Best Of

'Best Prime Minister Polling:

Starmer Vs Farage:
🌹 Starmer: 36% (+1)
➡️ Farage: 29% (+1)

Starmer Vs Badenoch:
🌹Starmer: 28% (-2)
🌳 Badenoch: 28% (+8)

Farage Vs Badenoch:
🌳 Badenoch: 31% (+10)
➡️ Farage: 21% (-2)

Via
@YouGov
, 6-7 Jan.
Changes w/ 3-4 Aug.'
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2010674640532746643?s=20

Good morning

Excellent progress for Kemi especially in regard to Farage

May she continue her progress

It is suggesting in those numbers, those who tell pollsters they will vote Reform, actually prefer Kemi as PM, that’s important if “party support” in mid term is protest vote and preferred PM more indicative of what happens in May 29.

However ultimately we have to confess, Kemi’s Achilles Heel right now, unless it can be mitigated, is, as far as she has one, the party’s policy platform. “Cavemen done just fine without a welfare state” for example.

A Conservative Rise at expense of Reform may move everything towards a 1983 result, a split tribe cancels itself out allowing “majority unliked” government a landslide.

Predicting the next GE becomes even more uncertain.

I think a window is plausibly opening for the Badenoch Tories to essentially present themselves as the radical small-state, deregulating, low tax, free enterprise brooms. If they can sound plausible on immigration and asylum matters too, then they essentially inhabit a decent ground on the political spectrum to win back traditional centre-right voters, some of the professional classes and those for whom a Reform vote is possible but who cannot bring themselves to vote for Farage when the crunch point comes.

Now that coalition in and of itself probably wouldn’t win them more than 35% of the electorate absolute tops, but that would be more than enough to keep them relevant and on current fragmentation could even win them an election (no laughing at the back).

This is admittedly an overly-optimistic scenario but losing some of the old guard to Reform likely helps them in this situation. The two main problems they have are (a) infighting and leadership - if they’re going to go in on this, they have to look credible and to look credible they are going to have to stick with Badenoch as leader - anything else undermines the narrative of stability etc (b) any sensible reform of benefits in this country requires a discussion around the triple lock and the oldies are one part of their voter coalition they will find it hard to lose.

I know what you are saying, but there’s a reason for being reduced to just 120 MPs, how quickly will that be forgotten?

Reform keep banging on about “Boris Wave” the Conservative Government record on immigration, securing the borders, and assimilation of migrants to UK values, whilst Labour keep banging on about the last Conservative governments records on NHS, public services, cost of living - it’s possible that improvements in coming years on those things the, sitting government gets credit for.

To what extent does the May, Boris, Truss, Sunak government record still hurt the Conservatives not just in 2029, but the 2030’s elections too?

In the bigger picture to this, psephological comparisons with today and the 2 party past, just cannot be made anymore imo - it’s two different things now so comparing can’t neatly read across - same with “worst satisfaction ratings ever” questions.

However, correct me where wrong, what interests me is the current governments “true comparison” - and how, as explained above, lot of pebble counting stats don’t read across so leaves us with “psychological hunch’s” - with Lady Thatchers turbulent and unpopular first term.

What saved the Conservatives in 1983 General Election was neatly split opposition votes, whilst what delivered a landslide win in 1987 was the improved economy, and concern the opposition would fuck it up. You can be in government through some turbulent and unpopular years, and then as a party get even better results.

And where you say credibility in 2029 can only come from sticking with Kemi, credibility in 2029 would also be the policy platform Kemi is tied to - and if it’s not a popular policy platform across the electorate, is one reason she would be sent to Leadership Graveyard. But, if trying to get the best possible result up from 120 MPs is that a “best way to stop a PM Farage is Vote Conservative” message - that would need credibility in policy platform to back it up. Do Conservatives junk Kemi to junk her policies for others with broader appeal across all electorate, or junk Kemi in attempt to out battle Farage with Jenrick?

Do you see what I mean by how precarious Badenoch’s position is? The job simply boils down to put on MPs from historic low of 120 - that’s the only performance measurement really.

Is “cavemen done fine without a welfare state” popular policy across the broader electorate come 2029, whilst option of going toe to toe with Farage on Reforms narrow messaging, to win voters back and put on 120+ MPs, is the slicker Jenrick the better option?

Do you mean is campaigning on welfare reform enough?

No, of course it isn't. But the country is absolutely looking for someone to articulate an alternative, and there is an opening for a party to move to offer that alternative without resorting to the extremes of Reform or the Greens.

Plausibly, the Tories can move into that ground. Badenoch isn't the finished article, but she was flailing hopelessly 12 months ago and has measurably improved. There are cautious signs that she has some understanding of some of the things that need to be fixed* - over-regulation, lack of dynamism, a rigid and complex tax system, an over-powerful process state and civil service bureaucracy, disincentives to investment and enterprise etc. Whether she can continue in that vein, the jury is still out. I have always thought she has potential - I'm not wholly convinced it's enough to turn her into a true leader, but we will see.

*but as a counterpoint, so too does Starmer and Labour at times - they just don't seem to have any kind of plan to resolve them.

“{Kemi} has measurably improved”

How are you measuring Kemi’s improvement?

To some extent I have PM and LOTO (gov and opp) linked on popularity like a seesaw, one down the other up and vice versa, with no actual substance or logic to it. As example, how Labour shot up after the Truss budget in similar measure to how Con sank - but Labours own economic policies were broadly in line with the Truss budget, not just Starmer’s growth growth growth catchphrase, but the thing the markets hated most and main reason for market response, £250B of government handouts, not from growth but from borrowing, to everyone to help with inflation pain, was what Starmer had been bragging all summer he would do - TSE even wrote “Starmer has shot the Tory fox” type header supporting Starmer’s proposal, a plan Truss lifted and stole for her budget.

My point being you can have a surge upwards in popularity, whilst simultaneously talking gibberish and proposing the very worst and ruinous of policy.

So which of Kemi’s policy idea’s do you think underpin the measurable improvement? Do you foresee the manifesto proposals from “cavemen managed fine without a welfare state” being widely popular with the electorate in the 2029 GE?

I think I responded quite fundamentally to those points in my earlier reply, I'm not quite sure what point you are making.

Do we think it matters (politically) if one of these Palestinian Action hunger strikers dies or just a collective "meh"? Sounds like one may be gettting close to it.

This protest has not really resonated among the public.

Well yes because you can still protest about whatever it is that Pro Hamas Palestinian folk protest about (I'm never quite sure if they are protesting the actions of the British government, or of Israel). You just cannot specifically protest about Palestine Action because the government has made that illegal.

Now you can argue that the government has overstepped the mark on this, but there are likely intelligence reasons why we are not being told.

There's a lot of different issues here.

So you have the question of whether Palestine Action should have been designated a terrorist organisation. That's a discussion I've participated in before, and is worth having, but I don't think it's the most relevant to the hunger strike.

Then you have the question as to whether disputing the designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation should constitute support for terrorism and be itself illegal. This feels like a more important general question - one of the defining features of a democracy is the freedom to dissent, but on this issue it would seem that dissent is not possible. How are mistakes by the Executive on the designation of terrorist organisations to be corrected if it is not possible to protest them?

I would think that even if you trusted the government made the right decision on Palestine Action that you could still support the right of other people to disagree with public protest.

And the final issue, the one on which the hunger strike rests, is that the government appears to lack the confidence in its case to convict these people such that it is not scheduling court dates and bringing these people to trial, instead subjecting them to indefinite detention on remand.

This is quite a stark contrast to the action in response to riots which rests on rapid trial and conviction and exemplary sentencing as an example to others to bring the riots to an end. You would expect the same here in response to illegal in support of a terrorist organisation. But instead, nothing.

This is an intolerable abuse of the legal process, but sadly not one that the public seem to have understood. I do not expect many people to notice if and when the hunger strikers start to die. There are allegations that the media has been leant on by the government to suppress this story, but I don't know about that. There's plenty other news going on and there's a reasonable case that you shouldn't encourage hunger strikes as a form of protest by giving them attention.

Zahawi moving from the Tories indicates the rats think the Reform ship at this moment is a lot more seaworthy than the Conservative one. That's a helpful indicator for Reform and bad news for the Tories.

No, more an indication of the aftermath of the 2022 Tory leadership and toppling of Boris still.

Zahawi, like Berry served in Liz Truss' Cabinet and like Gullis, Jenkyn etc backed Truss over Sunak. Kruger backed Braverman not Sunak too.

Most Truss backers backed Jenrick in the Tory leadership election in late 2024 too while most Sunak backers backed Badenoch in the final round (though many Sunak backers also supported Cleverly before he was knocked out in the last 3)

TBF Kemi has repelled quite a lot of vile dross.

Her party might even become electable again if she could jettison Patel, Braverman and Bob.

Maybe the first two but Jenrick is an effective opposition performer

Further evidence for the Badenoch isn't half as bright as she believes she is club.


https://bsky.app/profile/jamesdaustin.bsky.social/post/3mc7l6legus2u

There's an xkcd for that

ETA: Although if, as Kemi states, we're taking about Britain, then Scotland is astonishingly crime free. Well done SNP!

ETA2: So humble pie for me actually. The map says it's by LSOA, which are (loosely) population based. So more urban versus rural crime rates if true (although dots are an odd way to show LSOAs and it's surprising if on that basis that there are apparently no large rural ones represented).

Yes, but there are more LSOAs in urban areas - so you would expect in any given characteristic to produce that map. You could produce a similar map of LSOAs whose names, when turned into numbers, add up to a number divisible by 57. I think dots are quite a good way to illustrate LSOAs - they avoid making rural areas look over-significant.

Surely 67 would have been funnier?