Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Shropshire North – nine days to go – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited December 2021 in General
imageShropshire North – nine days to go – politicalbetting.com

Latest Betfair prices on the Shropshire North by-election have the Tories at 62.5% with the LDs out a touch to 34%.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689
    One does not simply walk into Morda
  • TimSTimS Posts: 993
    The tacit agreement didn't last long did it? Just long enough for Labour to maximise its chances in OBS, after which game on.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,912
    I love how a Labour poll is "so-called" :wink:

    Third.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869
    The Labour poll actually looks a little more likely to me than the prior LD polling. I've backed them for a few pounds at >100 (BF)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,607
    Nearly 70 ICU medics at Spanish hospital COVID-19 positive after Christmas party http://reut.rs/3pz9wvN https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1468167200368377858/photo/1
  • FPT but directly relevant

    Hmm. The tacit progressive alliance seems to be breaking down:

    https://labourlist.org/2021/12/tory-lead-in-north-shropshire-narrowed-to-seven-points-internal-polling-suggests/

    I have zilch inside info, but this makes me feel that a Tory hold is the most likely prospect.

    Looks that way. Sorry but the two parties need to actually start co-operating. I was an active part of trying to get co-operation in place during 2019 - we had our LD candidate in Stockton South openly endorse the Labour candidate as being best placed to keep the Tory out. The reciprocal backing out (in Lewes I think) was pulled by Labour HQ.

    Labour had a base in OB, LibDems the same in NS. Whilst I disagree with withdrawing candidates, there needs to be the tacit agreement about which seats are winnable. The problem with some of the Labour activists is they are stupid enough to think all seats are Labour's by rights.

    And then I expect the same in reverse up here. Alex Cole-Hamilton is a bit of a nobber foaming on about the evils of the SNP when the enemy is and remains the Tories. You can't stop the nippie juggernaut, but we can stop the Tories from wrecking places like Banff and Buchan then wanting support for doing so.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    In for £8 at 400 Labour, laid £2 back at 100, just call me Bobby Axelrod
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    It's hardly a "disaster", though, is it? Clearly the people of NS are quite strongly Conservative in their outlook, and a Conservative is what they'll get.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 950
    It has been suggested that the "Labour poll" was just of Labour Party members. I suppose it could be.

    Or else they just made it up.

    In contrast, as OGH pointed out recently, any details about confidential polling which comes from the Lib Dems have proved to be exceptionally reliable.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,843
    Scott_xP said:

    Nearly 70 ICU medics at Spanish hospital COVID-19 positive after Christmas party http://reut.rs/3pz9wvN https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1468167200368377858/photo/1

    As 'Navidad' approaches the steady rise in cases here in Spain is showing signs of accelerating. I think the mask compulsion has helped up to now but once large groups start ot gather for food and fiestas the result is pretty well inevitable. In parts of the north there is a worrying growth in the pressures on hospitals/ICUs.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    Farooq said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    It's hardly a "disaster", though, is it? Clearly the people of NS are quite strongly Conservative in their outlook, and a Conservative is what they'll get.
    It’s a disaster in the sense that the centre / centre left can only defeat the Tories through a tacit alliance. And I happen to believe the Tories are debauching the country.

    It’s also Keir’s only chance to be PM.
    If he is not able to ally with the Lib Dems, we can officially start the counting the days until his front-line career is over.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,349
    It'd be great news for the Tories if Labour has welched on an implicit agreement with the LDs to softball here.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,612

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.

    The whistleblower says otherwise.
  • felix said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Nearly 70 ICU medics at Spanish hospital COVID-19 positive after Christmas party http://reut.rs/3pz9wvN https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1468167200368377858/photo/1

    As 'Navidad' approaches the steady rise in cases here in Spain is showing signs of accelerating. I think the mask compulsion has helped up to now but once large groups start ot gather for food and fiestas the result is pretty well inevitable. In parts of the north there is a worrying growth in the pressures on hospitals/ICUs.
    Felix talking about Navidad.

    FELIX NAVIDAD! Oh my days.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8NcQzMQN_U
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869
    ClippP said:

    It has been suggested that the "Labour poll" was just of Labour Party members. I suppose it could be.

    Or else they just made it up.

    In contrast, as OGH pointed out recently, any details about confidential polling which comes from the Lib Dems have proved to be exceptionally reliable.

    Yes - LD polling reports usually are good, but LDs were a long way off last time. It could just be genuine, and the LD polling didn't quite seem right to me the other day. How do all the Labour voters magically know that they're supposed to vote LD.

    Anyway, seemed worth a few pounds.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,163
    Hmm, is this Shropshire North by election related at all to the North Shropshire one discussed on the last thread? :wink:
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108

    I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.

    The whistleblower says otherwise.

    Carrie's 'request', surely!
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,706
    My guess is that we're going to see something like Witney 2016, which was the Conservatives retaining the seat with a clear majority but less than 50% of the vote, in the face of LibDem leaflet carpet-bombing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Witney_by-election
  • I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.

    The whistleblower says otherwise.

    Pen Farthing is a ****.

    I hope he gets buggered senseless by a horny honey badger.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,843

    felix said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Nearly 70 ICU medics at Spanish hospital COVID-19 positive after Christmas party http://reut.rs/3pz9wvN https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1468167200368377858/photo/1

    As 'Navidad' approaches the steady rise in cases here in Spain is showing signs of accelerating. I think the mask compulsion has helped up to now but once large groups start ot gather for food and fiestas the result is pretty well inevitable. In parts of the north there is a worrying growth in the pressures on hospitals/ICUs.
    Felix talking about Navidad.

    FELIX NAVIDAD! Oh my days.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8NcQzMQN_U
    Lol - of course the correct Spanish is FeliZ Navidad. :smiley:
  • The best bet on this market is surely to Lay the Tories. Governments shouldn't win by-elections, especially in these circumstances.

    Labour really should be picking up this seat. They need a smaller swing to gain this seat than other by-elections have seen before, they're the so-called Opposition, they're second-placed and they've regularly polled over 30% in this seat before.

    If like in OBS they don't achieve a good swing then something is very, very wrong with Keir Starmer's leadership.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284
    edited December 2021
    There is no doubt the Corbynite wing of Labour will want this to be a Tory hold rather than a LD win if Labour do not win it. For them the LDs are as bad as the Tories having gone into coalition with the Tories from 2010-15 and nothing short of a Labour majority will do.

    They do have some case in the sense that Labour have been second in North Shropshire at every general election since 1992 apart from 2010. However the LDs are much more likely to appeal to Tory voters in a by election protest vote than Labour are. To become PM Starmer will also almost certainly need LD and SNP support in a hung parliament, a Labour majority is very unlikely, so for Starmer LD gains from the Tories are almost as good as Labour gains from the Tories
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
  • Farooq said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    It's hardly a "disaster", though, is it? Clearly the people of NS are quite strongly Conservative in their outlook, and a Conservative is what they'll get.
    It’s a disaster in the sense that the centre / centre left can only defeat the Tories through a tacit alliance. And I happen to believe the Tories are debauching the country.

    It’s also Keir’s only chance to be PM.
    If he is not able to ally with the Lib Dems, we can officially start the counting the days until his front-line career is over.
    Exactly. Labour cannot win a general election in England and Wales without assistance. If Starmer was the new Blair where Tory voters across the land wanted to vote Labour for him then no problem. But he isn't and they aren't.

    So we're back to two opposing blocks - Tories and not Tories. Where Labour are competitive and can take Tory seats the other parties need to let them get on with it. The reverse in LD-competitive seats (and there's about 100 of them with the LDs the clear contender), and leave the Greens to it in their own seat and targets. North of the wall its similar - stop fighting the SNP for Westminster elections and recognise them as a not-Tory block member.

    There is a stupidity from some Labour activists on both wings that is a problem. The hard left refused to accept that people wouldn't vote for The Jeremy. The hard right refuse to accept that any challenge to Keir should be considered. And many in the middle dislike the LDs at a visceral level for not being sufficiently left/right enough to categorise.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689

    Farooq said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    It's hardly a "disaster", though, is it? Clearly the people of NS are quite strongly Conservative in their outlook, and a Conservative is what they'll get.
    It’s a disaster in the sense that the centre / centre left can only defeat the Tories through a tacit alliance. And I happen to believe the Tories are debauching the country.

    It’s also Keir’s only chance to be PM.
    If he is not able to ally with the Lib Dems, we can officially start the counting the days until his front-line career is over.
    Yes, Boris is debauching the country. Yes, it makes sense for there to be some kind of electoral pact between Lab and Lib. Yes, this would be a missed opportunity to try it out in earnest. But if this ends up finishing something like 46/24/24 then no, it wasn't a missed opportunity to defeat the Conservatives. If one of Lib Lab dropped out, a lot of the voters will switch to the pact partners, but not all of them. Some will go Tory, some for other parties, and quite a few won't vote. I think the result will have the Conservatives close enough to 50% that no pact would have helped at all.
  • Farooq said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    It's hardly a "disaster", though, is it? Clearly the people of NS are quite strongly Conservative in their outlook, and a Conservative is what they'll get.
    It’s a disaster in the sense that the centre / centre left can only defeat the Tories through a tacit alliance. And I happen to believe the Tories are debauching the country.

    It’s also Keir’s only chance to be PM.
    If he is not able to ally with the Lib Dems, we can officially start the counting the days until his front-line career is over.
    If there were to be an alliance then shouldn't the Lib Dems be standing aside to the Labour Party in this seat? Labour are second, they've been second in every election bar one in this constituency for decades.

    If Labour can't even try to win here, in a midterm by-election caused by a scandal, then when and where are they supposed to win to get a majority?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    It's hardly a "disaster", though, is it? Clearly the people of NS are quite strongly Conservative in their outlook, and a Conservative is what they'll get.
    It’s a disaster in the sense that the centre / centre left can only defeat the Tories through a tacit alliance. And I happen to believe the Tories are debauching the country.

    It’s also Keir’s only chance to be PM.
    If he is not able to ally with the Lib Dems, we can officially start the counting the days until his front-line career is over.
    Yes, Boris is debauching the country. Yes, it makes sense for there to be some kind of electoral pact between Lab and Lib. Yes, this would be a missed opportunity to try it out in earnest. But if this ends up finishing something like 46/24/24 then no, it wasn't a missed opportunity to defeat the Conservatives. If one of Lib Lab dropped out, a lot of the voters will switch to the pact partners, but not all of them. Some will go Tory, some for other parties, and quite a few won't vote. I think the result will have the Conservatives close enough to 50% that no pact would have helped at all.
    We are just talking mathematics here.
    But check out the Lab out-turn in C&A.
  • algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    And they're not here. Forget 2019 and look at how people have voted since - there is a clear momentum behind the LDs with Labour falling back.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,163
    Omnium said:

    The Labour poll actually looks a little more likely to me than the prior LD polling. I've backed them for a few pounds at >100 (BF)

    There's also a LD v Lab market on Smarkets (~10 for Lab) which might be of interest. I've not partaken (my only NS activity has been to back and then trade out of LD) but plausibly value on past performance. Trouble is that one (or both) of Lab/LD are either very wrong or telling porkies and which is hard to call.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,706

    I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.

    The whistleblower says otherwise.

    Pen Farthing is a ****.

    I hope he gets buggered senseless by a horny honey badger.
    Obligatory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg (NSFW narration)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    If the LDs win while the Tory+Refuk/Reclaim vote is over 50% though that would be a disaster for Boris
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235

    Farooq said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    It's hardly a "disaster", though, is it? Clearly the people of NS are quite strongly Conservative in their outlook, and a Conservative is what they'll get.
    It’s a disaster in the sense that the centre / centre left can only defeat the Tories through a tacit alliance. And I happen to believe the Tories are debauching the country.

    It’s also Keir’s only chance to be PM.
    If he is not able to ally with the Lib Dems, we can officially start the counting the days until his front-line career is over.
    Exactly. Labour cannot win a general election in England and Wales without assistance. If Starmer was the new Blair where Tory voters across the land wanted to vote Labour for him then no problem. But he isn't and they aren't.

    So we're back to two opposing blocks - Tories and not Tories. Where Labour are competitive and can take Tory seats the other parties need to let them get on with it. The reverse in LD-competitive seats (and there's about 100 of them with the LDs the clear contender), and leave the Greens to it in their own seat and targets. North of the wall its similar - stop fighting the SNP for Westminster elections and recognise them as a not-Tory block member.

    There is a stupidity from some Labour activists on both wings that is a problem. The hard left refused to accept that people wouldn't vote for The Jeremy. The hard right refuse to accept that any challenge to Keir should be considered. And many in the middle dislike the LDs at a visceral level for not being sufficiently left/right enough to categorise.
    This is great precis. Absolutely.

    Moving to the personal for a second, I disagree with your logic for resigning the Lib Dems.

    I don’t believe there is any ethical issue in voting SNP given the particular situation in your seat.

    Of course it is your choice, but I believe you should follow your own advice as outlined above!
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 950
    Omnium said:

    ClippP said:

    It has been suggested that the "Labour poll" was just of Labour Party members. I suppose it could be.

    Or else they just made it up.

    In contrast, as OGH pointed out recently, any details about confidential polling which comes from the Lib Dems have proved to be exceptionally reliable.

    Yes - LD polling reports usually are good, but LDs were a long way off last time. It could just be genuine, and the LD polling didn't quite seem right to me the other day. How do all the Labour voters magically know that they're supposed to vote LD.

    Anyway, seemed worth a few pounds.
    I suspect the hitherto Labour voters will have received the message through their letter boxes several times a week.

    Once a Lib Dem campaign really gets going, it becomes unstoppable. Hence the desperation in the Conservative and Labour ranks.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,349
    Selebian said:

    Omnium said:

    The Labour poll actually looks a little more likely to me than the prior LD polling. I've backed them for a few pounds at >100 (BF)

    There's also a LD v Lab market on Smarkets (~10 for Lab) which might be of interest. I've not partaken (my only NS activity has been to back and then trade out of LD) but plausibly value on past performance. Trouble is that one (or both) of Lab/LD are either very wrong or telling porkies and which is hard to call.
    LD internal polling has tended to be reasonably good in BEs. I reckon this Labour "poll" is made up and put out to try and nobble the LD effort frankly.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,380
    Anyone pick up on the claim about the Downing Street Christmas..... "unParties"?

    Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235

    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    What is relevant is who has a chance of winning in 2021. It may well be that was/is Labour, but if so Keir might have wanted to put a call in to Ed some time ago.

    As it is, it’s been widely assumed on here, on the ground, and in the media, that the LDs are the main challengers.
  • In 2017 the Labour Party achieved 17,287 votes in North Shropshire.

    I have a strong suspicion that if Labour achieved 17,287 votes in the by-election they'd win it.

    If Labour turned out their vote to give the Government a mid-term kicking they'd win this seat.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689
    TimS said:

    The maths in a constituency like NS is tricky I think, because you can't just rely on straightforward swing to determine who is best placed to win.

    I would guess that there are a lot of relatively safe Tory constituencies where the Lib Dems would always be 3rd in a general election, but where the Labour vote hits a ceiling at around 35% (unless the leader is a Blair type) above which you get diminishing returns. In a byelection that's where the Lib Dems come in because they can breach the ceiling as a relatively risk-free vote for disillusioned Tories. NS is one of those I think.

    Also means that proper pacts need to be treated with care as they may put some voters off. The tacit pact is ideal. A shame it seems to have broken down here.

    You can't have a tacit pact when one of the parties is low key at war with itself. There's too much interest in one faction not sticking to the deal.
    I've been green on Conservatives for a while now, and I'm tempted to go in a bit harder on them now.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    TimS said:

    The maths in a constituency like NS is tricky I think, because you can't just rely on straightforward swing to determine who is best placed to win.

    I would guess that there are a lot of relatively safe Tory constituencies where the Lib Dems would always be 3rd in a general election, but where the Labour vote hits a ceiling at around 35% (unless the leader is a Blair type) above which you get diminishing returns. In a byelection that's where the Lib Dems come in because they can breach the ceiling as a relatively risk-free vote for disillusioned Tories. NS is one of those I think.

    Also means that proper pacts need to be treated with care as they may put some voters off. The tacit pact is ideal. A shame it seems to have broken down here.

    Good post. The Labour “ceiling” point is critical for Labour Party strategists (are there any?) to get their head around.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235

    Anyone pick up on the claim about the Downing Street Christmas..... "unParties"?

    Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....

    Not all of them, surely?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869
    ClippP said:

    Omnium said:

    ClippP said:

    It has been suggested that the "Labour poll" was just of Labour Party members. I suppose it could be.

    Or else they just made it up.

    In contrast, as OGH pointed out recently, any details about confidential polling which comes from the Lib Dems have proved to be exceptionally reliable.

    Yes - LD polling reports usually are good, but LDs were a long way off last time. It could just be genuine, and the LD polling didn't quite seem right to me the other day. How do all the Labour voters magically know that they're supposed to vote LD.

    Anyway, seemed worth a few pounds.
    I suspect the hitherto Labour voters will have received the message through their letter boxes several times a week.

    Once a Lib Dem campaign really gets going, it becomes unstoppable. Hence the desperation in the Conservative and Labour ranks.
    Sure. And if I or anyone else really believed the poll was correct the prices on BF wouldn't be where they are. We'll see.
  • TimS said:

    The maths in a constituency like NS is tricky I think, because you can't just rely on straightforward swing to determine who is best placed to win.

    I would guess that there are a lot of relatively safe Tory constituencies where the Lib Dems would always be 3rd in a general election, but where the Labour vote hits a ceiling at around 35% (unless the leader is a Blair type) above which you get diminishing returns. In a byelection that's where the Lib Dems come in because they can breach the ceiling as a relatively risk-free vote for disillusioned Tories. NS is one of those I think.

    Also means that proper pacts need to be treated with care as they may put some voters off. The tacit pact is ideal. A shame it seems to have broken down here.

    Good post. The Labour “ceiling” point is critical for Labour Party strategists (are there any?) to get their head around.
    Except that for the Opposition to become the Government they need to get past their ceiling of the past. You don't win a majority by contenting yourself with the votes of the past.

    Labour achieved 17,287 votes achieved in this seat only four years ago. That's their "ceiling" surely and in a by-election it is a by-election winning tally, even without getting more votes than Corbyn which a Leader of the Opposition should be seeking to achieve.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,163
    Pulpstar said:

    Selebian said:

    Omnium said:

    The Labour poll actually looks a little more likely to me than the prior LD polling. I've backed them for a few pounds at >100 (BF)

    There's also a LD v Lab market on Smarkets (~10 for Lab) which might be of interest. I've not partaken (my only NS activity has been to back and then trade out of LD) but plausibly value on past performance. Trouble is that one (or both) of Lab/LD are either very wrong or telling porkies and which is hard to call.
    LD internal polling has tended to be reasonably good in BEs. I reckon this Labour "poll" is made up and put out to try and nobble the LD effort frankly.
    Yep, that's why I'm not on the Lab v LD bet. There may be value, but all the other indications so far have the LDs making the main challenge.

    The apparent effort at nobbling the LDs will likely kill any future tacit electoral pacts.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,333
    .

    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    You're just talking the Tory book, which isn't that of either Labour or the Lib Dems.
  • algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    Putting it simply there are some seats that are very hard to impossible for certain parties to win. If Labour were going to win NS they would have done so in the two Blair landslides. There are simply not enough Tories who can be persuaded to vote Labour in that seat. The rest of your "so why are they the opposition" guff is just silly - you can win a 179 majority from opposition and still not win seats like NS.

    So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.

    Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    The Afghan animal airlift will be one of the defining “cameos” of this rotten government’s record.

    There are so many to choose from, an embarrassment of riches for future historians.
  • The Afghan animal airlift will be one of the defining “cameos” of this rotten government’s record.

    There are so many to choose from, an embarrassment of riches for future historians.

    Pen Farthing should have been told to shoot his animals.
  • algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    Putting it simply there are some seats that are very hard to impossible for certain parties to win. If Labour were going to win NS they would have done so in the two Blair landslides. There are simply not enough Tories who can be persuaded to vote Labour in that seat. The rest of your "so why are they the opposition" guff is just silly - you can win a 179 majority from opposition and still not win seats like NS.

    So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.

    Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
    The Tories didn't get to win an eighty seat majority by thinking there were seats they couldn't win and getting their erstwhile Coalition partners to win Labour seats.

    If Keir Starmer is to be Prime Minister he needs to be aiming to win that his party is second-placed in, especially seats vacated due to scandal that his party has won over 17k votes in, in the very recent past.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    edited December 2021

    TimS said:

    The maths in a constituency like NS is tricky I think, because you can't just rely on straightforward swing to determine who is best placed to win.

    I would guess that there are a lot of relatively safe Tory constituencies where the Lib Dems would always be 3rd in a general election, but where the Labour vote hits a ceiling at around 35% (unless the leader is a Blair type) above which you get diminishing returns. In a byelection that's where the Lib Dems come in because they can breach the ceiling as a relatively risk-free vote for disillusioned Tories. NS is one of those I think.

    Also means that proper pacts need to be treated with care as they may put some voters off. The tacit pact is ideal. A shame it seems to have broken down here.

    Good post. The Labour “ceiling” point is critical for Labour Party strategists (are there any?) to get their head around.
    Except that for the Opposition to become the Government they need to get past their ceiling of the past. You don't win a majority by contenting yourself with the votes of the past.

    Labour achieved 17,287 votes achieved in this seat only four years ago. That's their "ceiling" surely and in a by-election it is a by-election winning tally, even without getting more votes than Corbyn which a Leader of the Opposition should be seeking to achieve.
    Your transparent ploy here is to set up Labour as losers, whether the seat is won by Tories or LD.
  • TimS said:

    The maths in a constituency like NS is tricky I think, because you can't just rely on straightforward swing to determine who is best placed to win.

    I would guess that there are a lot of relatively safe Tory constituencies where the Lib Dems would always be 3rd in a general election, but where the Labour vote hits a ceiling at around 35% (unless the leader is a Blair type) above which you get diminishing returns. In a byelection that's where the Lib Dems come in because they can breach the ceiling as a relatively risk-free vote for disillusioned Tories. NS is one of those I think.

    Also means that proper pacts need to be treated with care as they may put some voters off. The tacit pact is ideal. A shame it seems to have broken down here.

    Good post. The Labour “ceiling” point is critical for Labour Party strategists (are there any?) to get their head around.
    Except that for the Opposition to become the Government they need to get past their ceiling of the past. You don't win a majority by contenting yourself with the votes of the past.

    Labour achieved 17,287 votes achieved in this seat only four years ago. That's their "ceiling" surely and in a by-election it is a by-election winning tally, even without getting more votes than Corbyn which a Leader of the Opposition should be seeking to achieve.
    Your transparent ploy here is to set up Labour as losers, whether the seat is won by Tories or LD.
    I'm just a random commentator on a blog, what I write here doesn't matter.

    But yes if the seat is won by the Tories or LDs then Labour are losers. If the seat is won by Labour or Lib Dems then the Tories are losers.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,664

    In 2017 the Labour Party achieved 17,287 votes in North Shropshire.

    I have a strong suspicion that if Labour achieved 17,287 votes in the by-election they'd win it.

    If Labour turned out their vote to give the Government a mid-term kicking they'd win this seat.

    I expect CP to win this fairly comfortably. 1.55 available is a good price.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284
    edited December 2021
    Westminster Voting Intention

    First CON lead since 5-7 Nov

    Con 38 (+1)
    Lab 37 (=)
    LDM 9 (+1)
    Grn 5 (=)
    SNP 4 (-1)
    Other 7 (-2)
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468156211052826628?s=20

    Westminster Voting Intention by gender

    Male
    Con 40%
    Lab 33%

    Female
    Con 35%
    Lab 41%
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468157424225951746?s=20
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention by gender

    Male
    Con 40%
    Lab 33%

    Female
    Con 35%
    Lab 41%
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468157424225951746?s=20

    Low IQ males sadly the swing voters here.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 993

    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    Putting it simply there are some seats that are very hard to impossible for certain parties to win. If Labour were going to win NS they would have done so in the two Blair landslides. There are simply not enough Tories who can be persuaded to vote Labour in that seat. The rest of your "so why are they the opposition" guff is just silly - you can win a 179 majority from opposition and still not win seats like NS.

    So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.

    Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
    The Tories didn't get to win an eighty seat majority by thinking there were seats they couldn't win and getting their erstwhile Coalition partners to win Labour seats.

    If Keir Starmer is to be Prime Minister he needs to be aiming to win that his party is second-placed in, especially seats vacated due to scandal that his party has won over 17k votes in, in the very recent past.
    Both main parties always have seats they know they can't win, and put in token effort. I didn't get a single campaign leaflet from the Conservatives at the last election here, which Labour won by a majority of about 30,000.

    But the point here is really that this is a byelection. No way the Lib Dems would ever win this one at a GE, or hold on to it if they win this time. But BEs have their own dynamics.
  • I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.

    The whistleblower says otherwise.

    The whistleblower says the request came from Wendy Morton MP, Minister for Europe, not Downing street, and such ministerial interventions to highlight particular cases were routine and perfectly appropriate

    https://twitter.com/SaphiaFleury/status/1468143479305879559?s=20
  • Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.

    The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
  • TimS said:

    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    Putting it simply there are some seats that are very hard to impossible for certain parties to win. If Labour were going to win NS they would have done so in the two Blair landslides. There are simply not enough Tories who can be persuaded to vote Labour in that seat. The rest of your "so why are they the opposition" guff is just silly - you can win a 179 majority from opposition and still not win seats like NS.

    So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.

    Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
    The Tories didn't get to win an eighty seat majority by thinking there were seats they couldn't win and getting their erstwhile Coalition partners to win Labour seats.

    If Keir Starmer is to be Prime Minister he needs to be aiming to win that his party is second-placed in, especially seats vacated due to scandal that his party has won over 17k votes in, in the very recent past.
    Both main parties always have seats they know they can't win, and put in token effort. I didn't get a single campaign leaflet from the Conservatives at the last election here, which Labour won by a majority of about 30,000.

    But the point here is really that this is a byelection. No way the Lib Dems would ever win this one at a GE, or hold on to it if they win this time. But BEs have their own dynamics.
    Indeed and despite this not being a genuine target seat and a 'token' effort in 2017 the Opposition still managed to get over 17 thousand votes in this seat.

    Now the seat has been vacated by scandal. If Tony Blair were Leader of the Opposition he'd be gaining this seat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284

    TimS said:

    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    Putting it simply there are some seats that are very hard to impossible for certain parties to win. If Labour were going to win NS they would have done so in the two Blair landslides. There are simply not enough Tories who can be persuaded to vote Labour in that seat. The rest of your "so why are they the opposition" guff is just silly - you can win a 179 majority from opposition and still not win seats like NS.

    So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.

    Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
    The Tories didn't get to win an eighty seat majority by thinking there were seats they couldn't win and getting their erstwhile Coalition partners to win Labour seats.

    If Keir Starmer is to be Prime Minister he needs to be aiming to win that his party is second-placed in, especially seats vacated due to scandal that his party has won over 17k votes in, in the very recent past.
    Both main parties always have seats they know they can't win, and put in token effort. I didn't get a single campaign leaflet from the Conservatives at the last election here, which Labour won by a majority of about 30,000.

    But the point here is really that this is a byelection. No way the Lib Dems would ever win this one at a GE, or hold on to it if they win this time. But BEs have their own dynamics.
    Indeed and despite this not being a genuine target seat and a 'token' effort in 2017 the Opposition still managed to get over 17 thousand votes in this seat.

    Now the seat has been vacated by scandal. If Tony Blair were Leader of the Opposition he'd be gaining this seat.
    Even Blair didn't win it in 1997 and 2001 despite winning 2/3 of seats overall.

    Labour can get about a third of the vote in North Shropshire, the LDs however are more likely to appeal to Tory voters giving a by election protest vote than Labour are. The LDs have a lower floor in the seat than Labour but also a higher ceiling
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689

    Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.

    The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.

    Nearly right, but in point of fact, any Conservative -> Lib Dem seat switch is useful to Labour's prospects of government. Just not AS useful as a Conservative -> Labour switch. We all know the Lib Dems will support Starmer over Johnson in a hung parliament.
    This by-election is a toe in the water for how things are going (a point I was trying to make a few weeks ago but which was resisted by, amongst others, you), but it's unimportant in and of itself unless you live there.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2021
    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    Putting it simply there are some seats that are very hard to impossible for certain parties to win. If Labour were going to win NS they would have done so in the two Blair landslides. There are simply not enough Tories who can be persuaded to vote Labour in that seat. The rest of your "so why are they the opposition" guff is just silly - you can win a 179 majority from opposition and still not win seats like NS.

    So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.

    Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
    The Tories didn't get to win an eighty seat majority by thinking there were seats they couldn't win and getting their erstwhile Coalition partners to win Labour seats.

    If Keir Starmer is to be Prime Minister he needs to be aiming to win that his party is second-placed in, especially seats vacated due to scandal that his party has won over 17k votes in, in the very recent past.
    Both main parties always have seats they know they can't win, and put in token effort. I didn't get a single campaign leaflet from the Conservatives at the last election here, which Labour won by a majority of about 30,000.

    But the point here is really that this is a byelection. No way the Lib Dems would ever win this one at a GE, or hold on to it if they win this time. But BEs have their own dynamics.
    Indeed and despite this not being a genuine target seat and a 'token' effort in 2017 the Opposition still managed to get over 17 thousand votes in this seat.

    Now the seat has been vacated by scandal. If Tony Blair were Leader of the Opposition he'd be gaining this seat.
    Even Blair didn't win it in 1997 and 2001 despite winning 2/3 of seats overall.

    Labour can get about a third of the vote in North Shropshire, the LDs however are more likely to appeal to Tory voters giving a by election protest vote than Labour are. The LDs have a lower floor in the seat than Labour but also a higher ceiling
    This is a by-election not a General Election. The Opposition should be winning seats in by-elections they'd struggle to win at General Elections. Especially when the seat has been vacated because of a scandal.

    A third of eligible voters voting for you is much, much, much more than you need to win a by-election.
  • Mr. Walker, it should be, but some people really do value animals over humans.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235

    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention by gender

    Male
    Con 40%
    Lab 33%

    Female
    Con 35%
    Lab 41%
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468157424225951746?s=20

    Low IQ males sadly the swing voters here.
    That's the attitude that lost the EU referendum for Remain.....keep it up!
    It’s the truth, whether it is persuasive or not is less interesting to me.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,380

    Anyone pick up on the claim about the Downing Street Christmas..... "unParties"?

    Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....

    Not all of them, surely?
    The collegiate nature of the Press mirrors that of the politicians. Remember that many (perhaps most) hacks work as professionals, and are not ideologically connected to their papers output. There are plenty of people who have moved between the Telegraph and the Guardian, for example.

    This means that everyone knows each others dirty secrets.
  • Previous thread someone was complaining about our "slow booster roll out" - we're (very) comfortably ahead of our large European peers - and still ahead of the small ones too:


  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,706
    As far as I can tell, Labour have sent Justin Madders (Shadow Employment Rights Minister, apparently) and Nia Griffith to campaign for a day in North Shropshire. Not exactly the big guns.

    If Labour were taking this seriously I'd have expected a blizzard of SKS photo-ops.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689

    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention by gender

    Male
    Con 40%
    Lab 33%

    Female
    Con 35%
    Lab 41%
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468157424225951746?s=20

    Low IQ males sadly the swing voters here.
    That's the attitude that lost the EU referendum for Remain.....keep it up!
    Luckily, calling Remainers "traitors", "peons", and "beta cucks" didn't harm Leave.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 3,453
    edited December 2021

    TimS said:

    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    Putting it simply there are some seats that are very hard to impossible for certain parties to win. If Labour were going to win NS they would have done so in the two Blair landslides. There are simply not enough Tories who can be persuaded to vote Labour in that seat. The rest of your "so why are they the opposition" guff is just silly - you can win a 179 majority from opposition and still not win seats like NS.

    So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.

    Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
    The Tories didn't get to win an eighty seat majority by thinking there were seats they couldn't win and getting their erstwhile Coalition partners to win Labour seats.

    If Keir Starmer is to be Prime Minister he needs to be aiming to win that his party is second-placed in, especially seats vacated due to scandal that his party has won over 17k votes in, in the very recent past.
    Both main parties always have seats they know they can't win, and put in token effort. I didn't get a single campaign leaflet from the Conservatives at the last election here, which Labour won by a majority of about 30,000.

    But the point here is really that this is a byelection. No way the Lib Dems would ever win this one at a GE, or hold on to it if they win this time. But BEs have their own dynamics.
    Indeed and despite this not being a genuine target seat and a 'token' effort in 2017 the Opposition still managed to get over 17 thousand votes in this seat.

    Now the seat has been vacated by scandal. If Tony Blair were Leader of the Opposition he'd be gaining this seat.
    Saying the Labour Party under Starmer in 2021 aren't in as strong a position as the Labour Party under Blair in 1995 is maybe a less startling revelation than you think.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,380

    Previous thread someone was complaining about our "slow booster roll out" - we're (very) comfortably ahead of our large European peers - and still ahead of the small ones too:


    Using ONS 2020 and England data....

    image

    The interesting lines to watch are 40-44 and 45-49 - given what we know of COVID, theses are lowest groups in the higher risk zone for hospitalisation etc.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 993
    Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.

    Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108
    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention

    First CON lead since 5-7 Nov

    Con 38 (+1)
    Lab 37 (=)
    LDM 9 (+1)
    Grn 5 (=)
    SNP 4 (-1)
    Other 7 (-2)
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468156211052826628?s=20

    Westminster Voting Intention by gender

    Male
    Con 40%
    Lab 33%

    Female
    Con 35%
    Lab 41%
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468157424225951746?s=20

    Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.

    The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.

    The Tory-LD Coalition was the only viable option in 2010; Labour was no longer in a fit state to govern, and anyway the maths were wrong. While I completely agree that the LD's did some bad things.... tuition fees..... and let some bad things happen..... cuts to police and justice system ...... the old Liberal party assisted Labour four times in the 20thC. Labour activists should bear that in mind. Labour wouldn't have got into Parliament at all at first without Liberal assistance.
  • TimS said:

    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    Putting it simply there are some seats that are very hard to impossible for certain parties to win. If Labour were going to win NS they would have done so in the two Blair landslides. There are simply not enough Tories who can be persuaded to vote Labour in that seat. The rest of your "so why are they the opposition" guff is just silly - you can win a 179 majority from opposition and still not win seats like NS.

    So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.

    Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
    The Tories didn't get to win an eighty seat majority by thinking there were seats they couldn't win and getting their erstwhile Coalition partners to win Labour seats.

    If Keir Starmer is to be Prime Minister he needs to be aiming to win that his party is second-placed in, especially seats vacated due to scandal that his party has won over 17k votes in, in the very recent past.
    Both main parties always have seats they know they can't win, and put in token effort. I didn't get a single campaign leaflet from the Conservatives at the last election here, which Labour won by a majority of about 30,000.

    But the point here is really that this is a byelection. No way the Lib Dems would ever win this one at a GE, or hold on to it if they win this time. But BEs have their own dynamics.
    Indeed and despite this not being a genuine target seat and a 'token' effort in 2017 the Opposition still managed to get over 17 thousand votes in this seat.

    Now the seat has been vacated by scandal. If Tony Blair were Leader of the Opposition he'd be gaining this seat.
    Saying the Labour Party under Starmer in 2021 aren't in as strong a position as the Labour Party under Blair in 1995 is maybe a less startling relevation than you think.
    Labour have been in Opposition for 11 years.

    If Starmer were to be serious about winning the next election then Starmer should be working as hard as Blair was in 1995.

    If this by-election had happened in 1995 then Blair would have given it all he's got. Winning seats like this sends a powerful message and creates momentum. Labour have achieved a by-election winning tally of votes here in the recent past, to not even bother to try is pathetic.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,074

    Anyone pick up on the claim about the Downing Street Christmas..... "unParties"?

    Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....

    Not all of them, surely?
    The collegiate nature of the Press mirrors that of the politicians. Remember that many (perhaps most) hacks work as professionals, and are not ideologically connected to their papers output. There are plenty of people who have moved between the Telegraph and the Guardian, for example.

    This means that everyone knows each others dirty secrets.
    Sometimes they don’t even keep their secrets secret.

    With all the bashing of politicians taking drugs today, up pops a Telegraph columnist admitting she spent most of her 20s and 30s on cocaine - while she was working for the Telegraph. But she’s sober now, so that’s okay.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/12/06/think-middle-class-cocaine-use-just-bit-dinner-party-fun-need/
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    edited December 2021
    Good-ish data is starting to come in.
    Confirms the very early anecdotal stuff I used to make my prediction over a week ago.

    "Eight per cent of Covid-positive hospital patients [in Gauteng] are being treated in intensive care units, down from 23 per cent throughout the Delta wave. And just 2 per cent are on ventilators, down from 11 per cent."

    https://www.ft.com/content/d315be08-cda0-462b-85ec-811290ad488e
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235

    Anyone pick up on the claim about the Downing Street Christmas..... "unParties"?

    Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....

    Not all of them, surely?
    The collegiate nature of the Press mirrors that of the politicians. Remember that many (perhaps most) hacks work as professionals, and are not ideologically connected to their papers output. There are plenty of people who have moved between the Telegraph and the Guardian, for example.

    This means that everyone knows each others dirty secrets.
    The politico-media nexus (via Oxbridge) in this country is corrosive to our democracy.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,632

    Previous thread someone was complaining about our "slow booster roll out" - we're (very) comfortably ahead of our large European peers - and still ahead of the small ones too:


    Using ONS 2020 and England data....

    image

    The interesting lines to watch are 40-44 and 45-49 - given what we know of COVID, theses are lowest groups in the higher risk zone for hospitalisation etc.
    Interesting that the 90+ age group has levelled off some way behind the others, at a guess, this might be because a significate proportion of that age group has died since receiving there second does? if that's not the reason what might be?
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710

    Good-ish data is starting to come in.
    Confirms the very early anecdotal stuff I used to make my prediction over a week ago.

    "Eight per cent of Covid-positive hospital patients [in Gauteng] are being treated in intensive care units, down from 23 per cent throughout the Delta wave. And just 2 per cent are on ventilators, down from 11 per cent."

    https://www.ft.com/content/d315be08-cda0-462b-85ec-811290ad488e

    What's that got to do with Omnicon - as I said continually it's only from the 14th onwards that we will have the first actual data that tells us what it's actually like.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,847
    edited December 2021
    BigRich said:

    Previous thread someone was complaining about our "slow booster roll out" - we're (very) comfortably ahead of our large European peers - and still ahead of the small ones too:


    Using ONS 2020 and England data....

    image

    The interesting lines to watch are 40-44 and 45-49 - given what we know of COVID, theses are lowest groups in the higher risk zone for hospitalisation etc.
    Interesting that the 90+ age group has levelled off some way behind the others, at a guess, this might be because a significate proportion of that age group has died since receiving there second does? if that's not the reason what might be?
    GPs not doing the housebound?
  • HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention

    First CON lead since 5-7 Nov

    Con 38 (+1)
    Lab 37 (=)
    LDM 9 (+1)
    Grn 5 (=)
    SNP 4 (-1)
    Other 7 (-2)
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468156211052826628?s=20

    Westminster Voting Intention by gender

    Male
    Con 40%
    Lab 33%

    Female
    Con 35%
    Lab 41%
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468157424225951746?s=20

    Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.

    The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.

    The Tory-LD Coalition was the only viable option in 2010; Labour was no longer in a fit state to govern, and anyway the maths were wrong. While I completely agree that the LD's did some bad things.... tuition fees..... and let some bad things happen..... cuts to police and justice system ...... the old Liberal party assisted Labour four times in the 20thC. Labour activists should bear that in mind. Labour wouldn't have got into Parliament at all at first without Liberal assistance.
    Indeed and the danger for Labour of soft-pedalling is that Lib Dem gains might dent or even strip the Tory majority while leaving a position where a Tory-led government is still the only viable outcome.

    Something similar to 2017 is entirely possible.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689

    Bad news for Roger:

    This year's 5 most trusted professions:

    Nurses - 94%
    Librarians - 93%
    Doctors - 91%
    Teachers - 86%
    Museum curators - 86%...

    And the five least trusted...

    Business leaders - 31%
    Journalists - 28%
    Gov ministers - 19%
    Politicians - 19%
    Ad execs - 16%


    https://twitter.com/mwclemence/status/1468177551310917634?s=20

    How is it even possible that 7% of people don't trust librarians? Are there really 4.5 million people in this country who have got it in for book botherers?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235

    I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.

    The whistleblower says otherwise.

    The whistleblower says the request came from Wendy Morton MP, Minister for Europe, not Downing street, and such ministerial interventions to highlight particular cases were routine and perfectly appropriate

    https://twitter.com/SaphiaFleury/status/1468143479305879559?s=20
    Nope. Sorry. Checkout para. 170.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,847
    Farooq said:

    Bad news for Roger:

    This year's 5 most trusted professions:

    Nurses - 94%
    Librarians - 93%
    Doctors - 91%
    Teachers - 86%
    Museum curators - 86%...

    And the five least trusted...

    Business leaders - 31%
    Journalists - 28%
    Gov ministers - 19%
    Politicians - 19%
    Ad execs - 16%


    https://twitter.com/mwclemence/status/1468177551310917634?s=20

    How is it even possible that 7% of people don't trust librarians? Are there really 4.5 million people in this country who have got it in for book botherers?
    Perhaps 7% of the population have an outstanding library fine?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,380
    BigRich said:

    Previous thread someone was complaining about our "slow booster roll out" - we're (very) comfortably ahead of our large European peers - and still ahead of the small ones too:


    Using ONS 2020 and England data....

    image

    The interesting lines to watch are 40-44 and 45-49 - given what we know of COVID, theses are lowest groups in the higher risk zone for hospitalisation etc.
    Interesting that the 90+ age group has levelled off some way behind the others, at a guess, this might be because a significate proportion of that age group has died since receiving there second does? if that's not the reason what might be?
    Paging @Foxy

    It is my understanding that a considerable number of the 90+ group are so frail that they are not medically recommended to have the vaccine.

    You see a similar effect for the first and second doses.
  • "the protection of animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan"
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    eek said:

    Good-ish data is starting to come in.
    Confirms the very early anecdotal stuff I used to make my prediction over a week ago.

    "Eight per cent of Covid-positive hospital patients [in Gauteng] are being treated in intensive care units, down from 23 per cent throughout the Delta wave. And just 2 per cent are on ventilators, down from 11 per cent."

    https://www.ft.com/content/d315be08-cda0-462b-85ec-811290ad488e

    What's that got to do with Omnicon - as I said continually it's only from the 14th onwards that we will have the first actual data that tells us what it's actually like.
    Even Fauci is saying early signs are positive.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,153
    Sandpit said:

    Anyone pick up on the claim about the Downing Street Christmas..... "unParties"?

    Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....

    Not all of them, surely?
    The collegiate nature of the Press mirrors that of the politicians. Remember that many (perhaps most) hacks work as professionals, and are not ideologically connected to their papers output. There are plenty of people who have moved between the Telegraph and the Guardian, for example.

    This means that everyone knows each others dirty secrets.
    Sometimes they don’t even keep their secrets secret.

    With all the bashing of politicians taking drugs today, up pops a Telegraph columnist admitting she spent most of her 20s and 30s on cocaine - while she was working for the Telegraph. But she’s sober now, so that’s okay.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/12/06/think-middle-class-cocaine-use-just-bit-dinner-party-fun-need/
    This isn't a new admission though. Around half of her columns for the last five years have been about her battles with addiction.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,188
    edited December 2021
    TimS said:

    Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.

    Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?

    Coincidentally, John Overton worked for a think tank based out of Midland, Michigan.

    Edit: wonder if he lived/worked in the West of Midland.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235

    HYUFD said:

    Westminster Voting Intention

    First CON lead since 5-7 Nov

    Con 38 (+1)
    Lab 37 (=)
    LDM 9 (+1)
    Grn 5 (=)
    SNP 4 (-1)
    Other 7 (-2)
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468156211052826628?s=20

    Westminster Voting Intention by gender

    Male
    Con 40%
    Lab 33%

    Female
    Con 35%
    Lab 41%
    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468157424225951746?s=20

    Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.

    The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.

    The Tory-LD Coalition was the only viable option in 2010; Labour was no longer in a fit state to govern, and anyway the maths were wrong. While I completely agree that the LD's did some bad things.... tuition fees..... and let some bad things happen..... cuts to police and justice system ...... the old Liberal party assisted Labour four times in the 20thC. Labour activists should bear that in mind. Labour wouldn't have got into Parliament at all at first without Liberal assistance.
    Indeed and the danger for Labour of soft-pedalling is that Lib Dem gains might dent or even strip the Tory majority while leaving a position where a Tory-led government is still the only viable outcome.

    Something similar to 2017 is entirely possible.
    This post definitely brought to you by Tory HQ.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,380

    Anyone pick up on the claim about the Downing Street Christmas..... "unParties"?

    Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....

    Not all of them, surely?
    The collegiate nature of the Press mirrors that of the politicians. Remember that many (perhaps most) hacks work as professionals, and are not ideologically connected to their papers output. There are plenty of people who have moved between the Telegraph and the Guardian, for example.

    This means that everyone knows each others dirty secrets.
    The politico-media nexus (via Oxbridge) in this country is corrosive to our democracy.
    It is very similar in many countries. The French version, for example, is even more rigid and exclusionary.
  • Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.

    The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.

    Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.

    There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.

    So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
  • TimS said:

    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    Putting it simply there are some seats that are very hard to impossible for certain parties to win. If Labour were going to win NS they would have done so in the two Blair landslides. There are simply not enough Tories who can be persuaded to vote Labour in that seat. The rest of your "so why are they the opposition" guff is just silly - you can win a 179 majority from opposition and still not win seats like NS.

    So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.

    Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
    The Tories didn't get to win an eighty seat majority by thinking there were seats they couldn't win and getting their erstwhile Coalition partners to win Labour seats.

    If Keir Starmer is to be Prime Minister he needs to be aiming to win that his party is second-placed in, especially seats vacated due to scandal that his party has won over 17k votes in, in the very recent past.
    Both main parties always have seats they know they can't win, and put in token effort. I didn't get a single campaign leaflet from the Conservatives at the last election here, which Labour won by a majority of about 30,000.

    But the point here is really that this is a byelection. No way the Lib Dems would ever win this one at a GE, or hold on to it if they win this time. But BEs have their own dynamics.
    Indeed and despite this not being a genuine target seat and a 'token' effort in 2017 the Opposition still managed to get over 17 thousand votes in this seat.

    Now the seat has been vacated by scandal. If Tony Blair were Leader of the Opposition he'd be gaining this seat.
    Saying the Labour Party under Starmer in 2021 aren't in as strong a position as the Labour Party under Blair in 1995 is maybe a less startling relevation than you think.
    Labour have been in Opposition for 11 years.

    If Starmer were to be serious about winning the next election then Starmer should be working as hard as Blair was in 1995.

    If this by-election had happened in 1995 then Blair would have given it all he's got. Winning seats like this sends a powerful message and creates momentum. Labour have achieved a by-election winning tally of votes here in the recent past, to not even bother to try is pathetic.
    The best result for Labour at this by-election would have been a Labour win. The second best would be a Tory defeat.

    Presumably Starmer's reasoning, looking at Labour's position in the polls and recent by-elections, was that the former was very unlikely to be achievable, so he opted to soft pedal in the hope of the latter, which looks achievable. He may be wrong, but it isn't lazy or "pathetic" - it's a political calculation of the type Blair or anyone else would make.

    Put it this way, you and others will do some ramping on it, but if the Tories lose this one, the headline the next day just isn't going to be "Labour embarrassed as Lib Dems gain MP". It will be all about Tory humiliation and pressure on Johnson.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235

    Anyone pick up on the claim about the Downing Street Christmas..... "unParties"?

    Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....

    Not all of them, surely?
    The collegiate nature of the Press mirrors that of the politicians. Remember that many (perhaps most) hacks work as professionals, and are not ideologically connected to their papers output. There are plenty of people who have moved between the Telegraph and the Guardian, for example.

    This means that everyone knows each others dirty secrets.
    The politico-media nexus (via Oxbridge) in this country is corrosive to our democracy.
    It is very similar in many countries. The French version, for example, is even more rigid and exclusionary.
    Maybe.
    It’s not really true in NZ, although it has become more true in the last decade or so.

    But we could/should do better.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,632

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    algarkirk said:

    Perhaps Labour sampled the seat and realised they were in fact in second place and couldn’t see why they should roll over for the Libs.

    On the other hand, Keir and Labour high command have not yet bothered to make an appearance.

    Whatever the reason, if the Tories win with less than the Labour + LD vote, it’s a disaster.

    Maybe not. If the Tories win by one vote or more it will be quickly forgotten. But if Labour come third it does give a little ammunition to the Tories and the LDs. This is a seat where Labour should be the real opposition, and LDs a not very good third.

    Why should Labour be the “real” opposition here?

    Labour need to get smart, quickly. They cannot be competitive in every seat.
    Because they're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
    Because they were second placed in 2019?
    Because they were second placed in 2017?
    Because they were second placed in 2015?
    Because they were second placed in 2005?
    Because they were second placed in 2001?
    Because they were second placed in 1997?

    Because as recently as 2017 they achieved 31% while the Lib Dems were on 5%?

    If Labour aren't the Opposition where they're second-placed and have a history of getting a third of the vote in that seat, then where are they the Opposition?
    Putting it simply there are some seats that are very hard to impossible for certain parties to win. If Labour were going to win NS they would have done so in the two Blair landslides. There are simply not enough Tories who can be persuaded to vote Labour in that seat. The rest of your "so why are they the opposition" guff is just silly - you can win a 179 majority from opposition and still not win seats like NS.

    So, we then look to who could persuade Tories to protest vote with them in a by-election when your previous MP has been escorted off in disgrace. It isn't Labour. The LibDems have had the momentum in local elections so voters in the seat are already used to going out voting LD.

    Thats why. As @ClippP neatly points out, there is desperation setting in with both Tory and Labour activists. "Labour on 33%" is as funny as the Guido "story" about electoral law.
    The Tories didn't get to win an eighty seat majority by thinking there were seats they couldn't win and getting their erstwhile Coalition partners to win Labour seats.

    If Keir Starmer is to be Prime Minister he needs to be aiming to win that his party is second-placed in, especially seats vacated due to scandal that his party has won over 17k votes in, in the very recent past.
    Both main parties always have seats they know they can't win, and put in token effort. I didn't get a single campaign leaflet from the Conservatives at the last election here, which Labour won by a majority of about 30,000.

    But the point here is really that this is a byelection. No way the Lib Dems would ever win this one at a GE, or hold on to it if they win this time. But BEs have their own dynamics.
    Indeed and despite this not being a genuine target seat and a 'token' effort in 2017 the Opposition still managed to get over 17 thousand votes in this seat.

    Now the seat has been vacated by scandal. If Tony Blair were Leader of the Opposition he'd be gaining this seat.
    Even Blair didn't win it in 1997 and 2001 despite winning 2/3 of seats overall.

    Labour can get about a third of the vote in North Shropshire, the LDs however are more likely to appeal to Tory voters giving a by election protest vote than Labour are. The LDs have a lower floor in the seat than Labour but also a higher ceiling
    This is a by-election not a General Election. The Opposition should be winning seats in by-elections they'd struggle to win at General Elections. Especially when the seat has been vacated because of a scandal.

    A third of eligible voters voting for you is much, much, much more than you need to win a by-election.
    This could be a very clever tactic by Labour, to let the Tory 2019 vote think its safe to switch to voting LD, while keeping their 2019 vote, and then for labour to win with the same or similer vote share to 2019!

    To be fair I don't think this is at all what is happening, but as we have had all the other ideas I thought I would add this!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,235
    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anyone pick up on the claim about the Downing Street Christmas..... "unParties"?

    Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....

    Not all of them, surely?
    The collegiate nature of the Press mirrors that of the politicians. Remember that many (perhaps most) hacks work as professionals, and are not ideologically connected to their papers output. There are plenty of people who have moved between the Telegraph and the Guardian, for example.

    This means that everyone knows each others dirty secrets.
    Sometimes they don’t even keep their secrets secret.

    With all the bashing of politicians taking drugs today, up pops a Telegraph columnist admitting she spent most of her 20s and 30s on cocaine - while she was working for the Telegraph. But she’s sober now, so that’s okay.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/12/06/think-middle-class-cocaine-use-just-bit-dinner-party-fun-need/
    This isn't a new admission though. Around half of her columns for the last five years have been about her battles with addiction.
    Is cocaine an appetite suppressant?
    She should give it another go, maybe.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,188
    edited December 2021

    Anyone pick up on the claim about the Downing Street Christmas..... "unParties"?

    Namely that members of the media were involved, hence the story getting quietly pushed to the back....

    Not all of them, surely?
    The collegiate nature of the Press mirrors that of the politicians. Remember that many (perhaps most) hacks work as professionals, and are not ideologically connected to their papers output. There are plenty of people who have moved between the Telegraph and the Guardian, for example.

    This means that everyone knows each others dirty secrets.
    The politico-media nexus (via Oxbridge) in this country is corrosive to our democracy.
    It is very similar in many countries. The French version, for example, is even more rigid and exclusionary.
    Makes me wonder if what I'd previously presumed to be corrosive to democracy in the US - the legions of lobbyists and the politically-engaged corporations behind them - is such a bad thing after all. It does increase the pool of and modes of entry into the political elites.
This discussion has been closed.