The thing with word clouds is we know c.50% are decided for Farage and - to some extent - Badenoch. On the other political side. So opportunity comes in the *don’t know* portion, *not sure*, *unsure*. This is the realistic portion that will take time to convince either way.

I came away from Andy Burnham’s pre-conference interview thinking he may well promise to fund his new free system of care for the elderly (at least in part) by reforming the expensive triple lock guarantee for above-inflation increases in the state pension. Here were the clues in his chat with the bbc. First he said that the plan would not be implemented in this parliament. It would be in Labour’s next general-election manifesto. And his reason was that he would not break Starmer’s manifesto, which promised to keep the triple lock. Second, he said everyone would contribute to the funding of social care, but that the funding mechanism would be different from that of the NHS. In other words he would not use general taxation to pay for his new national care service. And to state the obvious, if the rate of increase in the state pension becomes less generous - up-rating by inflation perhaps rather than the higher of inflation or earnings, with a floor of 2.5% - this would have an impact both on current pensioners and future ones. All of us would contribute, either now or in the future. Third, he has been listening to what I and others have been querying, which is whether he is prepared to take tough decisions that upset and enrage important sections of the community, when he believes doing so is in the national interest. He made a point, in the context of how he would fund social care, in saying he would show his mettle, his backbone. And to state the obvious, opposition parties and some older people will be angry if he abolishes the triple lock. So why might he choose to make the rate of increase in state pensions less generous? I’ve rehearsed these arguments before. But here they are again. It’s hard to find an economist who believes the triple lock is sustainable given all the other competing claims on government resources. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies says, keeping it would add anywhere between £5bn and £40bn a year to public spending by 2050, with the central estimate being £20bn. This might be fair if there had not been a massive transfer of income and wealth between younger and retired people over the past 20 years. But that transfer is painfully real for working age families struggling to earn enough to pay rent, let alone buy a home. The clincher, for senior members of this government, is that a new free-at-the-point-of-use care service would disproportionately benefit older people (obviously!). And help all of them. So it would be reasonable, they say, to pay for it by adjusting another part of the state’s universal support for them. Finally, Burnham said today he and the Chancellor would show the nation’s creditors - some of whom are sceptical - that they are prepared to take unpopular though rational decisions to slow the growth of the national debt and the public sector’s interest bill. Reforming the triple lock would be the most symbolically powerful manifestation of that fiscal resolve. As I say, Burnham dropped all these hints today. Am I certain that is his plan? Not really. Though he said he would tell us more in his conference speech on Tuesday, and I am struggling to think of another funding plan that is consistent with everything he set out.

Regional not national politics also underlines that we’re seeing national level fragmentation, but not nearly as much local level fragmentation: ft.com/content/28ea6751-90a5…

Great move for helping both first time buyers AND their parents who have been either worrying or supporting at home.

These quotes really make you think when you remember that this was, until very recently, the Prime Minister’s own patch… why have we allowed things to get so bad for so many people?!!

I’m not so sure it’s good for Burnham if Trump is positive with him today, for anything but short term support or concessions. In a month, it could as easily be insults. That’s just how it is. Trump likes a winner. That’s all for now.

Understand pointing to the recent increase but the striking thing to me about this is its stability. Farage’s popularity has always been assumed to be more than it is, and he’s always been polarising. Not the only politician for which this is true, but true nonetheless.

Regularly reminder that MRPs are not there to project by-elections but General Elections. Outsized swings, differential turnout and candidates matter. Makerfield should show especially when you have a high profile candidate these are not “all things being equal” contests.

I tend to agree (as well as hating making predictions!) though perhaps not on the ‘easily’. If Polanski runs for the Greens the stakes will be extremely high for the Greens and their wider signals of electoral viability.

If they can launch a rival departure experience at both ends where you're not crammed in like les sardines, I'm in!

Helpful way of visualising what we’re seeing. and consistent with higher stakes ‘bloc politics’: Anti or Pro Reform.

Wonderful.

Everything I see around me in my slice of academia is worthy, brilliant, dedicated, and done with amazing effort, and it breaks my heart to think there are now more people who can’t imagine it.

Makerfield would now vote to rejoin the EU – further evidence of why viewing British politics as frozen in 2016 is such an error.

I had the good fortune to hear Michaela Amiekhai today at an event in Parliament and was very impressed. Wishing her great success!

Pro Andy Burnham tactical voting? In today's exclusive Sky-YouGov poll, it's striking just how much a difference Burnham seems to make. In this week's voting intention poll, Labour are 8 points behind Reform. But asked who you want to win in Makerfield - where the poll names Andy Burnham as the Labour candidate - Labour is ahead by 8 points. And amongst Northern voters, Labour is ahead by 16 points. Why? Look at this tactical voting / support switching. Amongst those who want Burnham to win Makerfield include: 16% current Tories 46% current Lib Dems 6% current Reform UK and 35% current Greens All of these say if there were an election tomorrow, they want another party to win but want a Burnham victory in Makerfield

Hat off to you @AndyBurnhamGM

The numbers tell a striking story: Right bloc (Reform + Conservative): 43% Left/centre-left bloc (Labour + Green + Lib Dems): 51% The progressive majority is real but it’s fractured. Reform wins on 26% precisely because the anti-Reform vote is split four ways across parties that won’t coalesce. This is the core argument of the #WhyPopulistsAreWinning made vivid in a single set of numbers. Farage doesn’t need to build a majority. He just needs to be the biggest fragment in an era of fragmentation. The implication for Labour strategy is not a simplistic ‘shift left’ strategy but - Max unity of left bloc - Flip the tractable, centrist groups of voters seduced by Reform (Civic pragmatists / melancholy middle) - Keep the right divided.

Have Reform UK replaced the Conservatives as the party on the right of British politics? Talking Politics with @Peston @tombradby and ITV’s seriously big brained election analysts @ProfJaneGreen and Colin Rallings piped.video/watch?v=Euyrj_…

The 10 charts that show how British politics could be about to change forever. Good explainer by the brilliant @ProfJaneGreen and my @itvnews colleagues piped.video/watch?v=GvhI-56Q…