One thing I note, Boris' new baby barely moved the news cycle. Not that it should, it's a private matter. But these things normally do a bit more than the news did.
I was thinking that. When Tony (or Cherie technically) had Leo it was a major news event. I suppose with Boris it seems like no big deal.
Can someone explain to me how Sir Keir wins the next election? I get Boris is in big trouble, but can anyone really see Sir Keir taking seats like Mansfield, Bassetlaw and Ashfield all Tory Leave seats with large majorities for leave. The Tories also have the boundary changes to push through. I still cannot see a Labour majority. But I could be wrong.
He says that Brexit is settled, that there are now far more important matters to be addressed and that Johnson, whatever his past triumphs, is clearly not now fit to be PM.
It is the first of these that is key. If Starmer can make a believable case for not reopening Brexit then there is no reason why those sorts of seats should not turn back to him.
You just know though that during an election campaign, you'll get various Labour MPs shooting their mouths off about reopening Brexit and the Mail and Sun will have a field day.
I don't think that will happen for a moment. Starmer will ban 'rejoin' and tell the troops not to mention Brexit (he already has). Internal discipline in the Labour Party is pretty good at the moment, and it will be even better in a GE campaign if there is a chance of defeating the Tories.
Can someone explain to me how Sir Keir wins the next election? I get Boris is in big trouble, but can anyone really see Sir Keir taking seats like Mansfield, Bassetlaw and Ashfield all Tory Leave seats with large majorities for leave. The Tories also have the boundary changes to push through. I still cannot see a Labour majority. But I could be wrong.
He says that Brexit is settled, that there are now far more important matters to be addressed and that Johnson, whatever his past triumphs, is clearly not now fit to be PM.
It is the first of these that is key. If Starmer can make a believable case for not reopening Brexit then there is no reason why those sorts of seats should not turn back to him.
You just know though that during an election campaign, you'll get various Labour MPs shooting their mouths off about reopening Brexit and the Mail and Sun will have a field day.
So you deal with it. Every campaign has its hiccups and I would not be so sure that on current headlines Johnson will be able to rely on either the Mail or the Sun.
Oh he'll be gone.
Boris is done. It's just a matter of when IMO.
In Titanic terms, it's already hit the iceberg. It'll sail on for a bit, the orchestra will play, they might rearrange the deckchairs a couple of times. But it's made of iron, and it will sink.
Can someone explain to me how Sir Keir wins the next election? I get Boris is in big trouble, but can anyone really see Sir Keir taking seats like Mansfield, Bassetlaw and Ashfield all Tory Leave seats with large majorities for leave. The Tories also have the boundary changes to push through. I still cannot see a Labour majority. But I could be wrong.
He says that Brexit is settled, that there are now far more important matters to be addressed and that Johnson, whatever his past triumphs, is clearly not now fit to be PM.
It is the first of these that is key. If Starmer can make a believable case for not reopening Brexit then there is no reason why those sorts of seats should not turn back to him.
You just know though that during an election campaign, you'll get various Labour MPs shooting their mouths off about reopening Brexit and the Mail and Sun will have a field day.
So you deal with it. Every campaign has its hiccups and I would not be so sure that on current headlines Johnson will be able to rely on either the Mail or the Sun.
Oh he'll be gone.
Boris is done. It's just a matter of when IMO.
In Titanic terms, it's already hit the iceberg. It'll sail on for a bit, the orchestra will play, they might rearrange the deckchairs a couple of times. But it's made of iron, and it will sink.
PB pedantry: steel.
I think they said iron in the film!
Well, Hollywood ...
On checking (PB does that to one), it was steel plating but a mix of steel and wrought iron rivets. So, yes, mostly made of steel rather than iron. But (a) steel is a carbon-iron alloy, tbf and (b) the latter WI rivets were arguably dodgy.
Can someone explain to me how Sir Keir wins the next election? I get Boris is in big trouble, but can anyone really see Sir Keir taking seats like Mansfield, Bassetlaw and Ashfield all Tory Leave seats with large majorities for leave. The Tories also have the boundary changes to push through. I still cannot see a Labour majority. But I could be wrong.
He says that Brexit is settled, that there are now far more important matters to be addressed and that Johnson, whatever his past triumphs, is clearly not now fit to be PM.
It is the first of these that is key. If Starmer can make a believable case for not reopening Brexit then there is no reason why those sorts of seats should not turn back to him.
You just know though that during an election campaign, you'll get various Labour MPs shooting their mouths off about reopening Brexit and the Mail and Sun will have a field day.
So you deal with it. Every campaign has its hiccups and I would not be so sure that on current headlines Johnson will be able to rely on either the Mail or the Sun.
Oh he'll be gone.
Boris is done. It's just a matter of when IMO.
In Titanic terms, it's already hit the iceberg. It'll sail on for a bit, the orchestra will play, they might rearrange the deckchairs a couple of times. But it's made of iron, and it will sink.
PB pedantry: steel.
I think they said iron in the film!
One of the many ways it was grossly anachronistic.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
We're heading for another two years when anything could happen. The past is of little use in predicting political futures.
Surely the swing required to put Labour into office is too big? I remember the years between 1992 and 1997 where ever you went from Milton Keynes to Bristol to Birmingham people were fed up with the Tories and were enthusiastic for Tony Blair. Seeing though we have had almost a Civil War between remain and Brexit - I just cannot see (again I maybe wrong) the voter in Hartlepool, Ashfield or Blyth coming out to vote for the same side as a Sir Keir, Alistair Campbell or Anna Soubry - I'd be surprised if Soubry like Bercow doesn't voice her support for a Sir Keir lead government. Those ex Labour voters in former industrial towns are not going to vote for a party committed to either free movement or making it safer for Asylum seekers to cross the channel. I get the government is becoming unpopular but I just don't see the unity across the country (yet) that I seen in 1997 and 2010.
Blyth is highly marginal and though the GE result was a bit sui generis in 2019, Labour did win Hartlepool.
But it was pretty tight between Labour and Lib Dems in 1985, and Labour still came second with the Tories relegated to third. I wonder if the Tories could come third in North Shropshire? That would surely do for Johnson.
* with the Tories in power - there was Bromley and Chislehurst in 2006 when the Lib Dems (and Ukip!) overtook Labour:
One thing I note, Boris' new baby barely moved the news cycle. Not that it should, it's a private matter. But these things normally do a bit more than the news did.
I was thinking that. When Tony (or Cherie technically) had Leo it was a major news event. I suppose with Boris it seems like no big deal.
With the Blairs it was the first (legitimate) child born to a sitting PM in 150 years.
Now we've had four kids to PMs in 21 years, it has lost its magic.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Imagine a tower block like the one in the Towering Inferno
There's a penthouse suite on the 150th floor where a bloke, let's call him Jackson, is doing coke and knobbing birds and generally being King of the World, and there's a small accountancy business on the 6th floor where a dreary balding bloke, call him Keith, is keeping up his chargeable hours. Now imagine Jackson falls off the balcony and splats on the street. Suddenly Keith is a neck breaking height above Jackson, just by virtue of where he is. Doesn't need to get in the lift, no reason to think he even knows how the lift works.
All hunky-dory, save for the fire on the fifth floor?
Doesn't matter. Height above ground level is the metric, as far as GE 2022/3/4 is concerned
I gotta say thats way out there as a top explanation . You might call me a f----g c***T Tw--t anarchist but I will still vote for your Towering inferno analogy as the most imaginative and way out there analogy tonight (and I know Leon)
Can someone explain to me how Sir Keir wins the next election? I get Boris is in big trouble, but can anyone really see Sir Keir taking seats like Mansfield, Bassetlaw and Ashfield all Tory Leave seats with large majorities for leave. The Tories also have the boundary changes to push through. I still cannot see a Labour majority. But I could be wrong.
He says that Brexit is settled, that there are now far more important matters to be addressed and that Johnson, whatever his past triumphs, is clearly not now fit to be PM.
It is the first of these that is key. If Starmer can make a believable case for not reopening Brexit then there is no reason why those sorts of seats should not turn back to him.
You just know though that during an election campaign, you'll get various Labour MPs shooting their mouths off about reopening Brexit and the Mail and Sun will have a field day.
So you deal with it. Every campaign has its hiccups and I would not be so sure that on current headlines Johnson will be able to rely on either the Mail or the Sun.
Oh he'll be gone.
Boris is done. It's just a matter of when IMO.
All politicians leave at some point. Even Mao and Stalin did. EvenCastro.
So your post is literally true and yet not especially precise.
I personally still think it hinges on Oswestry. If he loses an unnecessary by-election in a safe seat held for 115 years...
Narrow party political advantage means Labour would prefer Boris to stay. The guy is a tragedy played as farce.
However, it would be gross negligence to subject the country to another two plus years of the slovenly, scruffy, lying fool. So the Tories should get rid now, and replace with a grown up.
Sunak would be a very formidable opponent in 2024, and would probably win.
Thank you. I have a quiet night tonight and popped back for a bit of a Xmas session.
I miss your perceptive contributions, please don't stay away so long next time ;-)
I had a lot to do and I just had no time to spare. I have not really finished so this may be a fleeting visit depending on what happens over the next few days and weeks. We will see...
Having done a bit of reading upthread, it seems that not much has changed around here.
Oh I don't know, most of the PB Tories are revolting. (Ah, I see what you mean.)
Can someone explain to me how Sir Keir wins the next election? I get Boris is in big trouble, but can anyone really see Sir Keir taking seats like Mansfield, Bassetlaw and Ashfield all Tory Leave seats with large majorities for leave. The Tories also have the boundary changes to push through. I still cannot see a Labour majority. But I could be wrong.
He says that Brexit is settled, that there are now far more important matters to be addressed and that Johnson, whatever his past triumphs, is clearly not now fit to be PM.
It is the first of these that is key. If Starmer can make a believable case for not reopening Brexit then there is no reason why those sorts of seats should not turn back to him.
You just know though that during an election campaign, you'll get various Labour MPs shooting their mouths off about reopening Brexit and the Mail and Sun will have a field day.
I don't think that will happen for a moment. Starmer will ban 'rejoin' and tell the troops not to mention Brexit (he already has). Internal discipline in the Labour Party is pretty good at the moment, and it will be even better in a GE campaign if there is a chance of defeating the Tories.
For a bit of context, these are the lowpoints for past governments based on the Wikipedia averaged wiggly lines;
Thatcher 79-83: 28 % about Christmas 1981 (Alliance surge) Thatcher 83-87: 30 % about summer '85 (classic midterm?) Thatcher/Major 87-92: 33% in spring 1990 (Poll Tax bills landing- funnily enough, the Conservatives recovered over the summer before falling back again in the autumn) Major 92-97: 24% in summer '95 Blair 97-01:38% in September 2000 (fuel crisis) Blair 01-05: 33% in June 2004 (Euro elections- UKIP effect?) Blair/Brown 05-10: 23% in June 2009 (Euro elections on top of credit crunch) Cameron 10-15: 29% in May 2013 (mid term? UKIP were doing well then for some reason) Cameron/May 15-17: 34% in June 2016 (UKIP surge linked to the referendum) May/Johnson 17-19: 20% in June 2019 (everything was going mad)
I think the moral is that 32% isn't that bad... yet. On the other hand, the Conservatives have hoovered up the Brexity vote, so there's less opportunity for recovery.
Held off commenting until now but here are my reflections as a Civil Servant on the myriad party stories. Whatever the press says about public sector staff WFH, a significant group at the centre worked long hours in the office throughout the pandemic in order to keep the lights on. I have some sympathy for the slippery line between blowing off some steam as a team and holding a full blown party. Doubtless some teams got it wrong and a swift apology would be appropriate. I'm also conflicted because it would have been quite easy for Boris to sell out his staff once the story blew up. However, the reflexive denial and the arrogant belief that even the most ridiculous statement can become true if repeated enough is hard to understand. If Boris had taken responsibility for his staff and apologised then this story could have been put to bed quickly with the appropriate lessons learnt
The issue with that is that there were millions of people working long hours in the office or factory floor or hospital and they were not able to say, sod it lets have a few drinks because we deserve them. Yes they may have deserved them but they chose to follow the guidance and forego them. Civil Servants are no different to many millions of other essential workers who cannot work from home no matter what the risk.
I agree but we might have to be a bit pragmatic about investigating this. Would sacking the entire senior civil service in Whitehall with immediate effect be a good idea?
I think few people care about civil servants in private office having a few beers together in the first lockdown. If that is illegal, well so are the hours they are doing - all nighters are pretty common, and the pay is pathetic, like £20-30k per year. They were going way, way above and beyond to serve the public, many of whom were on furlough and can sit at home drinking beers and watching netflix all basically for free. So all in all it would be rather a grave injustice for them to be sacked because of this. The problem is not this, it is the suspicion that Boris is lying and hanging the people that work for him out to dry to save his skin. Looks like evidence of bad character.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
We're heading for another two years when anything could happen. The past is of little use in predicting political futures.
Surely the swing required to put Labour into office is too big? I remember the years between 1992 and 1997 where ever you went from Milton Keynes to Bristol to Birmingham people were fed up with the Tories and were enthusiastic for Tony Blair. Seeing though we have had almost a Civil War between remain and Brexit - I just cannot see (again I maybe wrong) the voter in Hartlepool, Ashfield or Blyth coming out to vote for the same side as a Sir Keir, Alistair Campbell or Anna Soubry - I'd be surprised if Soubry like Bercow doesn't voice her support for a Sir Keir lead government. Those ex Labour voters in former industrial towns are not going to vote for a party committed to either free movement or making it safer for Asylum seekers to cross the channel. I get the government is becoming unpopular but I just don't see the unity across the country (yet) that I seen in 1997 and 2010.
Agree. Labour still can't win outright. In order to have a decent chance of leading the next alliance government Boris's wheels need to come off. They almost certainly have. So they are at a stage necessary but not sufficient for power (in alliance). This brings them nowhere close to 326 Labour seats.
What would that take? Blair quality leadership and campaigning; gag the left; Tories unable to reform and find a credible leader; Labour inroads into Scotland + a lot of luck.
It is exceedingly unlikely that the Tories post Boris will be as useless as between the ERM debacle and 1997, though in the last couple of months you have to give them credit for trying.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
We're heading for another two years when anything could happen. The past is of little use in predicting political futures.
Surely the swing required to put Labour into office is too big? I remember the years between 1992 and 1997 where ever you went from Milton Keynes to Bristol to Birmingham people were fed up with the Tories and were enthusiastic for Tony Blair. Seeing though we have had almost a Civil War between remain and Brexit - I just cannot see (again I maybe wrong) the voter in Hartlepool, Ashfield or Blyth coming out to vote for the same side as a Sir Keir, Alistair Campbell or Anna Soubry - I'd be surprised if Soubry like Bercow doesn't voice her support for a Sir Keir lead government. Those ex Labour voters in former industrial towns are not going to vote for a party committed to either free movement or making it safer for Asylum seekers to cross the channel. I get the government is becoming unpopular but I just don't see the unity across the country (yet) that I seen in 1997 and 2010.
That's my inclination. I've always thought the 2023/2024 general election would be like a re-run of 1992 and 2005.
Enough members of the public would hold their noses and vote for the government one last time, to see the government win with a reduced majority.
But then Boris trashed the brand in the most spectacular style.
The Tories will conclude the next election is winnable (in 92 or 05 fashion) with another leader and so Boris will be thrown under the bus though I think he'll be allowed to leave "on his own terms" next year rather than face a brutal end like Thatcher/May.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
We're heading for another two years when anything could happen. The past is of little use in predicting political futures.
Surely the swing required to put Labour into office is too big? I remember the years between 1992 and 1997 where ever you went from Milton Keynes to Bristol to Birmingham people were fed up with the Tories and were enthusiastic for Tony Blair. Seeing though we have had almost a Civil War between remain and Brexit - I just cannot see (again I maybe wrong) the voter in Hartlepool, Ashfield or Blyth coming out to vote for the same side as a Sir Keir, Alistair Campbell or Anna Soubry - I'd be surprised if Soubry like Bercow doesn't voice her support for a Sir Keir lead government. Those ex Labour voters in former industrial towns are not going to vote for a party committed to either free movement or making it safer for Asylum seekers to cross the channel. I get the government is becoming unpopular but I just don't see the unity across the country (yet) that I seen in 1997 and 2010.
Agree. Labour still can't win outright. In order to have a decent chance of leading the next alliance government Boris's wheels need to come off. They almost certainly have. So they are at a stage necessary but not sufficient for power (in alliance). This brings them nowhere close to 326 Labour seats.
What would that take? Blair quality leadership and campaigning; gag the left; Tories unable to reform and find a credible leader; Labour inroads into Scotland + a lot of luck.
It is exceedingly unlikely that the Tories post Boris will be as useless as between the ERM debacle and 1997, though in the last couple of months you have to give them credit for trying.
Thank you. I have a quiet night tonight and popped back for a bit of a Xmas session.
I miss your perceptive contributions, please don't stay away so long next time ;-)
I had a lot to do and I just had no time to spare. I have not really finished so this may be a fleeting visit depending on what happens over the next few days and weeks. We will see...
Having done a bit of reading upthread, it seems that not much has changed around here.
One thing I note, Boris' new baby barely moved the news cycle. Not that it should, it's a private matter. But these things normally do a bit more than the news did.
I was thinking that. When Tony (or Cherie technically) had Leo it was a major news event. I suppose with Boris it seems like no big deal.
With the Blairs it was the first (legitimate) child born to a sitting PM in 150 years.
Now we've had four kids to PMs in 21 years, it has lost its magic.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
I agree with you about the outright win - most unlikely. But ou've been citing that 50% figure for quite a while now, if I recall correctly. If they had a 50% chance of leading the next government back in October, do you not think events over the last two months have shortened those odds somewhat?
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
Narrow party political advantage means Labour would prefer Boris to stay. The guy is a tragedy played as farce.
However, it would be gross negligence to subject the country to another two plus years of the slovenly, scruffy, lying fool. So the Tories should get rid now, and replace with a grown up.
Sunak would be a very formidable opponent in 2024, and would probably win.
I don’t think Labour would prefer him to stay. His ability to maintain an improbable coalition of wealthier right wing liberal and lower education leftish social conservatives (however dubious his methods) is a bigger threat to Labour than most other alternatives. If they could guarantee Johnson performing like this for the next 2-3 years then sure, that’s an ideal opponent. But the risk he gets it together again is too big.
Sunak though - I can’t see any qualities that would survive contact with the top job. What am I missing?
The only way for Boris to hang on and win again would be to start publicly saying he is ignoring sage and lockdown extremists and say all restrictions are being lifted - he has about until the end of Jan I think to do that
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
I agree with you about the outright win - most unlikely. But ou've been citing that 50% figure for quite a while now, if I recall correctly. If they had a 50% chance of leading the next government back in October, do you not think events over the last two months have shortened those odds somewhat?
I think the only way to get to 50% is pricing in something like the last couple of months being expected within the next few years. So perhaps that was already priced in, within the 50%?
This is the problem with some forecasts is the overreaction to the latest news rather than expecting and pricing it in before it happens. There will be more events in the next couple of years, some good for the government, some the opposition. Expecting what and pricing them in is how you make an accurate forecast.
Thank you. I have a quiet night tonight and popped back for a bit of a Xmas session.
I miss your perceptive contributions, please don't stay away so long next time ;-)
I had a lot to do and I just had no time to spare. I have not really finished so this may be a fleeting visit depending on what happens over the next few days and weeks. We will see...
Having done a bit of reading upthread, it seems that not much has changed around here.
Who are you? What are you doing on my space ship?
If you think you are on a spaceship, you may be in for a surprise when they unplug you from the Matrix....
"The number of deaths will be revised up, particularly for the current week, so will probably double again to 200-250. For now, these are still very low levels compared with previous waves, but not negligible by any means."
VERY LOW LEVELS
Your not suggesting that the UK modellers 75k deaths in next 4 months might prove to be way out?
On past form 7.5 deaths would be closer.
(The .5 being another SeanT identity biting the dust...)
My model is proving perfectly accurate so far.
Is it HO gauge? That's more accurate than OO gauge
That's furrin, will upset too many people here.
Protofour is really what the discerning rivet counter wants for GB (Ireland does not count, different gauge AIUI, but it's been written off Brexit wise anyway).
HO is accurate for body-shell and track gauge (both 1:87), but stupid OO gauge has 1:76 body-shell gauge with 1:87 track gauge.
I never knew that. I always wondered what the difference is.
His ability to maintain an improbable coalition of wealthier right wing liberal and lower education leftish social conservatives (however dubious his methods) is a bigger threat to Labour than most other alternatives.
He has united them, in contempt at his administration.
That's why Labour want him to stay. He is trashing the brand.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Is that 3% on the new boundaries and with the Tories gaining the BXP votes? Because if you're only going off old boundaries that's not going to be accurate.
The Tories gain seats on the new boundaries etc but it also narrows the tipping point gap between NOM and Labour majority.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Heard on the grapevine Labour is nowhere there. Stopping the LDs there would be one of the stupider political acts of modern times though.
"The number of deaths will be revised up, particularly for the current week, so will probably double again to 200-250. For now, these are still very low levels compared with previous waves, but not negligible by any means."
VERY LOW LEVELS
Your not suggesting that the UK modellers 75k deaths in next 4 months might prove to be way out?
On past form 7.5 deaths would be closer.
(The .5 being another SeanT identity biting the dust...)
My model is proving perfectly accurate so far.
Is it HO gauge? That's more accurate than OO gauge
That's furrin, will upset too many people here.
Protofour is really what the discerning rivet counter wants for GB (Ireland does not count, different gauge AIUI, but it's been written off Brexit wise anyway).
HO is accurate for body-shell and track gauge (both 1:87), but stupid OO gauge has 1:76 body-shell gauge with 1:87 track gauge.
I never knew that. I always wondered what the difference is.
I knew a guy once who made his own track, and refitted bogies, to fix that
Thank you. I have a quiet night tonight and popped back for a bit of a Xmas session.
I miss your perceptive contributions, please don't stay away so long next time ;-)
I had a lot to do and I just had no time to spare. I have not really finished so this may be a fleeting visit depending on what happens over the next few days and weeks. We will see...
Having done a bit of reading upthread, it seems that not much has changed around here.
Oh I don't know, most of the PB Tories are revolting. (Ah, I see what you mean.)
For a bit of context, these are the lowpoints for past governments based on the Wikipedia averaged wiggly lines;
Thatcher 79-83: 28 % about Christmas 1981 (Alliance surge) Thatcher 83-87: 30 % about summer '85 (classic midterm?) Thatcher/Major 87-92: 33% in spring 1990 (Poll Tax bills landing- funnily enough, the Conservatives recovered over the summer before falling back again in the autumn) Major 92-97: 24% in summer '95 Blair 97-01:38% in September 2000 (fuel crisis) Blair 01-05: 33% in June 2004 (Euro elections- UKIP effect?) Blair/Brown 05-10: 23% in June 2009 (Euro elections on top of credit crunch) Cameron 10-15: 29% in May 2013 (mid term? UKIP were doing well then for some reason) Cameron/May 15-17: 34% in June 2016 (UKIP surge linked to the referendum) May/Johnson 17-19: 20% in June 2019 (everything was going mad)
I think the moral is that 32% isn't that bad... yet. On the other hand, the Conservatives have hoovered up the Brexity vote, so there's less opportunity for recovery.
Going sub 30% is always a pivotal moment for a government I think. 25% or lower and it looks like it's curtains!
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Is that 3% on the new boundaries and with the Tories gaining the BXP votes? Because if you're only going off old boundaries that's not going to be accurate.
The Tories gain seats on the new boundaries etc but it also narrows the tipping point gap between NOM and Labour majority.
They're likely to be advantageous yes for the Tories, but are all the seats even decided yet ? How are you analysing them. I expect the gap between Tories losing Maj and Lab gaining a maj will still be reasonably large.
The only way for Boris to hang on and win again would be to start publicly saying he is ignoring sage and lockdown extremists and say all restrictions are being lifted - he has about until the end of Jan I think to do that
What on earth makes you think that would improve his ratings? Quite the opposite, as all the relevant opinion polling confirms.
I accept you have sincere views on the approach to covid but public opinion is not with you.
The only way for Boris to hang on and win again would be to start publicly saying he is ignoring sage and lockdown extremists and say all restrictions are being lifted - he has about until the end of Jan I think to do that
Restrictions are popular. What's not popular is hypocrisy, 'one rule for us... ' etc.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
I agree with you about the outright win - most unlikely. But ou've been citing that 50% figure for quite a while now, if I recall correctly. If they had a 50% chance of leading the next government back in October, do you not think events over the last two months have shortened those odds somewhat?
No. The way I saw and see it is that regarding two outcomes as evenly matched (at about 45-48% with the rest going to other outcomes like a Labour win (326 seats)) took for granted the likelihood of the sorts of change we have seen in the last couple of weeks. Just as 170 successive Tory poll leads made no difference to their capacity to lose it in a fairly unpredictable way right now, so the current Labour lead makes no difference to their capacity to lose it in unpredictable ways before the election in 2024 (or earlier).
Because of the length of time, unpredictability of events and general muddiness of the terrain to predict between the two outcomes now is like taking into account the first couple of points in basketball. It's not like backing Man City when two up after 8 minutes against Norwich. It's like backing one of two evenly matched sides in rugby because one of them got a penalty in the first 5 minutes.
The next GE ATM is a Grand National run on an obstacle course in the mud and fog between two unraced horses.
Thank you. I have a quiet night tonight and popped back for a bit of a Xmas session.
I miss your perceptive contributions, please don't stay away so long next time ;-)
I had a lot to do and I just had no time to spare. I have not really finished so this may be a fleeting visit depending on what happens over the next few days and weeks. We will see...
Having done a bit of reading upthread, it seems that not much has changed around here.
Who are you? What are you doing on my space ship?
If you think you are on a spaceship, you may be in for a surprise when they unplug you from the Matrix....
Time to Party like there is no tomorrow then 🥳 🙋♀️
The only way for Boris to hang on and win again would be to start publicly saying he is ignoring sage and lockdown extremists and say all restrictions are being lifted - he has about until the end of Jan I think to do that
And hope that not too many voters die as a consequence.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
We're heading for another two years when anything could happen. The past is of little use in predicting political futures.
Surely the swing required to put Labour into office is too big? I remember the years between 1992 and 1997 where ever you went from Milton Keynes to Bristol to Birmingham people were fed up with the Tories and were enthusiastic for Tony Blair. Seeing though we have had almost a Civil War between remain and Brexit - I just cannot see (again I maybe wrong) the voter in Hartlepool, Ashfield or Blyth coming out to vote for the same side as a Sir Keir, Alistair Campbell or Anna Soubry - I'd be surprised if Soubry like Bercow doesn't voice her support for a Sir Keir lead government. Those ex Labour voters in former industrial towns are not going to vote for a party committed to either free movement or making it safer for Asylum seekers to cross the channel. I get the government is becoming unpopular but I just don't see the unity across the country (yet) that I seen in 1997 and 2010.
Agree. Labour still can't win outright. In order to have a decent chance of leading the next alliance government Boris's wheels need to come off. They almost certainly have. So they are at a stage necessary but not sufficient for power (in alliance). This brings them nowhere close to 326 Labour seats.
What would that take? Blair quality leadership and campaigning; gag the left; Tories unable to reform and find a credible leader; Labour inroads into Scotland + a lot of luck.
It is exceedingly unlikely that the Tories post Boris will be as useless as between the ERM debacle and 1997, though in the last couple of months you have to give them credit for trying.
That's why I think Boris has got several months left because Sunak et al will want Covid dealt with (certainly this latest wave) and for the country to be in the warm sunlight of summer, before they'd want to take over.
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris haters)
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
I agree with you about the outright win - most unlikely. But ou've been citing that 50% figure for quite a while now, if I recall correctly. If they had a 50% chance of leading the next government back in October, do you not think events over the last two months have shortened those odds somewhat?
I think the only way to get to 50% is pricing in something like the last couple of months being expected within the next few years. So perhaps that was already priced in, within the 50%?
This is the problem with some forecasts is the overreaction to the latest news rather than expecting and pricing it in before it happens. There will be more events in the next couple of years, some good for the government, some the opposition. Expecting what and pricing them in is how you make an accurate forecast.
Yup. Can't speak for others, but my reason for being bearish on BoJo was largely that something like the last six weeks was pretty likely in some way at some time. I just didn't know when (hence my "ten years or ten days" mantra, which neatly aligns with a 50:50 chance of BoJo winning the next election.)
Some sets of events are random and can move the dial up or down, but track record and character bias things one way or another. And Boris's character, as revealed by his track record, were always going to bite him somewhere unpleasant at some point.
He may survive this one, but there will be another incident like this along at some point.
I was listening to Anna Soubry putting the boot into Boris (never a friend) and those who voted remain. You cannot rule it out that someone like Alistair Campbell overegging another People's vote on another referendum in the general election campaign of 2023/2024 and those voters in those leave seats coming out again in a general election to prevent the other side cancelling their vote from 2016. I think Sir Keir would be wise to take the same approach to Campbell, Soubry etc that he has done with Corbyn and the far left.
Boris is about to commit the biggest sin of all as a Tory leader. Losing a seat the Tories should in normal times hold easily (Even in a BE). There's no particular demographic with this one, as there was for Cheshire & Amersham.
If a seat like North Shropshire had come up in a by-election in 1992-97, is there any chance that the Lib Dems would have won it from third place?
Not that much of an isssue. The public just generally want to be led on this stuff rather than locked up, and locking them up feels like leading. Sunak could square this circle, indeed it's what leadership is all about.
That's why I think Boris has got several months left because I think Sunak et al will want Covid dealt with (certainly this latest wave) and for the country to be in the warm sunlight of summer, before they'd want to take over.
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris heaters)
One of the broadcast TV channels on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) is hosting a marathon of Don Knotts movies. Native of West Virginia, and a comic genius, most famous for his legendary portrayal of Deputy Barnie Fife on the "Andy Griffith" TV show.
My favorite Don Knotts movie is "The Ghost and Mr Chicken" which is starting in an hour!
Two months ago I was at Tory conference staring at a pretty huge crowd in the main hall for a Boris speech announcing 0 policies and telling them everything was hunky dory - which was widely hailed as a success - boy does that feel a long time ago
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
That's why I think Boris has got several months left because I think Sunak et al will want Covid dealt with (certainly this latest wave) and for the country to be in the warm sunlight of summer, before they'd want to take over.
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris heaters)
Are Boris heaters the latest carbon zero wheeze?
I've had a few Christmas drinks. @Anabobazina can sympathize I'm sure!
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Is that 3% on the new boundaries and with the Tories gaining the BXP votes? Because if you're only going off old boundaries that's not going to be accurate.
The Tories gain seats on the new boundaries etc but it also narrows the tipping point gap between NOM and Labour majority.
They're likely to be advantageous yes for the Tories, but are all the seats even decided yet ? How are you analysing them. I expect the gap between Tories losing Maj and Lab gaining a maj will still be reasonably large.
Finger in the air analysis.
But the tipping point issue is a real one. Scotland 2015 was an example of a tipping point being crossed.
Without American style monstrosities you can generally either have more, but less safe seats or fewer but safer seats. The Tories are going to have more seats due to the boundary review which should push out the swing required to lose their majority but bring forwards the tipping point at which point they start to lose large numbers of seats.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Surely giving the Tories a bloody nose is all that counts here.
How do you feel about the idea of an electoral pact with the LDs? It could transform the next election.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Strategically, the point - made by others above - is that a Labour majority looks vanishingly unlikely. Accept that, and it’s simply a question of working backwards, and joining the dots.
I was listening to Anna Soubry putting the boot into Boris (never a friend) and those who voted remain. You cannot rule it out that someone like Alistair Campbell overegging another People's vote on another referendum in the general election campaign of 2023/2024 and those voters in those leave seats coming out again in a general election to prevent the other side cancelling their vote from 2016. I think Sir Keir would be wise to take the same approach to Campbell, Soubry etc that he has done with Corbyn and the far left.
Labour's "cause 4 moment" will come when they pledge to do a FTA with Donald Trump in their manifesto haha!
That's why I think Boris has got several months left because I think Sunak et al will want Covid dealt with (certainly this latest wave) and for the country to be in the warm sunlight of summer, before they'd want to take over.
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris heaters)
The only way for Boris to hang on and win again would be to start publicly saying he is ignoring sage and lockdown extremists and say all restrictions are being lifted - he has about until the end of Jan I think to do that
And hope that not too many voters die as a consequence.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
This is why there remains a decent chance of a Tory win on a low turnout, with thirty something percent of the vote with LD and Lab vote split but behind. Can you absolutely exclude a Labour victory? Not sure. And if so, Why? They came second last time. I think this is the hardest byelection to call for ages. I agree that the Tory price has some attractions.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Is that 3% on the new boundaries and with the Tories gaining the BXP votes? Because if you're only going off old boundaries that's not going to be accurate.
The Tories gain seats on the new boundaries etc but it also narrows the tipping point gap between NOM and Labour majority.
To narrow the gap, Labour need to win Scottish seats from the SNP. In order to do that, SKS needs to sort out SLAB and make them realise that they need to stop supporting the Tories and stop acting like the socialist wing of the Orange Lodge. As long as SLAB see the SNP as a bigger enemy than the Tories, they won’t win back their former voters that defected to the SNP.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Labour majority looks vanishingly unlikely
This isn't aimed at you but that's a ridiculous remark. We are witnessing a significant, many would say seismic, shift in public opinion. To go from tory leads to neck-and-neck and now with Labour leads of c. 8% two and a half years out from the next General Election means that anything is possible.
They could just as easily win a landslide. I'll go further. If the tories keep Boris Johnson then 2024 will eclipse 1997. Why? Because Johnson is 1000x more inept and sleazy than John Major and the circumstances in the country are 1000x worse.
That's why I think Boris has got several months left because I think Sunak et al will want Covid dealt with (certainly this latest wave) and for the country to be in the warm sunlight of summer, before they'd want to take over.
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris heaters)
Are Boris heaters the latest carbon zero wheeze?
I've had a few Christmas drinks. @Anabobazina can sympathize I'm sure!
I just assumed you were using TSE's autocorrect tbh.
Btw, I admire your "several months... Covid dealt with" optimism (yes, I know you qualified it but I suspect you should have used 'years' not 'months'. Sadly.
One thing I note, Boris' new baby barely moved the news cycle. Not that it should, it's a private matter. But these things normally do a bit more than the news did.
I was thinking that. When Tony (or Cherie technically) had Leo it was a major news event. I suppose with Boris it seems like no big deal.
With the Blairs it was the first (legitimate) child born to a sitting PM in 150 years.
Now we've had four kids to PMs in 21 years, it has lost its magic.
Are you implying that there's a FitzAtlee or MacEden running around somewhere?
Or was it Campbell-Bannerman (a Lib after all) who was a bit of a rake?
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Strategically, the point - made by others above - is that a Labour majority looks vanishingly unlikely. Accept that, and it’s simply a question of working backwards, and joining the dots.
Why? They came second last time, and NS folk might pay no attention to the media bubble assumption that LDs are the challengers.
That's why I think Boris has got several months left because I think Sunak et al will want Covid dealt with (certainly this latest wave) and for the country to be in the warm sunlight of summer, before they'd want to take over.
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris heaters)
Are Boris heaters the latest carbon zero wheeze?
I've had a few Christmas drinks. @Anabobazina can sympathize I'm sure!
I just assumed you were using TSE's autocorrect tbh.
Btw, I admire your "several months... Covid dealt with" optimism (yes, I know you qualified it but I suspect you should have used 'years' not 'months'. Sadly.
That's why I think Boris has got several months left because I think Sunak et al will want Covid dealt with (certainly this latest wave) and for the country to be in the warm sunlight of summer, before they'd want to take over.
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris heaters)
Are Boris heaters the latest carbon zero wheeze?
They will produce plenty of hot air, but who knows where it will blow?
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Surely giving the Tories a bloody nose is all that counts here.
How do you feel about the idea of an electoral pact with the LDs? It could transform the next election.
I'm opposed to any formal pact. Mainly because I think it highly likely that it would backfire and damage both Labour and the LDs. But also because, as I said above, I've really no idea what the LDs stand for. As a Labour member, I feel more affinity with the Greens than the LDs these days.
I'm not opposed, however, to informal arrangements by progressive parties at a constituency level. Indeed, where I live such arrangements have been very successful.
The only way for Boris to hang on and win again would be to start publicly saying he is ignoring sage and lockdown extremists and say all restrictions are being lifted - he has about until the end of Jan I think to do that
What on earth makes you think that would improve his ratings? Quite the opposite, as all the relevant opinion polling confirms.
I accept you have sincere views on the approach to covid but public opinion is not with you.
Quite, especially as the more they delay restrictions the worse this is going to be. Many people may be thinking they can get away with partying now but, wow, this will turn nasty when loved ones can't get hospital beds.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Labour majority looks vanishingly unlikely
This isn't aimed at you but that's a ridiculous remark. We are witnessing a significant, many would say seismic, shift in public opinion. To go from tory leads to neck-and-neck and now with Labour leads of c. 8% two and a half years out from the next General Election means that anything is possible.
They could just as easily win a landslide. I'll go further. If the tories keep Boris Johnson then 2024 will eclipse 1997. Why? Because Johnson is 1000x more inept and sleazy than John Major and the circumstances in the country are 1000x worse.
But the missing element is that by 1997 Blair had crafted an offer of genuine appeal. On top of which the Tories were sleazy and broken.
The jury is only just gathering to decide one half of that equation; there is no sign that Labour has managed yet to assemble even a smidgin of the other.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Strategically, the point - made by others above - is that a Labour majority looks vanishingly unlikely. Accept that, and it’s simply a question of working backwards, and joining the dots.
Why? They came second last time, and NS folk might pay no attention to the media bubble assumption that LDs are the challengers.
I meant - referring to the various PB’ers upthread - the next GE.
PBers will no doubt be shocked down to their socks to learn the following:
That the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 was amended (or rather supplemented) the next year by an amendment to 25 Geo II c.31, an act concerning distemper in cattle, to specify the date of annual local elections in Chester, by moving them (the elections, not the cattle) forward by one week.
That's why I think Boris has got several months left because I think Sunak et al will want Covid dealt with (certainly this latest wave) and for the country to be in the warm sunlight of summer, before they'd want to take over.
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris heaters)
Are Boris heaters the latest carbon zero wheeze?
They will produce plenty of hot air, but who knows where it will blow?
I think the odds on LDs vs Con in NS are the wrong way around. I went in deep last night @2/1 (£1.3k). Tempted to top up at current odds. Unfortunately there isn’t that much liquidity.
Im also worried/wondering if someone is sitting on a constituency poll… Have there been any hints of polling?
10 to 10 on a Saturday night, prior to a Thursday by-election is a risky time to bet on politics…
I'm no statistic guru but when Blair won his landslide the swing required wasn't that big 1997 Kinnock had done a lot of the heavy lifting 1992. Also as I mentioned the feeling across the country was that Major was finished. Labour face a mountain to climb and need to win over the sort of voters who don't want free movement or an easier route across the channel for asylum seekers. I've no doubts after Boris self inflicted wounds that the electorate are willing to once again give Labour a hearing but what is the Labour offer?
That's why I think Boris has got several months left because I think Sunak et al will want Covid dealt with (certainly this latest wave) and for the country to be in the warm sunlight of summer, before they'd want to take over.
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris heaters)
Are Boris heaters the latest carbon zero wheeze?
They will produce plenty of hot air, but who knows where it will blow?
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Labour majority looks vanishingly unlikely
This isn't aimed at you but that's a ridiculous remark. We are witnessing a significant, many would say seismic, shift in public opinion. To go from tory leads to neck-and-neck and now with Labour leads of c. 8% two and a half years out from the next General Election means that anything is possible.
They could just as easily win a landslide. I'll go further. If the tories keep Boris Johnson then 2024 will eclipse 1997. Why? Because Johnson is 1000x more inept and sleazy than John Major and the circumstances in the country are 1000x worse.
LOL 😂
I'm sticking my neck out in saying I think a Labour majority is possible (I also think an increased Tory majority is possible) but that's because I believe in long tails on the bell curve. Any Labour majority falls under that long tail.
The notion that 2024 is likely to reduce in a Labour majority, let alone one eclipsing 1997? You're good for a laugh. 😂
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Labour majority looks vanishingly unlikely
This isn't aimed at you but that's a ridiculous remark. We are witnessing a significant, many would say seismic, shift in public opinion. To go from tory leads to neck-and-neck and now with Labour leads of c. 8% two and a half years out from the next General Election means that anything is possible.
They could just as easily win a landslide. I'll go further. If the tories keep Boris Johnson then 2024 will eclipse 1997. Why? Because Johnson is 1000x more inept and sleazy than John Major and the circumstances in the country are 1000x worse.
LOL 😂
I'm sticking my neck out in saying I think a Labour majority is possible (I also think an increased Tory majority is possible) but that's because I believe in long tails on the bell curve. Any Labour majority falls under that long tail.
The notion that 2024 is likely to reduce in a Labour majority, let alone one eclipsing 1997? You're good for a laugh. 😂
What's Labour's 216th target seat, and what kind of swing would that need?
Plan B should have never happened and should be getting reversed. Never an excuse for 'Plan C' no matter what.
Boris has gone native, its time for him to go.
Native to what?
Too readily listening to the scientists, civil servants, SAGE or whatever advisors are telling him to go with this bullshit.
Advisors advise, but ministers decide, but he seems to have thrown his own judgment out the window and is letting the advisors decide for him. He needs to go.
I'm no statistic guru but when Blair won his landslide the swing required wasn't that big 1997 Kinnock had done a lot of the heavy lifting 1992. Also as I mentioned the feeling across the country was that Major was finished. Labour face a mountain to climb and need to win over the sort of voters who don't want free movement or an easier route across the channel for asylum seekers. I've no doubts after Boris self inflicted wounds that the electorate are willing to once again give Labour a hearing but what is the Labour offer?
He got a very large swing though. Twice as large as any other swing since the war.
Coincidentally that is also pretty much exactly the swing required for Labour to have a majority of one next time.
That's why I think Boris has got several months left because I think Sunak et al will want Covid dealt with (certainly this latest wave) and for the country to be in the warm sunlight of summer, before they'd want to take over.
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris heaters)
Are Boris heaters the latest carbon zero wheeze?
They will produce plenty of hot air, but who knows where it will blow?
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
PBers will no doubt be shocked down to their socks to learn the following:
That the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 was amended (or rather supplemented) the next year by an amendment to 25 Geo II c.31, an act concerning distemper in cattle, to specify the date of annual local elections in Chester, by moving them (the elections, not the cattle) forward by one week.
I have no doubt JRM is poltting to repeal the 1750 Act that foisted European calendars on us.
Are we heading then for a 1992 result or a 2010 in reverse? I still think it's going to be difficult for Labour to form the next government but not impossible.
Once you start looking at the constituency by constituency situation, from the perspective of the labour party the mountain to climb is huge, almost insurmountable. All the problems that existed before (the impossibility of reconciling the interests of its metropolitan radical supporters and its traditional declining base) still exist. One of the problems is that, despite his popular appeal as a sensible and serious chap; Starmer doesn't actually have an answer to these existential problems.
The changes to the Shadow Cabinet are partly an answer to that. Don't underestimate them. It's not particularly 'woke', for one thing (I don't think you like wokeness). But more importantly, it's full of people who are not 'metropolitan radical supporters', but northern MPs.
Reeves, Philipson, Rayner, Cooper, Nandy, Miliband, Powell, for example. They are all in a position, both geographically and politically, to appeal to the traditional Labour base as well as its urban supporters.
IMHO the situation is as before with regard to Labour winning outright (326 seats). They can't. But they have a nearly 50% chance of leading the next government.
They can. Never say never.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
Nonsense. The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is around 3%. The swing needed for a Labour majority is 10.5%.
There is night and day between the two.
Hence why a Labour Party with a wider perspective would have continued to let the Tories lose NS rather than throwing everything in to salvage it for them.
Obviously Labour people like me don't want the Tories to win NS - we'd rather you LDs win. But it's not as straightforward as you make out. Labour was second last time - it's not like Chesham and Amersham, where we were nowhere.
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
Labour majority looks vanishingly unlikely
This isn't aimed at you but that's a ridiculous remark. We are witnessing a significant, many would say seismic, shift in public opinion. To go from tory leads to neck-and-neck and now with Labour leads of c. 8% two and a half years out from the next General Election means that anything is possible.
They could just as easily win a landslide. I'll go further. If the tories keep Boris Johnson then 2024 will eclipse 1997. Why? Because Johnson is 1000x more inept and sleazy than John Major and the circumstances in the country are 1000x worse.
LOL 😂
I'm sticking my neck out in saying I think a Labour majority is possible (I also think an increased Tory majority is possible) but that's because I believe in long tails on the bell curve. Any Labour majority falls under that long tail.
The notion that 2024 is likely to reduce in a Labour majority, let alone one eclipsing 1997? You're good for a laugh. 😂
Shh.
That’s one of my edges in political betting. Lay the centre of the seats distribution at (pretty much) every election. Journos/political geeks/punters seem to generally overestimate certainty in their models, generating value at the tails.
Re: the birth of a daughter to Boris & Carrie Johnson, yours truly remarked yesterday (I think) that I'd heard zero mention, until I saw a blub in the Seattle Times. Which mentioned it before reporting (very briefly) on the Ghost of Christmas Past scandal.
Am old fashioned enough to think it's sad that this little girls welcome to the word is overshadowed by the brickbats being hurled (however deservedly) at her dad AND her mum.
Happily, Wilfred and Diyln appear to be in the clear . . . at least for the time being . . .
Comments
Edit: Your point is a very good one not deserving of my pedantry.
On checking (PB does that to one), it was steel plating but a mix of steel and wrought iron rivets. So, yes, mostly made of steel rather than iron. But (a) steel is a carbon-iron alloy, tbf and (b) the latter WI rivets were arguably dodgy.
https://www.materialstoday.com/metals-alloys/news/what-really-sank-the-titanic/
EDIT: He really does look like shit in that photo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Brecon_and_Radnor_by-election
But it was pretty tight between Labour and Lib Dems in 1985, and Labour still came second with the Tories relegated to third. I wonder if the Tories could come third in North Shropshire? That would surely do for Johnson.
* with the Tories in power - there was Bromley and Chislehurst in 2006 when the Lib Dems (and Ukip!) overtook Labour:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Bromley_and_Chislehurst_by-election
Now we've had four kids to PMs in 21 years, it has lost its magic.
The swing required to overturn the Tory majority is so massive that if such a large swing happens, then an overcorrection is possible making a Labour majority possible.
However, it would be gross negligence to subject the country to another two plus years of the slovenly, scruffy, lying fool. So the Tories should get rid now, and replace with a grown up.
Sunak would be a very formidable opponent in 2024, and would probably win.
Thatcher 79-83: 28 % about Christmas 1981 (Alliance surge)
Thatcher 83-87: 30 % about summer '85 (classic midterm?)
Thatcher/Major 87-92: 33% in spring 1990 (Poll Tax bills landing- funnily enough, the Conservatives recovered over the summer before falling back again in the autumn)
Major 92-97: 24% in summer '95
Blair 97-01:38% in September 2000 (fuel crisis)
Blair 01-05: 33% in June 2004 (Euro elections- UKIP effect?)
Blair/Brown 05-10: 23% in June 2009 (Euro elections on top of credit crunch)
Cameron 10-15: 29% in May 2013 (mid term? UKIP were doing well then for some reason)
Cameron/May 15-17: 34% in June 2016 (UKIP surge linked to the referendum)
May/Johnson 17-19: 20% in June 2019 (everything was going mad)
I think the moral is that 32% isn't that bad... yet. On the other hand, the Conservatives have hoovered up the Brexity vote, so there's less opportunity for recovery.
What would that take? Blair quality leadership and campaigning; gag the left; Tories unable to reform and find a credible leader; Labour inroads into Scotland + a lot of luck.
It is exceedingly unlikely that the Tories post Boris will be as useless as between the ERM debacle and 1997, though in the last couple of months you have to give them credit for trying.
Enough members of the public would hold their noses and vote for the government one last time, to see the government win with a reduced majority.
But then Boris trashed the brand in the most spectacular style.
The Tories will conclude the next election is winnable (in 92 or 05 fashion) with another leader and so Boris will be thrown under the bus though I think he'll be allowed to leave "on his own terms" next year rather than face a brutal end like Thatcher/May.
There is night and day between the two.
Sunak though - I can’t see any qualities that would survive contact with the top job. What am I missing?
This is the problem with some forecasts is the overreaction to the latest news rather than expecting and pricing it in before it happens. There will be more events in the next couple of years, some good for the government, some the opposition. Expecting what and pricing them in is how you make an accurate forecast.
That's why Labour want him to stay. He is trashing the brand.
The Tories gain seats on the new boundaries etc but it also narrows the tipping point gap between NOM and Labour majority.
How are you analysing them. I expect the gap between Tories losing Maj and Lab gaining a maj will still be reasonably large.
I accept you have sincere views on the approach to covid but public opinion is not with you.
Taking the party away from public opinion; away from their own voters.
https://twitter.com/pollymackenzie/status/1469781306376658947
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1469775555931389960
Because of the length of time, unpredictability of events and general muddiness of the terrain to predict between the two outcomes now is like taking into account the first couple of points in basketball. It's not like backing Man City when two up after 8 minutes against Norwich. It's like backing one of two evenly matched sides in rugby because one of them got a penalty in the first 5 minutes.
The next GE ATM is a Grand National run on an obstacle course in the mud and fog between two unraced horses.
* so far
Boris is finished but he's not going anywhere for a good few months (sorry Boris haters)
Some sets of events are random and can move the dial up or down, but track record and character bias things one way or another. And Boris's character, as revealed by his track record, were always going to bite him somewhere unpleasant at some point.
He may survive this one, but there will be another incident like this along at some point.
My favorite Don Knotts movie is "The Ghost and Mr Chicken" which is starting in an hour!
https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1469783282401296391
https://twitter.com/michaelsavage/status/1469759068516622340
If I lived in NS, I'd be struggling. I don't want the Tories to win, but could I vote LD or would I stick with Labour? You won't agree with this, but I'm really struggling to find any good reason for voting LD - I've no idea what they stand for these days (other than PR, I think). All I know is that they're better than the Tories. But is that enough?
I've had a few Christmas drinks. @Anabobazina can sympathize I'm sure!
But the tipping point issue is a real one. Scotland 2015 was an example of a tipping point being crossed.
Without American style monstrosities you can generally either have more, but less safe seats or fewer but safer seats. The Tories are going to have more seats due to the boundary review which should push out the swing required to lose their majority but bring forwards the tipping point at which point they start to lose large numbers of seats.
How do you feel about the idea of an electoral pact with the LDs? It could transform the next election.
No voters will die.
Why? Because if they die, they're not voters.
They could just as easily win a landslide. I'll go further. If the tories keep Boris Johnson then 2024 will eclipse 1997. Why? Because Johnson is 1000x more inept and sleazy than John Major and the circumstances in the country are 1000x worse.
Btw, I admire your "several months... Covid dealt with" optimism (yes, I know you qualified it but I suspect you should have used 'years' not 'months'. Sadly.
Or was it Campbell-Bannerman (a Lib after all) who was a bit of a rake?
I'm not opposed, however, to informal arrangements by progressive parties at a constituency level. Indeed, where I live such arrangements have been very successful.
The jury is only just gathering to decide one half of that equation; there is no sign that Labour has managed yet to assemble even a smidgin of the other.
That the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 was amended (or rather supplemented) the next year by an amendment to 25 Geo II c.31, an act concerning distemper in cattle, to specify the date of annual local elections in Chester, by moving them (the elections, not the cattle) forward by one week.
Im also worried/wondering if someone is sitting on a constituency poll… Have there been any hints of polling?
10 to 10 on a Saturday night, prior to a Thursday by-election is a risky time to bet on politics…
Plan B should have never happened and should be getting reversed. Never an excuse for 'Plan C' no matter what.
Boris has gone native, its time for him to go.
I'm sticking my neck out in saying I think a Labour majority is possible (I also think an increased Tory majority is possible) but that's because I believe in long tails on the bell curve. Any Labour majority falls under that long tail.
The notion that 2024 is likely to reduce in a Labour majority, let alone one eclipsing 1997? You're good for a laugh. 😂
Advisors advise, but ministers decide, but he seems to have thrown his own judgment out the window and is letting the advisors decide for him. He needs to go.
Coincidentally that is also pretty much exactly the swing required for Labour to have a majority of one next time.
That’s one of my edges in political betting. Lay the centre of the seats distribution at (pretty much) every election. Journos/political geeks/punters seem to generally
overestimate certainty in their models, generating value at the tails.
Am old fashioned enough to think it's sad that this little girls welcome to the word is overshadowed by the brickbats being hurled (however deservedly) at her dad AND her mum.
Happily, Wilfred and Diyln appear to be in the clear . . . at least for the time being . . .