Categories
ANALYSING LABOUR-LIB DEM TACTICAL VOTING SINCE 1983 – politicalbetting.com
ANALYSING LABOUR-LIB DEM TACTICAL VOTING SINCE 1983 – politicalbetting.com
Following the stunning success for the Liberal Democrats at the North Shropshire by-election, former YouGov head, Peter Kellner, wrote in the Guardian:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Now, a third source has come forward.
All three described a ‘culture of fear’ & holding back info from inquiry.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/partygate-boris-johnson-sue-gray-investigation-b1998921.html
In hindsight I agree that the Tories could have done a lot worse in the South of England in 1997. Labour arguably split the Lib Dem vote in seats like Folkestone, Southend W, E Worthing etc back then.
It's why I think the Tories are now in deep trouble longer term in SE England (in Surrey etc) even the Tories largely hold off the LDs at the next election.
PB is such an educational read.
Political analysis like this is amazing, I’d never manage anything like that on my own. And when you get things like this in newspapers or on the news it seems to be slanted to support a headline, not straightforward and scholarly like PB headers.
And we have so many Armchair Generals and Weapons Experts who know amazing granular detail about stuff - like “they got the MK111-2b7’s? Ha ha ha! The thermal sites aren’t accurate enough and the armour on the roof makes it top heavy in hilly war fare.”
And when the Sue Gray report comes out, sometime later this year, if there is anything iffy, wiffy, or government up to something PB will be first on earth to know as Cyclefree will know.
PB is such an educational read, have I said that already?
https://twitter.com/SwearingSport/status/1485011540357128197?s=20
Well worth also noting that Dominic Raab would now only defend its introduction in April at the 4th time of me asking him on @TimesRadio this morning, and then only I asked him yes or no. A policy who’s only friend left in Whitehall is the PM.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1485253815930654721
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 43% (+3)
CON: 33% (-1)
LDEM: 10% (+2)
GRN: 3% (-1)
Chgs. w/ Dec
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1484552509838565377
This question probably arises from early onset dementia but what Alliance are we talking about?
The idea of a UK expeditionary force is entirely fanciful.
“When I told PM in June 2020 what had been said to me in the Government Whips’ Office I urged him to take it seriously as a Government matter and instigate an inquiry… /1
“He wrote to me that he could not get involved and suggested I use the internal Conservative Party complaint process. This, as I had already pointed out, was very clearly not appropriate for something that happened on Government business…” /2
“I do not even know if the words that were conveyed to me about what was said in reshuffle meetings at Downing Street were by members of the Conservative Party. Not a day has gone by without thinking about what I was told and wondering why I was in politics, while hoping…” /3
“…for the Government to take this seriously. Those that have not had their identity + faith questioned cannot fully appreciate what it does to you. Now is not the time I would have chosen for this to come out and I have pursued every avenue and process I thought available…” /4
“…to me, but many people have known what happened. In my statement yesterday I was careful not to mention any names or implicate the PM. All I have ever wanted was for his Govt to take this seriously, investigate properly and ensure no other colleague has to endure this." /5
https://twitter.com/cazjwheeler/status/1485256790702968837
The Tories need to stop trying to make silly legalistic points. She made a complaint about being sacked. She was allegedly told some things which to her suggested anti-Muslim prejudice. According to No. 10 she raised this with the PM and spoke to him about it. If that isn't a complaint I don't know what is.
It should have been treated as an official complaint and properly looked into - not just the original allegation but the allegations that she was threatened further if she did complain. This smacks to me like the sort of retaliation against a whistleblower which is an absolute no-no. Relying on the "she didn't fill in the correct form" is pathetic. Not least because it allows the grievance to fester and be resurrected when you least expect it, as has now happened.
More generally the Tories would have been well advised to follow the advice set out here - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/08/what-might-the-tories-learn-from-labour/ - from March 2019.
The Singh report does not appear to have been successful if the latest allegations are to be believed.
As otherwise the NI increase will be in place before the leadership election is finished.
The more he does this the less I think him fit to be PM.
Also I really dislike this Gordon Brown-style assumption that he is the heir apparent.
A cynic would suggest that she's made it politically impossible for the new leader not to reappoint her, probably to a Cabinet role. That's sheer coincidence, of course.
I say this in jest, of course. But aren't the Ukranians capable of producing something like this themselves?
NNPT though
https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1485217124125663232
Former chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, Mohammed Amin, says Nusrat Ghani probably feared the Tory Party would've "turned on her" if she had filed a complaint of Islamophobia.
https://trib.al/9vs6Ft6 https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1485262266903769089/video/1
Where the truth lies here who knows. The failure is not getting to grips with the issue at the time. Big problems never start out that way. They always start out as small issues which are ignored and so get worse.
If I were the Ukranian government, I would seriously consider packing as much nuclear material into a dirty bomb as possible, popping it in a suitcase in the back of the Lada, and having a couple of "tourists" drive it up to the walls of the Kremlin right about now.
The point about 1997 is hugely valid. The Conservatives were saved in a number of seats by Labour, from third, rather than the LDs, from second, improving their vote share. Michael Howard in Folkestone & Hythe being one such example.
As for next time, the number of seats where the LDs are challengers to the Conservatives are fewer and even some of the 1997 gains have faded from sight (to be replaced by others such as St Albans). The problem is the LDs start from such a long way back and the national polling remains close to the 2019 numbers.
A 10% swing would 26 Conservative seats fall and that has to be the aim for the party. Some of those are less likely than they look - conversely, one or two outside the 10% might be more likely. I've always thought 20-25 gains would be the top end of LD prospects though of course if the Conservative vote collapsed sub 30% many others would be within range.
But I think this is where the second charts are useful. They compare like with like for each election. Yes, you might expect each party to do better in its marginals as having more of the vote is likely to make them marginals. But, as is often the case, it’s the trend that’s interesting. And 2019 didn’t look that different to 2015 or 2017.
EDIT: actually, 2015 was different - the Lib Dems didn’t get as much of a boost in the marginals, which is perhaps explained by their participation in the coalition government.
Let him or anyone else bloody earn it by persuading voters at a GE not a tiny constituency of MPs and whoever are the members of the Tory party. We had Brown foisted on us, then May then Boris. Only 1 of those won a GE. I don't want a Sunak or Truss or A.N. Other foisted on us. Who leads the country affects all of us. It's not just some Tory party game.
I think Nick Palmer made the point recently that the Lib Dem vote might improve closer to the election (at the expense of Labour) as people start to think about their own seat.
Sortition is the answer.
https://twitter.com/BeattieDoug/status/1485179816261398530?s=20
1. We observe only a small part of the universe in front of us
2. From this small selection of facts that we observe, we create a story
3. From that story, we create meaning
4. To that meaning, we add assumptions
5. Which create or modify beliefs
6. Which generate emotions
7. which result in actions
8. and our beliefs then act as a filter or a narrowing of the data we select to choose from all the available information in the environment.
Whenever I hear a friend or colleague or relation telling me what someone's intention was behind a perceived harm or slight, I ask them to walk back from that belief of the others' intent all the things that they have added in their own head to get back to the actual dispassionate facts, and then to ask what other facts might there be that I missed or did not look for which might offer an alternative explanation.
Rarely are what we perceive as intentional slights anything to do with us at all, but are usually about something or someone else in the other's life.
That is not to say that people do not act with intent to harm. Just that that is far rarer than we assume.
You are correct that he could have resigned if he didn’t like the policy but I don’t agree he could have just “stopped it”.
He’s not the PM - however much we don’t think Boris is suitable as PM he is PM and so the boss. If he wants this (it might not be his baby but assuming it is) then Sunak really has two options. First as you said “resign” which would have rocked the boat massively before we were where we are now so quite a nuclear option.
The second option was to say “I’m going to stay and try and limit the damage, try and maybe reason or change PM’s mind over time or find ways to balance a bad policy. I can’t do this if I’m not CotE so best I stay because the replacement might just nod through whatever they are told to.”
So resigning on principle is good but sometimes it’s better to stay and try and fix things from the inside where you actually can do something other than snipe from the back-benches.
We don’t know what conversations were had behind the scenes so we cannot presume he either just quietly acquiesced or argued the point but ultimately Chairman Boris over-ruled.
It might have completely been his idea in which case that will no doubt soon be briefed and leaked if so.
Assuming that the Liberal Democrats held everything they already have and won all of those eleven targets as well, that'd get them back to a position slightly better than they held after 1992. That could be very important if the overall election result is very close, but it'll get them nowhere near recapturing third party status from the SNP.
It seems that any prospect of a major Liberal Democrat revival is going to require either several electoral cycles, or a very substantial Conservative collapse. For context, if the Lib Dems were to hold their current 13 seats and capture all of the top 33 Con-LD marginals, then that would get them back to the total of 46 seats that they won in 1997. Marginal number 33 (as ordered by swing needed to capture) is Totnes, which Anthony Mangnall took back from Sarah Wollaston in 2019 with a majority of nearly 13,000, as well as an absolute majority of all the votes cast.
Sinn Féin 34% (nc)
Fianna Fáil 24% (+1)
Fine Gael 22% (+2)
Labour 4% (-1)
Greens 3% (-2)
Social Democrats 1% (-1)
People Before Profit/Solidarity 2% (+1)
Aontú 0 (nc)
oth/ind 10% (+1)
(Behaviour and Attitudes/The Sunday Times; 22 January)
I do agree the choice of PM should be formalized in a parliamentary vote.
I can't see how the Lib Dems win any seats in Devon for the foreseeable future, that looks completely gone for them. Sarah Wollaston did as well as she could in 2019 as I never believed that seat was winnable.
I'm also interested to see what happens in Westminster and especially Finchley at the local elections as the Lib Dem votes in 2019 may or may not have been a flash in the pan for the LDs in 2019.
You also might want to rephrase your sentence defaming the Catholic Church (OGH alert).
What do you propose? That Parties can't change leaders midterm? That Boris is compelled to remain PM and thus Party Leader regardless of what MPs and the Parliamentary Conservative Party thinks?
Your "this is not a monarchy" point is relevant because this (as in the UK) is a monarchy and that creates this scenario.
Presidents are often directly elected. Prime Ministers almost never are.
Also - call me a horrible old flint-knapping racist - I find it hard to believe that in the modern Tory party, which has Saj Javid, Priti Patel, Nadim Zahawi, Kwasi Karteng, and Rishi Sunak occupying the very highest ministerial posts, another minister would get told “being a Muslim is a a problem” (or being a black is a problem, or being Hindi is a problem etc)
God knows, the Tory party has a lot of things that need fixing. It is barely fit for purpose. But blatant racism at the highest level is not one of the first issues that springs to mind. It is admirably and interestingly multiracial
I also referred to a religion, not a specific organization, so you can run along with your cancel culture.
Truss the “hair apparent”
Oh the other NI? Yeah get rid of that too.
The constructed coalitions are so intricate, that it would shatter like a crystal if the key position changed. Consider the setup in Germany at present, or that the Netherlands spent 9 months creating a new government.
Some people on Euro Twitter get quite bemused at the idea of leader changes or cabinet reshuffles without changing the Government.
I can see why @Cyclefree dislikes the historic method but when you look at the end result of your suggested solution it does look way, way worse.
But that's the thing quick fixes look easy until you go into the detail and discover the consequences may be worse than the current issue.
“It’s really saddening to see unionists and their press sneering at the pitiful attendance at an independence march. 2 years ago tens of thousands marched now only a few hundred turned out. It is almost criminal what the leadership of AUOB have done to depress numbers like this.”
https://twitter.com/petewishart/status/1484947632053272582?s=21
The SNP will never call another Indy vote. It will forever recede into the Hebridean mist. Tantalisingly close, yet perpetually unreachable, like those grapes in that story
Northern Ireland, and the Northern Irish are fine so far as it goes. However in reality they're violent nutters. Begone!
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19867660.one-banner-glasgow-hundreds-protest-boris-johnson/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election
Pete Wishart has an absolute fucking cheek.
https://twitter.com/AndyK_LivNews/status/1485277848428498954
But all the oomph has gone out of Indy. It is now *something desirable at some time in the future* - no longer an urgent political imperative. Moreover, it doesn’t have to be imperative, for the SNP, they still reign supreme at Holyrood, with all the perks of power and almost zero hassle. Everything bad can be blamed on London
The fact the pro-Indy factions are now squabbling, bitterly, is a classic symptom of a stagnant cause
I guess at some point the more militant YESSERS will turn on Sturgeon, or her successor, for their failure to secure a vote, but she is awfully good at fending them off…
How does the Welsh Govt argue it’s not “playing politics” with a straight face? There is a legitimate debate to be had about vaccine mandates in the NHS and/or care homes in England - but how does one seriously argue against them in combination with a policy of vaccine passports for the general population?
The French Elections the most important one.
Unless there’s a Tory leader election. 🙂
Hint the political party that grew out of the IRA and has been successful enough that the terrorists decided that more violence wasn't worthwhile - is not the party it was in the 1980s or even 2000.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sage-vs-actual-update-as-of-22-jan
Right now is when we are meant to be seeing 600-6000 deaths a day. Yesterday was 274 - most of them “with” Covid
The article rightly skewers Chris Whitby for his remarks saying “all we know about Omicron is bad” when we had data that showed the opposite
The boffins must be held to account in any inquiry