richest face-eating leopard.

Oh dear, right wingers having internecine arguments about how right wing they should be, and which bits of nasty rightwinginess are the, er, right ones.

Reputed billionaire Nick Candy is also throwing money at Farage. What kinds of rightwinginess does he like?

[Brightonian]

Farage has now democratised Reform UK, handing it over to the entire 200,000 membership.

Or has he? Guardian, FT and BBC suggest he's still effectively in control. Guardian link:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... gel-farage

[IvanV]

Farage has now democratised Reform UK, handing it over to the entire 200,000 membership.

Or has he? Guardian, FT and BBC suggest he's still effectively in control. Guardian link:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... gel-farage

I can't find any documentation that refers to these rules about electing the leader that the Guardian refers to. Google could not locate the constitution of Reform UK. It isn't on their website. And what is on Companies House is only the standard constitution of a CLG, without any modification to write any such rules into it.

The company was incorporated on 18 Feb, and the incorporation document is the only document available on Companies House at the moment. In terms of the constitution of that Company Limited By Guarantee (CLG), the incorporation document says that they have adopted the Model Articles for a CLG.

Under those model articles (and I have been the company secretary of a CLG for the last 25 years so I have a little experience of admin of CLGs) Directors can make rules about how you do things. But generally speaking election of directors, etc, would be written into the constitution by amending the articles. Maybe Reform has amended the model constitution to have these specific things in, but they do have a couple of weeks to upload that to CoHo, so maybe it just hasn't arrived yet.

The real issue is who is a member of the company. Under the former constitution of Reform, only the directors were actually members of the company. the "members of the party" were in effect customers, not members legally speaking. Now you have to explicitly sign a form to become a member of a CLG - the members have to explicitly sign up to contributing the "guarantee" that is mentioned in that term CLG. I know because we went through this process of conversion with the company I am secretary of. So I doubt that every "member" of Reform has, in those 3 days, signed a form to become a member of the CLG. Will they even be invited to be members of the CLG, or will Farage, like last time, keep true membership limited to his little coterie, and the "members" remain customers?

It is also possible that "leader of the party" and all that is separate from directorship of the CLG, but rather is the "commercial offer" of the company. Consider a commercially run private club. You become a "member" of the club, and it has various elected dignitaries from among the members elected by the members, etc. But that is separate from the commercial company that owns and runs it, the members would not elect the directors of that company. And the club rules would not be available on CoHo, because they are a commercial contract, not the constitution of a company.

[Woodchopper]

Back in February a think tank hosted a retreat for ‘several dozen’ Democratic Party operatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/17/us/p ... uture.html

Politico has published a summary of the conclusions from the meeting: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000195 ... 7121940000

It covers a lot of what has been covered here, that Democrats have alienated themselves from many working class voters. Some of the advice is remarkable for a progressive party eg “recognise that working class voters value upward mobility” and “listen to non-college voters without judgment”.

[Woodchopper]

Back in February a think tank hosted a retreat for ‘several dozen’ Democratic Party operatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/17/us/p ... uture.html

Politico has published a summary of the conclusions from the meeting: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000195 ... 7121940000

It covers a lot of what has been covered here, that Democrats have alienated themselves from many working class voters. Some of the advice is remarkable for a progressive party eg “recognise that working class voters value upward mobility” and “listen to non-college voters without judgment”.

Obviously posted that in the wrong thread. I’ll paste it into another