Howdy, Stranger!

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

Johnson an even stronger favourite to survive till 2024 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 15 in General
imageJohnson an even stronger favourite to survive till 2024 – politicalbetting.com

Given that after yesterday’s locals the prime minister looks even stronger in his position there has been a marked change in the betting on when he will actually step down.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,334
    First, unlike the Conservatives.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,739
    edited May 6
    First like... Siin Fein (Gulp) ?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 2,713
    More FPN's and the Sue Gray Report, if such a thing still exists, could spell big trouble for Johnson.

    Southern tories will not be happy. Look at what has happened in places like Surrey.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939
    'The next electrical hurdles will be the outstanding Tory defences in the Westminster by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton'

    We're expecting some shocks there...
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 7,967
    OT - meanwhile, back at the ranch, in this case the Lazy B . . . more blowback re: Boeing decision to move HQ to VA.

    from today's Seattle Times ($) commentary by aerospace reporter Dominic Gates:

    . . . . Aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia, of Aerodynamic Advisory, said the FAA would have been more impressed by a return to Seattle, signaling a focus on fixing the huge challenges Boeing faces in its major business of making commercial airplanes.

    “Boeing’s problem is not with government relations,” he said. “I don’t see doubling down the emphasis on D.C. lobbying as a breakthrough moment. It looks like a recipe for more of the same.”

    “Boeing’s pressing need is to restore technical excellence in its most important and neglected business unit, commercial airplanes,” Aboulafia added. “A move back to Seattle would have sent an incredibly powerful message. This is a missed opportunity.”

    U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chair of the House Committee on Transportation, agreed, calling the headquarters move to Arlington “another step in the wrong direction.”

    “Boeing’s problem isn’t a lack of access to government, but rather its ongoing production problems and the failures of management and the board that led to the fatal crashes of the 737 MAX,” DeFazio said in a statement. “Boeing should focus on making safe airplanes — not lobbying federal regulators and Congress.” . . . .

    Easing the decision, which was first reported Thursday morning by The Wall Street Journal, the tax incentives the city of Chicago provided Boeing for going there expired in 2021. . . .

    The pandemic’s massive impact on the company’s business has forced Boeing to sell off real estate . . . .

    Boeing said that in addition to setting up its global headquarters in Arlington, it also “plans to develop a research & technology hub in the area to harness and attract engineering and technical capabilities.” . . . .

    In addition to the Puget Sound region, Boeing now has engineering hubs in North Charleston, South Carolina; St. Louis; Seal Beach, California; as well as India. Its engineering centers in Moscow and Kyiv are currently closed due to the war in Ukraine. . . . .

    Boeing’s move to Chicago in 2001 from its historical Seattle location ripped apart the company’s legacy in the Pacific Northwest.

    The decision to leave Chicago makes clear that move 21 years ago has proved a major flop.

    There was never any real rationale offered for choosing Chicago that made sense for the company’s business. Boeing’s then-CEO, Phil Condit, and its president, Harry Stonecipher, said at the time they wanted the headquarters relocated to a city set apart from Boeing’s main business units. . . . .

    The new headquarters quickly was seen as an ivory tower, separated from the realities and complexities of the work that produced the airplanes and the technology that determined the company’s fate. . . . .
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,650

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825
    dixiedean said:

    Just noticed the Tories lost 21 of 68 in North Yorkshire.
    Adds to the rural carnage.
    Lucky not many were up.

    The Skipton West & West Craven was close

    Independent 503 (won with longest straw)
    Labour 503
    Tories 501
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 7,967
    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,558
    Reposting from previous thread ...

    I guess the major source of discrepancy in interpretation of the results is whether they are traditional "mid-term" ones. If they are, then those who are shrugging them off for the Tories definitely have a point. But for me, so much has changed since 2015 that talking about what is happening now in terms of what happened before is a mistake: the Scottish independence referendum, Brexit, Corbyn, covid and a cost of living squeeze that's only just begun have altered the landscape to a huge extent. Politics will be seen very much in terms of pre- and post-2015 in years to come, I reckon. Obviously, I could be totally wrong. It has been known ;-)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both did OK.

    Asquith was the dominant lawyer of his day had a good long run at the top where his government made many changes, even if I personally don't rate him among our PMs.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 7,967
    eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just noticed the Tories lost 21 of 68 in North Yorkshire.
    Adds to the rural carnage.
    Lucky not many were up.

    The Skipton West & West Craven was close

    Independent 503 (won with longest straw)
    Labour 503
    Tories 501
    Wow, that's a tight one all around.

    Last electoral tie I saw decided, for county commissioner, after hand recount, was done by flipping a coin (a silver dollar if IIRC). Representative for challenger differed to the incumbent. Who called heads - and heads it was.

    BTW, the winner passed away about a week later. As per state law, the remaining two members of the council met to fill the vacancy until the next election (a year later). And they chose NOT the guy who'd tied but lost the coin toss.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,304
    edited May 6
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    Your SNP numbers look a bit off. They are currently polling about the same as their 2019 result, with Con and Lab swapping over. Greens are slightly up and Lib Dems slightly down in those same polls. I don't see much argument for the SNP gaining or losing seats on those numbers.
    The council results point even to a possible SNP strengthening, but it's such a different system that I wouldn't use them to back further advances for the SNP. Stasis for SNP and a few indirect Con->Lab gains looks like the middle outcome right now.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,382

    OT - meanwhile, back at the ranch, in this case the Lazy B . . . more blowback re: Boeing decision to move HQ to VA.

    from today's Seattle Times ($) commentary by aerospace reporter Dominic Gates:

    . . . . Aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia, of Aerodynamic Advisory, said the FAA would have been more impressed by a return to Seattle, signaling a focus on fixing the huge challenges Boeing faces in its major business of making commercial airplanes.

    “Boeing’s problem is not with government relations,” he said. “I don’t see doubling down the emphasis on D.C. lobbying as a breakthrough moment. It looks like a recipe for more of the same.”

    “Boeing’s pressing need is to restore technical excellence in its most important and neglected business unit, commercial airplanes,” Aboulafia added. “A move back to Seattle would have sent an incredibly powerful message. This is a missed opportunity.”

    U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chair of the House Committee on Transportation, agreed, calling the headquarters move to Arlington “another step in the wrong direction.”

    “Boeing’s problem isn’t a lack of access to government, but rather its ongoing production problems and the failures of management and the board that led to the fatal crashes of the 737 MAX,” DeFazio said in a statement. “Boeing should focus on making safe airplanes — not lobbying federal regulators and Congress.” . . . .

    Easing the decision, which was first reported Thursday morning by The Wall Street Journal, the tax incentives the city of Chicago provided Boeing for going there expired in 2021. . . .

    The pandemic’s massive impact on the company’s business has forced Boeing to sell off real estate . . . .

    Boeing said that in addition to setting up its global headquarters in Arlington, it also “plans to develop a research & technology hub in the area to harness and attract engineering and technical capabilities.” . . . .

    In addition to the Puget Sound region, Boeing now has engineering hubs in North Charleston, South Carolina; St. Louis; Seal Beach, California; as well as India. Its engineering centers in Moscow and Kyiv are currently closed due to the war in Ukraine. . . . .

    Boeing’s move to Chicago in 2001 from its historical Seattle location ripped apart the company’s legacy in the Pacific Northwest.

    The decision to leave Chicago makes clear that move 21 years ago has proved a major flop.

    There was never any real rationale offered for choosing Chicago that made sense for the company’s business. Boeing’s then-CEO, Phil Condit, and its president, Harry Stonecipher, said at the time they wanted the headquarters relocated to a city set apart from Boeing’s main business units. . . . .

    The new headquarters quickly was seen as an ivory tower, separated from the realities and complexities of the work that produced the airplanes and the technology that determined the company’s fate. . . . .

    interesting, I'm suppressed that Bowing does not move its HQ to South Carolina, where a growing share of its production is done, and I understand relatively cheep/low tax.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 7,967
    ydoethur said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both did OK.

    Asquith was the dominant lawyer of his day had a good long run at the top where his government made many changes, even if I personally don't rate him among our PMs.
    Methinks that NEITHER Thatcher or Atlee was a "top rank" lawyer.

    As for Asquith, is that true? I do NOT mean lawyering on the front benches, I mean in the courts.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,989
    edited May 6
    [delete]
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,466

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Clement Attlee, Tony Blair...
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,187
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    The Tories are going to get nowhere near those numbers. They've lost the support of 2019 graduate voters who will back the LDs.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,360
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    You’re too optimistic for the Tories. The economy is going dahn the khazi whatever happens. 10% inflation is going to HURT

    it won’t be “because Brexit” or “because Boris” it will be because Covid, China, Ukraine, Covid, but voters will still blame the government, as they always do. Labour now look tolerably respectable, but also seriously boring.

    I reckon something like Con 280, Labour 260 is the most likely result, with Starmer, probably, forming a fragile Coalition government. Starmer will refuse a Scottish indyref so it will be even more frail than most coalitions. It will probably collapse within the year and Starmer will go back to the country

    A couple of things might change this (black swans aside). 1. Somehow voters forgive Boris - but how and why? I reckon Boris has done a sterling job in Ukraine, above and beyond what I expected, and that is the biggest foreign policy crisis of recent times, yet he has got zero credit. I’m not sure what else he could do to regain trust and favour. He feels busted.

    Or the Tories could get a new leader. But none of the candidates seem that inspiring on a national level - tho personally I’d be happy with Truss or Mordaunt. Many people would not.

    I simply don’t see where the Tory revival comes from
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,650
    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    Your SNP numbers look a bit off. They are currently polling about the same as their 2019 result, with Con and Lab swapping over. Greens are slightly up and Lib Dems slightly down in those same polls. I don't see much argument for the SNP gaining or losing seats on those numbers.
    The council results point even to a possible SNP strengthening, but it's such a different system that I wouldn't use them to back further advances for the SNP. Stasis for SNP and a few indirect Con->Lab gains looks like the middle outcome right now.
    Yeah could probably take 5 off Labour and put them in the SNP column. I think that's a good shout.

    It's not a wholly unrealistic outlook though. In fact that's going to form the basis of my bets for the next few months.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,698
    All first preferences now in in NI.
    SF 29 (+1.1)
    DUP 21.3 (-6.7)
    Alliance 13.5 (+4.5)
    UUP 11.2 (-1.7)
    SDLP 9.1 (-2.9)

    So far seats. SF 16. DUP, UUP and Alliance 2 each. SDLP 1. 1 Other (ex-DUP).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,466

    Electrical hurdles sound shocking.

    Whover invented that should be charged.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,286

    So this is looking like a Labour understatement. 'What a difference a day makes.........'

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1521957860887912448

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqCDCrA4JPs
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,989
    ydoethur said:

    'The next electrical hurdles will be the outstanding Tory defences in the Westminster by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton'

    We're expecting some shocks there...

    Especially on current trend.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 7,967
    Foxy said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Clement Attlee, Tony Blair...
    I do NOT mean lawyering in Parliament, I mean in the courts.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    ydoethur said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both did OK.

    Asquith was the dominant lawyer of his day had a good long run at the top where his government made many changes, even if I personally don't rate him among our PMs.
    Methinks that NEITHER Thatcher or Atlee was a "top rank" lawyer.

    As for Asquith, is that true? I do NOT mean lawyering on the front benches, I mean in the courts.
    Asquith refused the leadership of the Liberal party twice before his eventual elevation in 1908 because he was making an enormous legal income and didn't want to give it up by becoming Leader of the Opposition. Although as the post was unpaid and he was not a rich man, that was understandable.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530
    Foxy said:

    Electrical hurdles sound shocking.

    Whover invented that should be charged.
    Its important to remain grounded.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,989
    Is it over now? Can I go to bed?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    Foxy said:

    Electrical hurdles sound shocking.

    Whover invented that should be charged.
    Its important to remain grounded.
    No need to be negative.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    ydoethur said:

    'The next electrical hurdles will be the outstanding Tory defences in the Westminster by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton'

    We're expecting some shocks there...

    Especially on current trend.
    It would be ample repayment for the Tories' hubris.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,304
    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    Your SNP numbers look a bit off. They are currently polling about the same as their 2019 result, with Con and Lab swapping over. Greens are slightly up and Lib Dems slightly down in those same polls. I don't see much argument for the SNP gaining or losing seats on those numbers.
    The council results point even to a possible SNP strengthening, but it's such a different system that I wouldn't use them to back further advances for the SNP. Stasis for SNP and a few indirect Con->Lab gains looks like the middle outcome right now.
    Yeah could probably take 5 off Labour and put them in the SNP column. I think that's a good shout.

    It's not a wholly unrealistic outlook though. In fact that's going to form the basis of my bets for the next few months.
    No, it's certainly not unrealistic.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,650
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    You’re too optimistic for the Tories. The economy is going dahn the khazi whatever happens. 10% inflation is going to HURT

    it won’t be “because Brexit” or “because Boris” it will be because Covid, China, Ukraine, Covid, but voters will still blame the government, as they always do. Labour now look tolerably respectable, but also seriously boring.

    I reckon something like Con 280, Labour 260 is the most likely result, with Starmer, probably, forming a fragile Coalition government. Starmer will refuse a Scottish indyref so it will be even more frail than most coalitions. It will probably collapse within the year and Starmer will go back to the country

    A couple of things might change this (black swans aside). 1. Somehow voters forgive Boris - but how and why? I reckon Boris has done a sterling job in Ukraine, above and beyond what I expected, and that is the biggest foreign policy crisis of recent times, yet he has got zero credit. I’m not sure what else he could do to regain trust and favour. He feels busted.

    Or the Tories could get a new leader. But none of the candidates seem that inspiring on a national level - tho personally I’d be happy with Truss or Mordaunt. Many people would not.

    I simply don’t see where the Tory revival comes from
    Labour need to present a credible alternative for the Tories to fall that far. I don't see a plan or credible policies coming from them either. They keep talking about this windfall tax on North Sea oil profits but it raises little money and most people just see it as moralising.

    As long as Labour give the Tories an easy ride on actually having an alternative offering for government the Tories will do a lot better than expected. Throw in a very hostile campaign and targeting to make people think Starmer wants to force boys to wear dresses it will be one of those "omg we didn't see this late swing coming" elections.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 51,464

    Is it over now? Can I go to bed?

    The by elections haven't happened yet !!!!!!!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,558
    dixiedean said:

    All first preferences now in in NI.
    SF 29 (+1.1)
    DUP 21.3 (-6.7)
    Alliance 13.5 (+4.5)
    UUP 11.2 (-1.7)
    SDLP 9.1 (-2.9)

    So far seats. SF 16. DUP, UUP and Alliance 2 each. SDLP 1. 1 Other (ex-DUP).

    A very clear lead - and overall majority - for parties that back the NI Protocol.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799
    dixiedean said:

    All first preferences now in in NI.
    SF 29 (+1.1)
    DUP 21.3 (-6.7)
    Alliance 13.5 (+4.5)
    UUP 11.2 (-1.7)
    SDLP 9.1 (-2.9)

    So far seats. SF 16. DUP, UUP and Alliance 2 each. SDLP 1. 1 Other (ex-DUP).

    So Unionist parties combined on 40.1% once you include the 7.6% for TUV and Nationalist parties combined on 38.1%.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2022/northern-ireland/results

    Once preferences are included the DUP and UUP and Alliance will pick up a lot more seats
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 7,967
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both did OK.

    Asquith was the dominant lawyer of his day had a good long run at the top where his government made many changes, even if I personally don't rate him among our PMs.
    Methinks that NEITHER Thatcher or Atlee was a "top rank" lawyer.

    As for Asquith, is that true? I do NOT mean lawyering on the front benches, I mean in the courts.
    Asquith refused the leadership of the Liberal party twice before his eventual elevation in 1908 because he was making an enormous legal income and didn't want to give it up by becoming Leader of the Opposition. Although as the post was unpaid and he was not a rich man, that was understandable.
    Touche! Though would argue that HHA's electoral (1910 x 2) AND parliamentary performance (esp. after outbreak of WW1) showed a marked decline from the heights achieved under leadership of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, whom he & his coterie tried to depose . . . except that HC-B outfoxed 'em.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    dixiedean said:

    All first preferences now in in NI.
    SF 29 (+1.1)
    DUP 21.3 (-6.7)
    Alliance 13.5 (+4.5)
    UUP 11.2 (-1.7)
    SDLP 9.1 (-2.9)

    So far seats. SF 16. DUP, UUP and Alliance 2 each. SDLP 1. 1 Other (ex-DUP).

    A very clear lead - and overall majority - for parties that back the NI Protocol.

    But not cross-community support.
  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 321
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    'The next electrical hurdles will be the outstanding Tory defences in the Westminster by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton'

    We're expecting some shocks there...

    Especially on current trend.
    It would be ample repayment for the Tories' hubris.
    You may meet some resistance, but it won't be terminal
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,267
    You can get nearly 1.5 on Johnson still being leader for the Tory Party Conf this year. Great value imo.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,049

    Foxy said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Clement Attlee, Tony Blair...
    I do NOT mean lawyering in Parliament, I mean in the courts.
    Starmer was never a rock star level advocate anyway. DPP is administration, not actually doing it
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both did OK.

    Asquith was the dominant lawyer of his day had a good long run at the top where his government made many changes, even if I personally don't rate him among our PMs.
    Methinks that NEITHER Thatcher or Atlee was a "top rank" lawyer.

    As for Asquith, is that true? I do NOT mean lawyering on the front benches, I mean in the courts.
    Asquith refused the leadership of the Liberal party twice before his eventual elevation in 1908 because he was making an enormous legal income and didn't want to give it up by becoming Leader of the Opposition. Although as the post was unpaid and he was not a rich man, that was understandable.
    Touche! Though would argue that HHA's electoral (1910 x 2) AND parliamentary performance (esp. after outbreak of WW1) showed a marked decline from the heights achieved under leadership of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, whom he & his coterie tried to depose . . . except that HC-B outfoxed 'em.
    Well, like I say I'm not personally a fan, but he was definitely a top flight lawyer and love him or loathe him, his political career was more consequential than most - including eight and a half years as PM.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,498
    The Councillor change reported on the Guardian seems different to what people are saying here. Is it the Guardian being the Guardian, or am I just an idiot (don't answer that last part)?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2022/may/05/elections-2022-results-live-local-council-england-scotland-wales
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    'The next electrical hurdles will be the outstanding Tory defences in the Westminster by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton'

    We're expecting some shocks there...

    Especially on current trend.
    It would be ample repayment for the Tories' hubris.
    The crows coming ohm.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,304
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    You’re too optimistic for the Tories. The economy is going dahn the khazi whatever happens. 10% inflation is going to HURT

    it won’t be “because Brexit” or “because Boris” it will be because Covid, China, Ukraine, Covid, but voters will still blame the government, as they always do. Labour now look tolerably respectable, but also seriously boring.

    I reckon something like Con 280, Labour 260 is the most likely result, with Starmer, probably, forming a fragile Coalition government. Starmer will refuse a Scottish indyref so it will be even more frail than most coalitions. It will probably collapse within the year and Starmer will go back to the country

    A couple of things might change this (black swans aside). 1. Somehow voters forgive Boris - but how and why? I reckon Boris has done a sterling job in Ukraine, above and beyond what I expected, and that is the biggest foreign policy crisis of recent times, yet he has got zero credit. I’m not sure what else he could do to regain trust and favour. He feels busted.

    Or the Tories could get a new leader. But none of the candidates seem that inspiring on a national level - tho personally I’d be happy with Truss or Mordaunt. Many people would not.

    I simply don’t see where the Tory revival comes from
    Slight disagree on the Ukraine thing. I give Boris a LOT of credit for responding to Ukraine, but I also think we missed an opportunity to do more before things got really hot.
    Much like Covid. Should have done a bit more when we knew something was coming, but when they got into gear they did some very good things.

    I like my governments with a little more foresight, but it could have been far worse. A- on Ukraine. I don't think I'm alone in that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799

    ydoethur said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both did OK.

    Asquith was the dominant lawyer of his day had a good long run at the top where his government made many changes, even if I personally don't rate him among our PMs.
    Methinks that NEITHER Thatcher or Atlee was a "top rank" lawyer.

    As for Asquith, is that true? I do NOT mean lawyering on the front benches, I mean in the courts.
    Michael Howard was a QC before he became an MP and Home Secretary, Shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition too
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    CatMan said:

    The Councillor change reported on the Guardian seems different to what people are saying here. Is it the Guardian being the Guardian, or am I just an idiot (don't answer that last part)?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2022/may/05/elections-2022-results-live-local-council-england-scotland-wales

    Maybe 2017 versus last week? (ie allowing or not for by elections, defections etc.?) The National is also showing a dfiferent table from the PA.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,698
    CatMan said:

    The Councillor change reported on the Guardian seems different to what people are saying here. Is it the Guardian being the Guardian, or am I just an idiot (don't answer that last part)?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2022/may/05/elections-2022-results-live-local-council-england-scotland-wales

    That is.
    Labour +224 is more than double what others are saying.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,360
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    You’re too optimistic for the Tories. The economy is going dahn the khazi whatever happens. 10% inflation is going to HURT

    it won’t be “because Brexit” or “because Boris” it will be because Covid, China, Ukraine, Covid, but voters will still blame the government, as they always do. Labour now look tolerably respectable, but also seriously boring.

    I reckon something like Con 280, Labour 260 is the most likely result, with Starmer, probably, forming a fragile Coalition government. Starmer will refuse a Scottish indyref so it will be even more frail than most coalitions. It will probably collapse within the year and Starmer will go back to the country

    A couple of things might change this (black swans aside). 1. Somehow voters forgive Boris - but how and why? I reckon Boris has done a sterling job in Ukraine, above and beyond what I expected, and that is the biggest foreign policy crisis of recent times, yet he has got zero credit. I’m not sure what else he could do to regain trust and favour. He feels busted.

    Or the Tories could get a new leader. But none of the candidates seem that inspiring on a national level - tho personally I’d be happy with Truss or Mordaunt. Many people would not.

    I simply don’t see where the Tory revival comes from
    Labour need to present a credible alternative for the Tories to fall that far. I don't see a plan or credible policies coming from them either. They keep talking about this windfall tax on North Sea oil profits but it raises little money and most people just see it as moralising.

    As long as Labour give the Tories an easy ride on actually having an alternative offering for government the Tories will do a lot better than expected. Throw in a very hostile campaign and targeting to make people think Starmer wants to force boys to wear dresses it will be one of those "omg we didn't see this late swing coming" elections.
    As in 1992-style. Yes we are in agreement that is highly possible. I have it as my second most likely outcome. Boris scrapes home on Culture War issues, plus he is a good campaigner. And Starmer is possibly an under-performer under hostile fire - he’s not used to it, he’s spent his whole life as a prosecutor, he clearly doesn’t like being questioned rather than questioning. He might fall apart in a campaign

    On the other hand, Labour might become the party of the Union in Scotland = 10-20 seats, they will also pick up seats in Wales and the North, and the Lib Dems will seize Tory seats in the south, and suddenly the Tory majority is gone. Vanished
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,989

    Is it over now? Can I go to bed?

    The by elections haven't happened yet !!!!!!!
    LOL. 🤭

    🥱 I’m going to turn in. Bye.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748
    Is it RIP for UKIP?

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 7,967
    edited May 6
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both did OK.

    Asquith was the dominant lawyer of his day had a good long run at the top where his government made many changes, even if I personally don't rate him among our PMs.
    Methinks that NEITHER Thatcher or Atlee was a "top rank" lawyer.

    As for Asquith, is that true? I do NOT mean lawyering on the front benches, I mean in the courts.
    Asquith refused the leadership of the Liberal party twice before his eventual elevation in 1908 because he was making an enormous legal income and didn't want to give it up by becoming Leader of the Opposition. Although as the post was unpaid and he was not a rich man, that was understandable.
    Touche! Though would argue that HHA's electoral (1910 x 2) AND parliamentary performance (esp. after outbreak of WW1) showed a marked decline from the heights achieved under leadership of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, whom he & his coterie tried to depose . . . except that HC-B outfoxed 'em.
    Well, like I say I'm not personally a fan, but he was definitely a top flight lawyer and love him or loathe him, his political career was more consequential than most - including eight and a half years as PM.
    Asquith was over-rated as a political leader, and his antics after he was heaved over the side by LLoyd George were a major contributing factor to the demise of the Liberal Party. (Along with DLLG of course.)

    In part because he was determined to argue his brief even after the jury - the Great British Public - had rendered their opinion.

    ADDENDUM - My point still stands: truly great lawyers make (at best) mediocre politicos. Their downs tending to exceed their ups in the political areana.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 18,903
    edited May 6
    CatMan said:

    The Councillor change reported on the Guardian seems different to what people are saying here. Is it the Guardian being the Guardian, or am I just an idiot (don't answer that last part)?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2022/may/05/elections-2022-results-live-local-council-england-scotland-wales

    I think it's correct, and a very substantial Labour win. It's being occluded here by lots of Tory distraction and misleading - MaxzPB gets the prize for saying there are "no Labour gains" (correct figure: +224 at the time of writing, and 9 new councils).

    Pity about Lutfur Rahman, though!

    Edit: Note that the Daily Mail said a loss of 350 of more Tory seats would be a "disaster" (score so far: -344), and a Labour gain over 200 would be a "triumph".
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,304

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both did OK.

    Asquith was the dominant lawyer of his day had a good long run at the top where his government made many changes, even if I personally don't rate him among our PMs.
    Methinks that NEITHER Thatcher or Atlee was a "top rank" lawyer.

    As for Asquith, is that true? I do NOT mean lawyering on the front benches, I mean in the courts.
    Asquith refused the leadership of the Liberal party twice before his eventual elevation in 1908 because he was making an enormous legal income and didn't want to give it up by becoming Leader of the Opposition. Although as the post was unpaid and he was not a rich man, that was understandable.
    Touche! Though would argue that HHA's electoral (1910 x 2) AND parliamentary performance (esp. after outbreak of WW1) showed a marked decline from the heights achieved under leadership of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, whom he & his coterie tried to depose . . . except that HC-B outfoxed 'em.
    Well, like I say I'm not personally a fan, but he was definitely a top flight lawyer and love him or loathe him, his political career was more consequential than most - including eight and a half years as PM.
    Asquith was over-rated as a political leader, and his antics after he was heaved over the side by LLoyd George were a major contributing factor to the demise of the Liberal Party. (Along with DLLG of course.)

    In part because he was determined to argue his brief even after the jury - the Great British Public - had rendered their opinion.
    That double-capital-L is making me twitchy. Lloyd, surely?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,360
    edited May 6
    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Clement Attlee, Tony Blair...
    I do NOT mean lawyering in Parliament, I mean in the courts.
    Starmer was never a rock star level advocate anyway. DPP is administration, not actually doing it
    Is that true?

    I had a (delightful) lunch with a retired Old Bailey judge last summer in his sunny garden in Burnham on Crouch. Very nice chap, quite a random event

    Anyway he said that Starmer was one of the best prosecutors he had seen in his career, if not THE best
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 7,967

    Is it RIP for UKIP?

    From kipper to floater?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,650
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    You’re too optimistic for the Tories. The economy is going dahn the khazi whatever happens. 10% inflation is going to HURT

    it won’t be “because Brexit” or “because Boris” it will be because Covid, China, Ukraine, Covid, but voters will still blame the government, as they always do. Labour now look tolerably respectable, but also seriously boring.

    I reckon something like Con 280, Labour 260 is the most likely result, with Starmer, probably, forming a fragile Coalition government. Starmer will refuse a Scottish indyref so it will be even more frail than most coalitions. It will probably collapse within the year and Starmer will go back to the country

    A couple of things might change this (black swans aside). 1. Somehow voters forgive Boris - but how and why? I reckon Boris has done a sterling job in Ukraine, above and beyond what I expected, and that is the biggest foreign policy crisis of recent times, yet he has got zero credit. I’m not sure what else he could do to regain trust and favour. He feels busted.

    Or the Tories could get a new leader. But none of the candidates seem that inspiring on a national level - tho personally I’d be happy with Truss or Mordaunt. Many people would not.

    I simply don’t see where the Tory revival comes from
    Labour need to present a credible alternative for the Tories to fall that far. I don't see a plan or credible policies coming from them either. They keep talking about this windfall tax on North Sea oil profits but it raises little money and most people just see it as moralising.

    As long as Labour give the Tories an easy ride on actually having an alternative offering for government the Tories will do a lot better than expected. Throw in a very hostile campaign and targeting to make people think Starmer wants to force boys to wear dresses it will be one of those "omg we didn't see this late swing coming" elections.
    As in 1992-style. Yes we are in agreement that is highly possible. I have it as my second most likely outcome. Boris scrapes home on Culture War issues, plus he is a good campaigner. And Starmer is possibly an under-performer under hostile fire - he’s not used to it, he’s spent his whole life as a prosecutor, he clearly doesn’t like being questioned rather than questioning. He might fall apart in a campaign

    On the other hand, Labour might become the party of the Union in Scotland = 10-20 seats, they will also pick up seats in Wales and the North, and the Lib Dems will seize Tory seats in the south, and suddenly the Tory majority is gone. Vanished
    For sure, but I think there's a solid number of Tories who simply stayed home today but could be persuaded to come out and vote in a GE. Even for Boris. That's the gamble I'm going to make.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799

    Is it RIP for UKIP?

    They have largely transferred to RefUK who have picked up 2 council seats while UKIP lost all 3 of theirs
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2022/england/results
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,304
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    You’re too optimistic for the Tories. The economy is going dahn the khazi whatever happens. 10% inflation is going to HURT

    it won’t be “because Brexit” or “because Boris” it will be because Covid, China, Ukraine, Covid, but voters will still blame the government, as they always do. Labour now look tolerably respectable, but also seriously boring.

    I reckon something like Con 280, Labour 260 is the most likely result, with Starmer, probably, forming a fragile Coalition government. Starmer will refuse a Scottish indyref so it will be even more frail than most coalitions. It will probably collapse within the year and Starmer will go back to the country

    A couple of things might change this (black swans aside). 1. Somehow voters forgive Boris - but how and why? I reckon Boris has done a sterling job in Ukraine, above and beyond what I expected, and that is the biggest foreign policy crisis of recent times, yet he has got zero credit. I’m not sure what else he could do to regain trust and favour. He feels busted.

    Or the Tories could get a new leader. But none of the candidates seem that inspiring on a national level - tho personally I’d be happy with Truss or Mordaunt. Many people would not.

    I simply don’t see where the Tory revival comes from
    Labour need to present a credible alternative for the Tories to fall that far. I don't see a plan or credible policies coming from them either. They keep talking about this windfall tax on North Sea oil profits but it raises little money and most people just see it as moralising.

    As long as Labour give the Tories an easy ride on actually having an alternative offering for government the Tories will do a lot better than expected. Throw in a very hostile campaign and targeting to make people think Starmer wants to force boys to wear dresses it will be one of those "omg we didn't see this late swing coming" elections.
    As in 1992-style. Yes we are in agreement that is highly possible. I have it as my second most likely outcome. Boris scrapes home on Culture War issues, plus he is a good campaigner. And Starmer is possibly an under-performer under hostile fire - he’s not used to it, he’s spent his whole life as a prosecutor, he clearly doesn’t like being questioned rather than questioning. He might fall apart in a campaign

    On the other hand, Labour might become the party of the Union in Scotland = 10-20 seats, they will also pick up seats in Wales and the North, and the Lib Dems will seize Tory seats in the south, and suddenly the Tory majority is gone. Vanished
    For sure, but I think there's a solid number of Tories who simply stayed home today but could be persuaded to come out and vote in a GE. Even for Boris. That's the gamble I'm going to make.
    Why did they stay at home today then?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,558

    dixiedean said:

    All first preferences now in in NI.
    SF 29 (+1.1)
    DUP 21.3 (-6.7)
    Alliance 13.5 (+4.5)
    UUP 11.2 (-1.7)
    SDLP 9.1 (-2.9)

    So far seats. SF 16. DUP, UUP and Alliance 2 each. SDLP 1. 1 Other (ex-DUP).

    A very clear lead - and overall majority - for parties that back the NI Protocol.

    But not cross-community support.

    The Alliance is cross-community.

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 7,967
    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee both did OK.

    Asquith was the dominant lawyer of his day had a good long run at the top where his government made many changes, even if I personally don't rate him among our PMs.
    Methinks that NEITHER Thatcher or Atlee was a "top rank" lawyer.

    As for Asquith, is that true? I do NOT mean lawyering on the front benches, I mean in the courts.
    Asquith refused the leadership of the Liberal party twice before his eventual elevation in 1908 because he was making an enormous legal income and didn't want to give it up by becoming Leader of the Opposition. Although as the post was unpaid and he was not a rich man, that was understandable.
    Touche! Though would argue that HHA's electoral (1910 x 2) AND parliamentary performance (esp. after outbreak of WW1) showed a marked decline from the heights achieved under leadership of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, whom he & his coterie tried to depose . . . except that HC-B outfoxed 'em.
    Well, like I say I'm not personally a fan, but he was definitely a top flight lawyer and love him or loathe him, his political career was more consequential than most - including eight and a half years as PM.
    Asquith was over-rated as a political leader, and his antics after he was heaved over the side by LLoyd George were a major contributing factor to the demise of the Liberal Party. (Along with DLLG of course.)

    In part because he was determined to argue his brief even after the jury - the Great British Public - had rendered their opinion.
    That double-capital-L is making me twitchy. Lloyd, surely?
    I stand corrected. The "Lloyd" was pretty fake anyway IIRC?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209
    Carnyx said:

    CatMan said:

    The Councillor change reported on the Guardian seems different to what people are saying here. Is it the Guardian being the Guardian, or am I just an idiot (don't answer that last part)?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2022/may/05/elections-2022-results-live-local-council-england-scotland-wales

    Maybe 2017 versus last week? (ie allowing or not for by elections, defections etc.?) The National is also showing a dfiferent table from the PA.
    Was almost tempted to put together another spreadsheet, like for the 2017 elections. I had both numbers reported. :D
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,650
    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The hot takes from this morning have aged poorly.

    This is a disaster for the Tories.

    But Labour are making no gains. Once again, you're not seeing the bigger story that the opposition is not on course to win. Government loses midterm is a fairly expected result and governments come back from it. Opposition loses midterm is what we expect from parties that aren't going to win.

    We're on course for a 1992 style result with the Tories getting a working majority under a busted flush leader and completely unruly and undisciplined backbenchers worried about losing their majorities in 4 or 5 years.

    The Tories are not going to get 43% of the vote in 2024.

    1992 style result, not actually 1992. David Cameron got a similar working majority with just 37% on less favourable boundaries.
    1992 had a moderately strong Lib Lab understanding of who would fight the Tories where, which the voters tacitly understood. Hence Major's 42% giving a thin majority.

    2015 was peak Lib on Lab war action.
    Whatever the opposite of tactical voting is. Hence Cameron winning on a much lower percentage.

    What do you really think 2024 will be like?

    Starmer is not a winner, sure. But unless the Conservatives properly relaunch, he may not need to be.
    If I was to put specific number ranges I'd guess at:

    Con - 335-340
    Lab - 225-230
    LD - 20-25
    SNP - 40-45

    That's with Boris as leader. If the Tories change leadership then I think the Tories could do a lot better, simply because there's a lot of people who voted Tory in 2019 and 2017 but aren't in that Tory column right now but also haven't been won over by Labour. That column of voters has the potential to deliver another Tory landslide that the blue tick wankers on Twitter won't see coming just like 2015.
    You’re too optimistic for the Tories. The economy is going dahn the khazi whatever happens. 10% inflation is going to HURT

    it won’t be “because Brexit” or “because Boris” it will be because Covid, China, Ukraine, Covid, but voters will still blame the government, as they always do. Labour now look tolerably respectable, but also seriously boring.

    I reckon something like Con 280, Labour 260 is the most likely result, with Starmer, probably, forming a fragile Coalition government. Starmer will refuse a Scottish indyref so it will be even more frail than most coalitions. It will probably collapse within the year and Starmer will go back to the country

    A couple of things might change this (black swans aside). 1. Somehow voters forgive Boris - but how and why? I reckon Boris has done a sterling job in Ukraine, above and beyond what I expected, and that is the biggest foreign policy crisis of recent times, yet he has got zero credit. I’m not sure what else he could do to regain trust and favour. He feels busted.

    Or the Tories could get a new leader. But none of the candidates seem that inspiring on a national level - tho personally I’d be happy with Truss or Mordaunt. Many people would not.

    I simply don’t see where the Tory revival comes from
    Labour need to present a credible alternative for the Tories to fall that far. I don't see a plan or credible policies coming from them either. They keep talking about this windfall tax on North Sea oil profits but it raises little money and most people just see it as moralising.

    As long as Labour give the Tories an easy ride on actually having an alternative offering for government the Tories will do a lot better than expected. Throw in a very hostile campaign and targeting to make people think Starmer wants to force boys to wear dresses it will be one of those "omg we didn't see this late swing coming" elections.
    As in 1992-style. Yes we are in agreement that is highly possible. I have it as my second most likely outcome. Boris scrapes home on Culture War issues, plus he is a good campaigner. And Starmer is possibly an under-performer under hostile fire - he’s not used to it, he’s spent his whole life as a prosecutor, he clearly doesn’t like being questioned rather than questioning. He might fall apart in a campaign

    On the other hand, Labour might become the party of the Union in Scotland = 10-20 seats, they will also pick up seats in Wales and the North, and the Lib Dems will seize Tory seats in the south, and suddenly the Tory majority is gone. Vanished
    For sure, but I think there's a solid number of Tories who simply stayed home today but could be persuaded to come out and vote in a GE. Even for Boris. That's the gamble I'm going to make.
    Why did they stay at home today then?
    Because it's a mid term and voters are, rightly, angry with the government.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,165
    Someone posted recently a chart from iirc the Daily Mail showing different results ranges for the various parties. The Conservatives have lost well over 300 councillors which was a very bad result for the governing party, and its MPs are unlikely to be reassured by Labour not doing as well as hoped, because there are many southern seats, including the Prime Minister's own, under threat from the LibDems, who, along with the Greens, have done far better than expected.

    So I am not at all sure Boris is safe.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 40,636
    Michelle O'Neill looks OK :blush:
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,575
    Foxy said:

    Electrical hurdles sound shocking.

    Whover invented that should be charged.
    Do you get a buzz from posting stuff like that?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658

    Foxy said:

    Electrical hurdles sound shocking.

    Whover invented that should be charged.
    Do you get a buzz from posting stuff like that?
    Surely you'd just Volt the hurdles.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,579
    ydoethur said:

    'The next electrical hurdles will be the outstanding Tory defences in the Westminster by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton'

    We're expecting some shocks there...

    Shocks. Are you expecting Tory holds?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,697
    GIN1138 said:

    Taz said:

    Mediocre for labour, A mixed bag for the Tories but pretty bad in their heartlands, a good result for the Lib Dems. The greens gained a handful.

    Overall the winners last night are the Lib Dems.

    Fair summary. It does look as though the Lib-Dems have been forgiven for the coalition and are now back in the game.

    Of course the Lib-Dem success will melt away like June snow in the general election...
    I think the LDs are on course to get roughly the same number of MPs they got in 1992 - roughly 20.

    The difference is that they probably won't get any west country seats, except possibly St Ives. And their gains will be in the more leafy, prosperous and Remainiac parts of the South East.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 51,464
    It is a strange feeling but I am actually very pleased with the outcomes of today, as it really has shown that 2019 Brexit v Corbyn election is well and truly over and Boris has effectively been shown the red card in Scotland, Wales, London and the south

    I did not vote conservative this time and strangely feel a sense of freedom politically, as I am far removed from the right of the conservative party, want Brexit to work, and seek the safeguarding of the union to which todays results in Scotland and Wales are very encouraging

    If the conservative party have any sense they will replace Boris and open a new book, otherwise I think the electorate will give Boris and the conservatives a red card at the next election, and that is usually a three match/election ban !!!!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,575

    Michelle O'Neill looks OK :blush:

    So she's taken off the balaclava?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 5,661

    Reposting from previous thread ...

    I guess the major source of discrepancy in interpretation of the results is whether they are traditional "mid-term" ones. If they are, then those who are shrugging them off for the Tories definitely have a point. But for me, so much has changed since 2015 that talking about what is happening now in terms of what happened before is a mistake: the Scottish independence referendum, Brexit, Corbyn, covid and a cost of living squeeze that's only just begun have altered the landscape to a huge extent. Politics will be seen very much in terms of pre- and post-2015 in years to come, I reckon. Obviously, I could be totally wrong. It has been known ;-)

    If this were a conventional mid term, the economic pain would have happened by now, things would have stopped getting worse, and bright sunlit uplands would at least be in view.

    Therefore- mid term has barely started yet, and it's not obvious that the government can get out of mid term before the clock runs out on them.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 18,903
    JACK_W said:

    @JohnO . Hard luck old chap. A tough loss to take and through no failing of your esteemed self. The blame lies squarely with the lying, incompetent buffoon that still squats his fat arse in 10 Downing Street.

    Meanwhile .. the peace and harmony at Chez JackW has been shattered by the hordes of the dreaded Yellow Peril swamping St Albans City and District taking 47 of the 56 seats with 3 seats to come. At least Fine Pie Production will not fail through shortages !! .. :naughty:

    Didn't see JohnO's post but sympathies - never an easy moment. Do you plan a comeback or will you call it a day, John?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,575
    461 Tory losses. So far.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,582
    Foxy said:

    Electrical hurdles sound shocking.

    Whover invented that should be charged.
    Are you positive?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,443
    edited May 6
    JohnO's 20 vote loss wasn't the closest in Elmbridge. The LDs won Cobham & Downside over the Tories by 12 votes.

    http://mygov.elmbridge.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=220&RPID=525122734

    Also the Tories held Molesey East by 5 votes over the LDs.

    http://mygov.elmbridge.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=223&RPID=525122734
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,286
    edited May 6
    Wes Streeting is very good indeed! A future leader perhaps?

    I'm beginning to think the inquiry into drinks in Durham might turn out to be surprisingly good for Starmer. The contrast with Johnson is stark. The Tories might have made a serious error of judgement. I've never seen anyone who looks less likely to have been partying during lockdown than Starmer
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 284
    Roger said:

    Wes Streeting is very good indeed! A future leader perhaps?

    I'm beginning to think the inquiry into drinks in Durham might turn out to be surprisingly good for Starmer. The contrast with Johnson is stark. The Tories might have made a serious error of judgement. I've never seen anyone who looks less likely to have been partying during lockdown or at anytime.

    A bit of the Blair about him, in a good way, I think.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209

    Reposting from previous thread ...

    I guess the major source of discrepancy in interpretation of the results is whether they are traditional "mid-term" ones. If they are, then those who are shrugging them off for the Tories definitely have a point. But for me, so much has changed since 2015 that talking about what is happening now in terms of what happened before is a mistake: the Scottish independence referendum, Brexit, Corbyn, covid and a cost of living squeeze that's only just begun have altered the landscape to a huge extent. Politics will be seen very much in terms of pre- and post-2015 in years to come, I reckon. Obviously, I could be totally wrong. It has been known ;-)

    If this were a conventional mid term, the economic pain would have happened by now, things would have stopped getting worse, and bright sunlit uplands would at least be in view.

    Therefore- mid term has barely started yet, and it's not obvious that the government can get out of mid term before the clock runs out on them.
    Are economic cycles always so perfectly synchronised with electoral ones?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,582
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Clement Attlee, Tony Blair...
    I do NOT mean lawyering in Parliament, I mean in the courts.
    Starmer was never a rock star level advocate anyway. DPP is administration, not actually doing it
    Is that true?

    I had a (delightful) lunch with a retired Old Bailey judge last summer in his sunny garden in Burnham on Crouch. Very nice chap, quite a random event

    Anyway he said that Starmer was one of the best prosecutors he had seen in his career, if not THE best
    He was never a prosecutor
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 4,263

    461 Tory losses. So far.

    Tis but a scratch, apparently.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 7,967

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Clement Attlee, Tony Blair...
    I do NOT mean lawyering in Parliament, I mean in the courts.
    Starmer was never a rock star level advocate anyway. DPP is administration, not actually doing it
    Is that true?

    I had a (delightful) lunch with a retired Old Bailey judge last summer in his sunny garden in Burnham on Crouch. Very nice chap, quite a random event

    Anyway he said that Starmer was one of the best prosecutors he had seen in his career, if not THE best
    He was never a prosecutor
    So the judge is wrong?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 40,636
    Roger said:

    Wes Streeting is very good indeed! A future leader perhaps?

    I'm beginning to think the inquiry into drinks in Durham might turn out to be surprisingly good for Starmer. The contrast with Johnson is stark. The Tories might have made a serious error of judgement. I've never seen anyone who looks less likely to have been partying during lockdown than Starmer

    Wes - the pride of Ilford North :)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 40,636

    461 Tory losses. So far.

    Just a flesh wound!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748

    461 Tory losses. So far.

    Johnson is safe then.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 5,661
    RobD said:

    Reposting from previous thread ...

    I guess the major source of discrepancy in interpretation of the results is whether they are traditional "mid-term" ones. If they are, then those who are shrugging them off for the Tories definitely have a point. But for me, so much has changed since 2015 that talking about what is happening now in terms of what happened before is a mistake: the Scottish independence referendum, Brexit, Corbyn, covid and a cost of living squeeze that's only just begun have altered the landscape to a huge extent. Politics will be seen very much in terms of pre- and post-2015 in years to come, I reckon. Obviously, I could be totally wrong. It has been known ;-)

    If this were a conventional mid term, the economic pain would have happened by now, things would have stopped getting worse, and bright sunlit uplands would at least be in view.

    Therefore- mid term has barely started yet, and it's not obvious that the government can get out of mid term before the clock runs out on them.
    Are economic cycles always so perfectly synchronised with electoral ones?
    Cameron: tick
    Blair-Brown: cross
    Blair: tick
    Major: tick, but it didn't help
    Thatcher: tick

    If a government is in charge of events and on track to win, then to a large extent yes, I reckon.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,952
    JACK_W said:

    @JohnO . Hard luck old chap. A tough loss to take and through no failing of your esteemed self. The blame lies squarely with the lying, incompetent buffoon that still squats his fat arse in 10 Downing Street.

    Meanwhile .. the peace and harmony at Chez JackW has been shattered by the hordes of the dreaded Yellow Peril swamping St Albans City and District taking 47 of the 56 seats with 3 seats to come. At least Fine Pie Production will not fail through shortages !! .. :naughty:

    If only you and Andrea hadn’t retired as my joint campaign managers. Downhill all the way since then.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,223

    JACK_W said:

    @JohnO . Hard luck old chap. A tough loss to take and through no failing of your esteemed self. The blame lies squarely with the lying, incompetent buffoon that still squats his fat arse in 10 Downing Street.

    Meanwhile .. the peace and harmony at Chez JackW has been shattered by the hordes of the dreaded Yellow Peril swamping St Albans City and District taking 47 of the 56 seats with 3 seats to come. At least Fine Pie Production will not fail through shortages !! .. :naughty:

    Didn't see JohnO's post but sympathies - never an easy moment. Do you plan a comeback or will you call it a day, John?
    From what John posted a few weeks ago he is a County Councillor and this was a new venture into the Borough elections.
  • NickyBreakspearNickyBreakspear Posts: 218
    JACK_W said:

    @JohnO . Hard luck old chap. A tough loss to take and through no failing of your esteemed self. The blame lies squarely with the lying, incompetent buffoon that still squats his fat arse in 10 Downing Street.

    Meanwhile .. the peace and harmony at Chez JackW has been shattered by the hordes of the dreaded Yellow Peril swamping St Albans City and District taking 47 of the 56 seats with 3 seats to come. At least Fine Pie Production will not fail through shortages !! .. :naughty:

    With all seats declared Conservatives have 4 seats - 3 in Harpenden South and 1 in London Colney. Labour is wiped out, with 1 Green in St Peters and 1 Independent in Rebourn. Lib Dems have 50.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,204
    At last we have some clear-headed, sane analysis and prediction of how the war in Ukraine will end ...

    https://twitter.com/EvangelistMDyal/status/1522646548173185025
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,360

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Clement Attlee, Tony Blair...
    I do NOT mean lawyering in Parliament, I mean in the courts.
    Starmer was never a rock star level advocate anyway. DPP is administration, not actually doing it
    Is that true?

    I had a (delightful) lunch with a retired Old Bailey judge last summer in his sunny garden in Burnham on Crouch. Very nice chap, quite a random event

    Anyway he said that Starmer was one of the best prosecutors he had seen in his career, if not THE best
    He was never a prosecutor
    Was he not? Although head of the DPP?

    Then this judge must have said best “lawyer” in general, which is even more impressive. He had no reason to lie to me
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Clement Attlee, Tony Blair...
    I do NOT mean lawyering in Parliament, I mean in the courts.
    Starmer was never a rock star level advocate anyway. DPP is administration, not actually doing it
    Is that true?

    I had a (delightful) lunch with a retired Old Bailey judge last summer in his sunny garden in Burnham on Crouch. Very nice chap, quite a random event

    Anyway he said that Starmer was one of the best prosecutors he had seen in his career, if not THE best
    Unfortunately, that is not his current role.

    Wilson was iirc the youngest and most brilliant Oxford don in 400 years or some such, but he managed to become a man who represented the white hot aspirational future of booming 60s Britain against the old Etonian grouse shoot brigade.

    I just don't see that in Starmer.

  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 496
    The LibDems picked up the final 3 seats (one by 4 votes) in Wheathampstead and Sandridge taking 50 of the 56 seats. Tories down to 4, 1 Green (with LibDem support) and 1 Independent.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 2,743
    After the Starmer news Boris is going nowhere soon. The big question now is whether he goes before the election or not. Probably depends on 2 factors:

    1. An alternative leader emerging who at least looks like they could credibly fight an election.

    2. Boris deciding if he wants to fight it. Probably tied up with how well he’s doing in the polls in early-mid 2023.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    After the Starmer news Boris is going nowhere soon. The big question now is whether he goes before the election or not. Probably depends on 2 factors:

    1. An alternative leader emerging who at least looks like they could credibly fight an election.

    2. Boris deciding if he wants to fight it. Probably tied up with how well he’s doing in the polls in early-mid 2023.

    I strongly expect Boris to retire next year.

    He won't want to risk being the most famous "decapitation" of all time.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,360
    Boris should be in deep trouble now. The one thing maybe saving him is the lack of a clear alternative. His team nobbled Sunak at just the right time
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748

    Jonn Elledge
    @JonnElledge
    Would it be the worst thing if Starmer did have to resign? he's not connected with the voters, and there must be at least some possibility the scalp will mean the forever war calms down a bit
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,697

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Re: Starmer, am starting to think that his biggest problem as a political party leader, is the fact that he is first and foremost a top-flight lawyer?

    A type that can often rise high in politics, but who rarely make the top rank. For example, Lord Birkenhead and Sir Stafford Cripps.

    They tend to think, what makes sense to lawyers will also make sense to voters. And proceed accordingly . . .

    Clement Attlee, Tony Blair...
    I do NOT mean lawyering in Parliament, I mean in the courts.
    Starmer was never a rock star level advocate anyway. DPP is administration, not actually doing it
    Is that true?

    I had a (delightful) lunch with a retired Old Bailey judge last summer in his sunny garden in Burnham on Crouch. Very nice chap, quite a random event

    Anyway he said that Starmer was one of the best prosecutors he had seen in his career, if not THE best
    He was never a prosecutor
    He was a barrister though, right? So it's far from impossible that it was Starmer for the Prosecution at some point.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 2,743
    edited May 6


    Jonn Elledge
    @JonnElledge
    Would it be the worst thing if Starmer did have to resign? he's not connected with the voters, and there must be at least some possibility the scalp will mean the forever war calms down a bit

    It could go one of two ways.

    Starmer doesn’t frighten the horses. I don’t trust the Labour Party to elect someone sensible. However if he did go and they got it right (coalesced around someone like Reeves or Cooper for instance) then I could see them suddenly surging. If they got it wrong, well, back to 2019 we go.
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 496
    JohnO said:

    JACK_W said:

    @JohnO . Hard luck old chap. A tough loss to take and through no failing of your esteemed self. The blame lies squarely with the lying, incompetent buffoon that still squats his fat arse in 10 Downing Street.

    Meanwhile .. the peace and harmony at Chez JackW has been shattered by the hordes of the dreaded Yellow Peril swamping St Albans City and District taking 47 of the 56 seats with 3 seats to come. At least Fine Pie Production will not fail through shortages !! .. :naughty:

    If only you and Andrea hadn’t retired as my joint campaign managers. Downhill all the way since then.
    Indeed but I had to choose between the rigour of local Surrey politics and the terrible hardship of weeks of wine, women (strictly Mrs JackW :wink: ) and song in the Caribbean. You were a very close second, matching your result .. :smile:
This discussion has been closed.