Howdy, Stranger!

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

YouGov MRP poll has CON losing to LAB all but 3 of 88 marginals – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,162
edited June 2022 in General
imageYouGov MRP poll has CON losing to LAB all but 3 of 88 marginals – politicalbetting.com

With all the focus at Westminster being on whether Johnson will face a confidence vote amongst CON MPs there’s gloomy news for him this morning from YouGov which has its latest MRP survey out. This shows the party losing 85 out of 88 key marginals.

Read the full story here

«13456712

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Get rid now.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    IshmaelZ said:

    Get rid now.

    Yes, a spell in opposition for them would probably be in everyone’s interest.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Get rid now.

    Yes, a spell in opposition for them would probably be in everyone’s interest.
    I wonder if they have learned the lessons of their last spell in opposition?

    I'm guessing "no".
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Get rid now.

    Yes, a spell in opposition for them would probably be in everyone’s interest.
    I wonder if they have learned the lessons of their last spell in opposition?

    I'm guessing "no".
    They started, and then forgot.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    The west needs to give Ukraine the tools to do the job.

    https://twitter.com/meduza_en/status/1530225948037349376
    Sources close to the Kremlin tell Meduza that Russia’s top leadership is considering another assault on Kyiv and expecting to win a war of attrition against Kyiv and its Western allies.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The Uvalde Police had a plan for a school shooting - they simply did not follow it:

    https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1530357140191186944

    Sack the lot.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070

    The Uvalde Police had a plan for a school shooting - they simply did not follow it:

    https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1530357140191186944

    Sack the lot.

    https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1530238057454047232
    Student calls to 911:
    12:03—whispered she's in room 112
    12:10—said multiple dead
    12:13—called again
    12:16—says 8-9 students alive
    12:19—student calls from room 111
    12:21—3 shots heard on call
    12:36—another call
    12:43—asks for police
    12:47—asks for police


    https://twitter.com/pitgpitw1/status/1530239595459145728
    "As horrible as what happened, it could have been worse. The reason it was not worse is because law enforcement officials did what they do . . . because of their quick response . . . they were able to save lives.”

    @GregAbbott_TX
    , May 25, 2022


    https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1530255125020819456
    Cornyn (R-TX) on Senate floor on his visit to Uvalde Wednesday:"During the briefing from law enforcement, 2 of the Uvalde police officers who responded to the shooting shared their harrowing experiences with us,& in the face of such unthinkable evil,their courage was unwavering."
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    In a sane polity, Abbott would be booted about of the governor’s house at the next election.

    Confronted with mass shootings, Texas Republicans have repeatedly loosened gun laws
    https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/24/texas-gun-laws-uvalde-mass-shootings/

    This time, Gov. Greg Abbott has few suggestions on how the state might prevent future mass shootings
    https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/25/uvalde-texas-shooting-greg-abbott-response/
    After previous mass killings during his more than seven years in office, Abbott has pledged that lawmakers and his administration would search for solutions. He made no substantive suggestions Wednesday.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,958
    Just heard a clip of Trump reading out the names of the Uvalde victims at the NRA annual convention in Texas, a single toll of a bell between each name. I’m ashamed to say I’d forgotten the crass cheesiness of which he’s capable.

    It’s just a matter of time before these people are demanding that school kids be armed.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839
    On topic:

    1. The YouGov MRP substantially underestimated the scale of the Conservative victory in 2019.
    2. There could be 2.5 years plus until the next election.
    3. More fundamentally, the predictive value of polling held even quite close to an election can be very poor indeed. How quickly we have forgotten 2017.

    For all these reasons I would be inclined not to pay much attention to opinion polls full stop. They only become relevant if and when they get consistently bad enough to set off widespread panic within the Tory party about a heavy loss of seats, and even then they might not change anything.

    The Conservatives are listless, rudderless, dithering and weak - and if a sense of fatalism about the inevitability of defeat sets in amongst them (such that MPs in threatened marginals throw in the towel and start to research different career opportunities, and the rest of the party starts to go on about how a period in opposition might actually be good for it,) then they might grow so apathetic that they simply lack the energy to give Johnson the heave-ho. It might ultimately be viewed as less trouble to let the voters of Uxbridge and South Ruislip do their dirty work for them.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited May 2022
    Fascinating polling from YouGov. This MRP work has been brilliantly accurate recently.

    I would love to see similar work in the Blue Wall which I believe to be turning Yellow across parts of southern Britain. Chunks of west London and Surrey are going to fall to the LibDems.

    I mentioned a while back that throwing red meat to the dogs was a foolhardy approach. It didn't work for Major with his 'Back to Basics' and it didn't work for William Hague. The Conservatives now risk losing vast swathes of BOTH their new found (and fickle) support in the north AND their traditional voters down south.

    I expect our dear resident cheerleader, HYUFD, will find something to latch onto but for most Conservatives this should be chilling.

    They are heading like the Gadarene swine over the precipice into the sea.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited May 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    Get rid now.

    I'm beginning to relax about it as I feel like we're now in the political equivalent of 1995. The writing is on the wall.

    And as someone posted the other day, I hope the tories DO cling on to the wicked fool in No. 10 because he deserves to receive the public evisceration he will get at the General Election.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839

    Just heard a clip of Trump reading out the names of the Uvalde victims at the NRA annual convention in Texas, a single toll of a bell between each name. I’m ashamed to say I’d forgotten the crass cheesiness of which he’s capable.

    It’s just a matter of time before these people are demanding that school kids be armed.

    The logical endpoint of the Republican migration towards extremism is the creation of a religious fundamentalist society, in which girls and women are chattel slaves kept for breeding and housework, and boys are presented with weapons as soon as they have enough strength in their arms to lift them.

    They went blundering into Afghanistan to try to make it more like America; now they want to turn America into Afghanistan. The circle is complete.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,894

    Just heard a clip of Trump reading out the names of the Uvalde victims at the NRA annual convention in Texas, a single toll of a bell between each name. I’m ashamed to say I’d forgotten the crass cheesiness of which he’s capable.

    It’s just a matter of time before these people are demanding that school kids be armed.

    They have previously suggested (see links earlier in this thread) that teachers be armed.
    https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/25/uvalde-texas-shooting-greg-abbott-response/
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,894
    Nigelb said:

    The Uvalde Police had a plan for a school shooting - they simply did not follow it:

    https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1530357140191186944

    Sack the lot.

    https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1530238057454047232
    Student calls to 911:
    12:03—whispered she's in room 112
    12:10—said multiple dead
    12:13—called again
    12:16—says 8-9 students alive
    12:19—student calls from room 111
    12:21—3 shots heard on call
    12:36—another call
    12:43—asks for police
    12:47—asks for police


    https://twitter.com/pitgpitw1/status/1530239595459145728
    "As horrible as what happened, it could have been worse. The reason it was not worse is because law enforcement officials did what they do . . . because of their quick response . . . they were able to save lives.”

    @GregAbbott_TX
    , May 25, 2022


    https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1530255125020819456
    Cornyn (R-TX) on Senate floor on his visit to Uvalde Wednesday:"During the briefing from law enforcement, 2 of the Uvalde police officers who responded to the shooting shared their harrowing experiences with us,& in the face of such unthinkable evil,their courage was unwavering."
    One imagines the police milling about outside were caught up in groupthink. We should also remember that even in this country, police have concentrated on keeping rescuers out, such as at Manchester's Ariana Grande bombing. In both Texas and Manchester, there were existing plans that were not followed. It might be that in both countries, there should be a national plan that is more easily triggered and that might even include a Cummings-style national control centre, and flying in specially equipped police if time and geography allow. There is also the question of whether social media platforms can algorithmically identify threats in real time: perhaps not in this case but some shootings have been livestreamed.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,958
    Even Tories seem to be on the verge of uttering the ‘F’ word.


  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    pigeon said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Get rid now.

    I'm beginning to relax about it as I feel like we're now in the political equivalent of 1995. The writing is on the wall.

    And as someone posted the other day, I hope the tories DO cling on to the wicked fool in No. 10 because he deserves to receive the public evisceration he will get at the General Election.
    As much as you might wish to see the Conservative Party blown completely out of the water, I would caution anyone against wishing and praying for 1997 redux. The last thing we need is yet another hubristic, out-of-control administration with a stonking Parliamentary majority, blundering from one mistake to the next with a hollowed out and chaotic rump opposition incapable of doing anything to hold it to account.
    .
    Yes, please don't get me wrong. It's the evisceration of the Johnson era I want rather than a thumping Labour majority. I would be exceedingly happy with a Lib-Lab Government.

    However, SKS is not Tony Blair and that may, for the reasons you cite, come to be seen as a good thing.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,215
    edited May 2022
    If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP which of these scenarios would play out?:

    1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP

    or

    2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition

    Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.

    Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,958

    Just heard a clip of Trump reading out the names of the Uvalde victims at the NRA annual convention in Texas, a single toll of a bell between each name. I’m ashamed to say I’d forgotten the crass cheesiness of which he’s capable.

    It’s just a matter of time before these people are demanding that school kids be armed.

    Ffs!

    https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1530322212309200896?s=21&t=8cJ5SXfewxipmtcG9tlICw
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited May 2022
    Stocky said:

    If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP which of these scenarios would play out?:

    1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP

    or

    2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition

    Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.

    Bear in mind that formal coalition implies LD and SNP cabinet ministers.

    Pigeon did rather seem to be wanting to have his cake and eat it: on the one hand telling us to take absolutely no notice of any opinion polling whilst on the other projecting his likely scenario after the election, which he rather hopefully suggests may not happen until December 2024.

    On this I think he's wrong. Sometimes in politics, once in a generation, a seismic shift happens and it's up to us to read the runes.

    Six months ago when partygate broke, the polls shifted by about 10% or more i.e. a swing of 5-6%. The Conservatives lost any leads they had and Labour have led in the polls ever since.

    It's a shift and I believe it's a fundamental one. The tories have lost their majority.

    (Unless they remove Boris Johnson)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,894
    Stocky said:

    If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP which of these scenarios would play out?:

    1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP

    or

    2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition

    Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.

    Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.

    Both parties have reason to avoid coalition: the LibDems got badly burnt last time; the SNP would not want to rule England when their raison d'etre is that England should not rule Scotland.

    I'd imagine there'd be an informal agreement, like the Lib-Lab Pact in the 1970s, or possibly confidence and supply at most.
  • Do we call them a 'shooter' because 'gunman' is sexist? It is always a man or men.

    The silicon chip inside her head
    Got switched to overload
    And nobody's gonna go to school today
    She's gonna make them stay at home


    Not always man or men. Usually is, but not always. 😞
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,921
    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647
    pigeon said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Get rid now.

    I'm beginning to relax about it as I feel like we're now in the political equivalent of 1995. The writing is on the wall.

    And as someone posted the other day, I hope the tories DO cling on to the wicked fool in No. 10 because he deserves to receive the public evisceration he will get at the General Election.
    As much as you might wish to see the Conservative Party blown completely out of the water, I would caution anyone against wishing and praying for 1997 redux. The last thing we need is yet another hubristic, out-of-control administration with a stonking Parliamentary majority, blundering from one mistake to the next with a hollowed out and chaotic rump opposition incapable of doing anything to hold it to account.

    The best outcome for the next election would be something that leaves a Labour minority reliant on both the SNP and the Liberal Democrats to get all its business through the Commons. Approximately 60 Labour and 20 LD gains from the Tories would leave them on about 280 seats and should create that kind of position - the aim, of course, being to leave Labour well short of an overall majority, put the Tories in a good potential position to win the election after next, and thus to maximise the chance of Labour implementing electoral reform.

    The best means to ensure that we are never again faced with an awful choice like Johnson or Corbyn for Prime Minister, as well as to get rid of the safe seat problem which means that most of us might as well not bother to vote at all, is finally to junk FPTP.
    It isn't possible for voters to fine tune an election result to that. Just to vote out the liars wherever possible, then deal with the consequences.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    Bob Neil's article in the Daily Telegraph is MUST reading, especially for those remaining Boris supporters on here.

    You should read this ... and weep.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/27/tories-win-next-election-boris-has-go/

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,661
    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    The Tories may yet win the election, it on the basis of this poll and recent trends they will lose.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited May 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals

    Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.

    It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.

    Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.

    Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,215

    Stocky said:

    If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP which of these scenarios would play out?:

    1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP

    or

    2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition

    Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.

    Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.

    Both parties have reason to avoid coalition: the LibDems got badly burnt last time; the SNP would not want to rule England when their raison d'etre is that England should not rule Scotland.

    I'd imagine there'd be an informal agreement, like the Lib-Lab Pact in the 1970s, or possibly confidence and supply at most.
    On the SNP: cabinet ministers would mean much greater chance of securing a further Scottish referendum.

    On the LDs: you think Davey would give up the chance of holding a senior position in the cabinet and pushing for PR?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,971
    edited May 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,215
    Heathener said:

    Bob Neil's article in the Daily Telegraph is MUST reading, especially for those remaining Boris supporters on here.

    You should read this ... and weep.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/27/tories-win-next-election-boris-has-go/

    I can't read the article but I rate Bob Neill highly.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,661

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,324
    edited May 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    We live in exceptional times, Hyufd, and the world may look a different place in a couple of years time, the election scenario especially.

    Where I think Heathener and others have a point is that when one Party has persistent poll leads it's solidifies the vote and becomes more difficult for the other team to turn round. Labour's leads are not big, but they are persistent, as Sunil likes to point out regularly. I really do think it is important for the Conservative Party to address the matter urgently if it wants to hold on to power.

    To me, that means removing Johnson. I'd like to see that principally for the good of the country. He's a bad PM; it's as simple as that. As a left-leaning poster I'd be bound to think that way too, although the irony is that a different leader would very likely restore Conservative fortunes in good time for the GE.

    As one of our most eminent Conservative posters I can understand it might be awkward for you to acknowledge that but I suspect that in your Eping redoubt these thoughts are quietly acknowledged.

    If you guys are going to change the boss, I think you need to do it fairly quickly. I'd say you have the summer. Autumn would probably too late. On balance though, I suspect it won't happen, but I'm not betting on it, either way.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,894
    edited May 2022
    The special relationship is only skin-deep.

    US threatens to limit intelligence cooperation in row over Britain's secret submarine tech
    American officials warn that delaying sale of Ultra Electronics risks security relationship

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/27/us-threatens-limit-intelligence-cooperation-row-britains-secret/ (£££)
  • Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    Nothing was ever predetermined. I said a couple of years ago that all options are possible from a Labour majority to an increased Tory majority and was laughed at for that, by people insisting neither option was possible.

    Swings can always happen and they can always go in either direction, and as I said a couple of years ago if the swing is large enough to wipe out the majority then don't rule out it being large enough to actually create one for the other side.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647
    edited May 2022
    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals

    Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.

    It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.

    Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.

    Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
    I think it did include Wales, but not Scotland. They polled over 2000 in Wales.

    Several Welsh seats are mentioned in the list. The header link didn't work for me, but the list is here:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1530323716902641665?t=nem4NLuSybYxEphLYUYJjg&s=19
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    We live in exceptional times, Hyufd, and the world may look a different place in a couple of years time, the election scenario especially.

    Where I think Heathener and others have a point is that when one Party has persistent poll leads it's solidifies the vote and becomes more difficult for the other team to turn round. Labour's leads are not big, but they are persistent, as Sunil likes to point out regularly. I really do think it is important for the Conservative Party to address the matter urgently if it wants to hold on to power.

    To me, that means removing Johnson. I'd like to see that principally for the good of the country. He's a bad PM; it's as simple as that. As a left-leaning poster I'd be bound to think that way too, although the irony is that a different leader would very likely restore Conservative fortunes in good time for the GE.

    As one of our most eminent Conservative posters I can understand it might be awkward for you to acknowledge that but I suspect that in your Eping redoubt these thoughts are quietly acknowledged.

    If you guys are going to change the boss, I think you need to do it fairly quickly. I'd say you have the summer. Autumn would probably too late. On balance though, I suspect it won't happen, but I'm not betting on it, either way.
    The key data point is not the Labour lead, it’s the Tory number. That needs to get close to 40% for them to win a majority. It’s possible because there are still a lot of 2019 Tory 2019 Don’t Knows, but the longer the Tories are polling in the low to mid 30s the tougher their task becomes. I am not sure dumping Johnson will make much difference. After all, that’s why he hasn’t been dumped.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,921

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    We live in exceptional times, Hyufd, and the world may look a different place in a couple of years time, the election scenario especially.

    Where I think Heathener and others have a point is that when one Party has persistent poll leads it's solidifies the vote and becomes more difficult for the other team to turn round. Labour's leads are not big, but they are persistent, as Sunil likes to point out regularly. I really do think it is important for the Conservative Party to address the matter urgently if it wants to hold on to power.

    To me, that means removing Johnson. I'd like to see that principally for the good of the country. He's a bad PM; it's as simple as that. As a left-leaning poster I'd be bound to think that way too, although the irony is that a different leader would very likely restore Conservative fortunes in good time for the GE.

    As one of our most eminent Conservative posters I can understand it might be awkward for you to acknowledge that but I suspect that in your Eping redoubt these thoughts are quietly acknowledged.

    If you guys are going to change the boss, I think you need to do it fairly quickly. I'd say you have the summer. Autumn would probably too late. On balance though, I suspect it won't happen, but I'm not betting on it, either way.
    Where is the polling evidence however a Hunt or Sunak or Wallace or Truss or Raab or Patel led Tories would lead Starmer Labour? Without it, there will be no change and Boris stays
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,215
    My feeling is that if a VOC is triggered Johnson will lose it.

    But it won't be triggered unless there is some form of group organisation to submit letters together, en masse. This is what Tugendhat was talking about the other day.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,661

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    The whole government is orientated around generating a good Daily Mail headline and arse covering.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,036
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    It's not a remarkable shift - it's just what happens every electoral cycle.

    I'm always amazed that commentators on here take mid-term polls so seriously. They are as much use as toilet paper - in fact rather less so.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,921
    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals

    Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.

    It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.

    Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.

    Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
    So what? LD gains or SNP gains add 0 to the chances of a Labour majority and yes it included Conservative v Labour marginals in Wales
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited May 2022

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    Nothing was ever predetermined. I said a couple of years ago that all options are possible from a Labour majority to an increased Tory majority and was laughed at for that, by people insisting neither option was possible.

    Swings can always happen and they can always go in either direction, and as I said a couple of years ago if the swing is large enough to wipe out the majority then don't rule out it being large enough to actually create one for the other side.
    I don't agree. I heard EXACTLY the same argument during John Major's 1992-7 Government. There was a genuine belief that he could pull off a surprise win again, like he did in 1992. There were those who refused to believe the opinion polls, who thought it was all mid-term blues, who believed it could be turned around and that 'all things were possible.'

    It's astonishing to me that some people simply don't realise what's happening, fail to perceive the shift that has happened. When a seismic shift happens, it happens. I saw it in 1978-9 and again in 1992-7. The former is the really interesting one because Maggie did not win a huge majority (44) in May 1979: but the shift was sufficient.

    December 2021 will come to be seen as a seismic shift. Your man was caught. The nation will not forget.

    People are furious and hurt about partygate and no amount of dissing the topic by the Right on here is going to undo that. You will lose your majority unless you remove Johnson.

    Of course, added to this is the economic and fiscal meltdown that we're entering.

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,324
    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals

    Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.

    It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.

    Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.

    Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
    The advance of the LDs is indeed a very worrying sign for the Conservative Party and its electoral prospects. I see they were up to 14% in one poll, and they seem pretty bullish about Tiverton.

    Btw, Hyufd fights on the front line. You can't afford self-delusion there.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,661
    edited May 2022
    Stocky said:

    My feeling is that if a VOC is triggered Johnson will lose it.

    But it won't be triggered unless there is some form of group organisation to submit letters together, en masse. This is what Tugendhat was talking about the other day.

    Conservative MPs need to clock that whilst their prospects might be damaged if they move against Boris and he stays, they will personally be damaged if Boris goes and they are seen to have done nothing.

    What did you do against the corruption in no 10? Nothing.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,385
    Interesting thread on the ministerial code changes and they are not as being represented.

    https://twitter.com/timd_ifg/status/1530244747549413377?s=21&t=OjSSErQ-dBsLZhjfAN1o_w
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    Jonathan said:

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    The whole government is orientated around generating a good Daily Mail headline and arse covering.
    It’s worse than that. The non-codified UK constitution depends entirely on the goodwill of the executive and its commitment to democracy. For the first time since the introduction of the mass franchise, that goodwill and commitment do not exist.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,894
    Stocky said:

    Heathener said:

    Bob Neil's article in the Daily Telegraph is MUST reading, especially for those remaining Boris supporters on here.

    You should read this ... and weep.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/27/tories-win-next-election-boris-has-go/

    I can't read the article but I rate Bob Neill highly.
    To summarise:
    After the Gray Report, Bob Neill cannot accept that Boris did not know what was going on.
    Bob Neill is MP for Bromley & Chislehurst where they weigh the Tory vote. Constituents say they support the Conservatives but not Boris.

    The first part of the article is essentially what Neill has posted on his website at
    https://www.bobneill.org.uk/news/statement-publication-sue-grays-report
  • DayTripperDayTripper Posts: 137

    Do we call them a 'shooter' because 'gunman' is sexist? It is always a man or men.

    The silicon chip inside her head
    Got switched to overload
    And nobody's gonna go to school today
    She's gonna make them stay at home


    Not always man or men. Usually is, but not always. 😞
    What's wrong with "murderer"? Nicely gender-free.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    Fishing said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    It's not a remarkable shift - it's just what happens every electoral cycle.

    I'm always amazed that commentators on here take mid-term polls so seriously. They are as much use as toilet paper - in fact rather less so.
    Delusional
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,661
    Fishing said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    It's not a remarkable shift - it's just what happens every electoral cycle.

    I'm always amazed that commentators on here take mid-term polls so seriously. They are as much use as toilet paper - in fact rather less so.
    In 2019 Labour we’re almost dead and buried, to come back fro that to be talked about as potentially winning a majority, and capturing places like Worthing, is remarkable to me at least.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.

    I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,434
    It's a very poor poll for the Tories, but this is your habitual reminder that MRP only becomes accurate in the last few days before polling day when it's modelling actual voting intention.

    Otherwise, it's just projecting mid-term blues.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647
    Heathener said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    Nothing was ever predetermined. I said a couple of years ago that all options are possible from a Labour majority to an increased Tory majority and was laughed at for that, by people insisting neither option was possible.

    Swings can always happen and they can always go in either direction, and as I said a couple of years ago if the swing is large enough to wipe out the majority then don't rule out it being large enough to actually create one for the other side.
    I don't agree. I heard EXACTLY the same argument during John Major's 1992-7 Government. There was a genuine belief that he could pull off a surprise win again, like he did in 1992. There were those who refused to believe the opinion polls, who thought it was all mid-term blues, who believed it could be turned around and that 'all things were possible.'

    It's astonishing to me that some people simply don't realise what's happening, fail to perceive the shift that has happened. When a seismic shift happens, it happens. I saw it in 1978-9 and again in 1992-7. The former is the really interesting one because Maggie did not win a huge majority in May 1979: but the shift was sufficient.

    December 2021 will come to be seen as a seismic shift. Your man was caught. The nation will not forget.

    People are furious and hurt about partygate and no amount of dissing the topic by the Right on here is going to undo that. You will lose your majority unless you remove Johnson.

    Of course, added to this is the economic and fiscal meltdown that we're entering.

    Even a plurality of Con voters think Johnson is a liar:

    71% of Britons - including 49% of Conservative voters - think that Boris Johnson is not genuinely sorry about what happened in Downing Street during lockdowns

    https://t.co/mGLUs12GBK https://t.co/cnRUOEBRsq
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,434
    pigeon said:

    On topic:

    1. The YouGov MRP substantially underestimated the scale of the Conservative victory in 2019.
    2. There could be 2.5 years plus until the next election.
    3. More fundamentally, the predictive value of polling held even quite close to an election can be very poor indeed. How quickly we have forgotten 2017.

    For all these reasons I would be inclined not to pay much attention to opinion polls full stop. They only become relevant if and when they get consistently bad enough to set off widespread panic within the Tory party about a heavy loss of seats, and even then they might not change anything.

    The Conservatives are listless, rudderless, dithering and weak - and if a sense of fatalism about the inevitability of defeat sets in amongst them (such that MPs in threatened marginals throw in the towel and start to research different career opportunities, and the rest of the party starts to go on about how a period in opposition might actually be good for it,) then they might grow so apathetic that they simply lack the energy to give Johnson the heave-ho. It might ultimately be viewed as less trouble to let the voters of Uxbridge and South Ruislip do their dirty work for them.

    It's a real long-shot but the worst thing for Labour would be an economic recovery and change of PM by, say, the end of 2023 - maybe a 25% shot.

    That would make the next election competitive; it's not an inevitable loss the way it was in 1997.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,921
    edited May 2022
    Jonathan said:

    Fishing said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    It's not a remarkable shift - it's just what happens every electoral cycle.

    I'm always amazed that commentators on here take mid-term polls so seriously. They are as much use as toilet paper - in fact rather less so.
    In 2019 Labour we’re almost dead and buried, to come back fro that to be talked about as potentially winning a majority, and capturing places like Worthing, is remarkable to me at least.
    In 2019 Labour won 4 more seats than the Tories did in 2005, yet Cameron still gained 96 seats in 2010. However, Cameron still failed to win a majority
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,661
    tlg86 said:

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.

    I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
    Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647

    Do we call them a 'shooter' because 'gunman' is sexist? It is always a man or men.

    The silicon chip inside her head
    Got switched to overload
    And nobody's gonna go to school today
    She's gonna make them stay at home


    Not always man or men. Usually is, but not always. 😞
    What's wrong with "murderer"? Nicely gender-free.
    I think that the Americans prefer to use "shooter" rather than "gunman" because they believe that it isn't the gun that is the problem, but rather the person shooting it. Similar usage in "First Person Shooter" electronic games about killing.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,661
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Fishing said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    It's not a remarkable shift - it's just what happens every electoral cycle.

    I'm always amazed that commentators on here take mid-term polls so seriously. They are as much use as toilet paper - in fact rather less so.
    In 2019 Labour we’re almost dead and buried, to come back fro that to be talked about as potentially winning a majority, and capturing places like Worthing, is remarkable to me at least.
    In 2019 Labour won 4 more seats than the Tories did in 2005, yet Cameron still gained 96 seats in 2010. However, Cameron still failed to win a majority
    Cameron also made remarkable gains.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,324
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    We live in exceptional times, Hyufd, and the world may look a different place in a couple of years time, the election scenario especially.

    Where I think Heathener and others have a point is that when one Party has persistent poll leads it's solidifies the vote and becomes more difficult for the other team to turn round. Labour's leads are not big, but they are persistent, as Sunil likes to point out regularly. I really do think it is important for the Conservative Party to address the matter urgently if it wants to hold on to power.

    To me, that means removing Johnson. I'd like to see that principally for the good of the country. He's a bad PM; it's as simple as that. As a left-leaning poster I'd be bound to think that way too, although the irony is that a different leader would very likely restore Conservative fortunes in good time for the GE.

    As one of our most eminent Conservative posters I can understand it might be awkward for you to acknowledge that but I suspect that in your Eping redoubt these thoughts are quietly acknowledged.

    If you guys are going to change the boss, I think you need to do it fairly quickly. I'd say you have the summer. Autumn would probably too late. On balance though, I suspect it won't happen, but I'm not betting on it, either way.
    Where is the polling evidence however a Hunt or Sunak or Wallace or Truss or Raab or Patel led Tories would lead Starmer Labour? Without it, there will be no change and Boris stays
    There is none, but then there was no such evidence for Starmer when he stood for Labour leader in the corresponding contest.

    I'd also suggest that most if not all of those names would make a better PM, and that kind of matters in itself.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    edited May 2022
    Heathener said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    Nothing was ever predetermined. I said a couple of years ago that all options are possible from a Labour majority to an increased Tory majority and was laughed at for that, by people insisting neither option was possible.

    Swings can always happen and they can always go in either direction, and as I said a couple of years ago if the swing is large enough to wipe out the majority then don't rule out it being large enough to actually create one for the other side.
    I don't agree. I heard EXACTLY the same argument during John Major's 1992-7 Government. There was a genuine belief that he could pull off a surprise win again, like he did in 1992. There were those who refused to believe the opinion polls, who thought it was all mid-term blues, who believed it could be turned around and that 'all things were possible.'

    It's astonishing to me that some people simply don't realise what's happening, fail to perceive the shift that has happened. When a seismic shift happens, it happens. I saw it in 1978-9 and again in 1992-7. The former is the really interesting one because Maggie did not win a huge majority (44) in May 1979: but the shift was sufficient.

    December 2021 will come to be seen as a seismic shift. Your man was caught. The nation will not forget.

    People are furious and hurt about partygate and no amount of dissing the topic by the Right on here is going to undo that. You will lose your majority unless you remove Johnson.

    Of course, added to this is the economic and fiscal meltdown that we're entering.

    I will wait a while longer before allowing myself your level of confidence. We may not have an election until January 2025, so there’s a lot that can still happen. Sunak made a very big play this week, providing significant help on energy bills. Pensions are due a major uplift next year.

    The Tories have plenty of tools at their disposal - not least control of the electoral process. Don’t forget: they are making it harder to vote (a move that will affect non-Tory demographics disproportionately) and have ended the Electoral Commission’s independence. There is still time to do a lot more of the same. Control of the process gives a lot more control over the outcome, of course.

    All that said, if the polls don’t move much after Sunak’s announcement that should set a few more Tory alarm bells ringing, especially if accompanied by two by-election defeats.

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    It's fine. Let the Right continue with their willy-obsession for the next two years.

    The country will boot them out.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,324
    Interesting discussion but I have to go walk the doggies. Nice day for it.

    Play nicely everyone.
  • Do we call them a 'shooter' because 'gunman' is sexist? It is always a man or men.

    The silicon chip inside her head
    Got switched to overload
    And nobody's gonna go to school today
    She's gonna make them stay at home


    Not always man or men. Usually is, but not always. 😞
    What's wrong with "murderer"? Nicely gender-free.
    "Active shooter" in these situations makes perfect sense as a term, while the shooting is still happening. It describes perfectly what they are doing, and you don't necessarily know (though its probable) if people are dead in an active shooter situation, they may have just seriously hurt people instead of killed them.

    But yes, after the fact, murderer is the right term.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,716
    Jonathan said:

    Stocky said:

    My feeling is that if a VOC is triggered Johnson will lose it.

    But it won't be triggered unless there is some form of group organisation to submit letters together, en masse. This is what Tugendhat was talking about the other day.

    Conservative MPs need to clock that whilst their prospects might be damaged if they move against Boris and he stays, they will personally be damaged if Boris goes and they are seen to have done nothing.

    What did you do against the corruption in no 10? Nothing.
    Senior ministers believe Brady's safe is about twenty short this weekend according to Telegraph.

    Seems a long way to go to be honest.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647
    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.

    I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
    Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
    Absolutely. See also suppression of the right to protest etc. There is more to Democracy than occasional elections. Even Putin has those.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,921
    edited May 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    We live in exceptional times, Hyufd, and the world may look a different place in a couple of years time, the election scenario especially.

    Where I think Heathener and others have a point is that when one Party has persistent poll leads it's solidifies the vote and becomes more difficult for the other team to turn round. Labour's leads are not big, but they are persistent, as Sunil likes to point out regularly. I really do think it is important for the Conservative Party to address the matter urgently if it wants to hold on to power.

    To me, that means removing Johnson. I'd like to see that principally for the good of the country. He's a bad PM; it's as simple as that. As a left-leaning poster I'd be bound to think that way too, although the irony is that a different leader would very likely restore Conservative fortunes in good time for the GE.

    As one of our most eminent Conservative posters I can understand it might be awkward for you to acknowledge that but I suspect that in your Eping redoubt these thoughts are quietly acknowledged.

    If you guys are going to change the boss, I think you need to do it fairly quickly. I'd say you have the summer. Autumn would probably too late. On balance though, I suspect it won't happen, but I'm not betting on it, either way.
    Where is the polling evidence however a Hunt or Sunak or Wallace or Truss or Raab or Patel led Tories would lead Starmer Labour? Without it, there will be no change and Boris stays
    There is none, but then there was no such evidence for Starmer when he stood for Labour leader in the corresponding contest.

    I'd also suggest that most if not all of those names would make a better PM, and that kind of matters in itself.
    Labour was in opposition replacing a leader who had lost 2 general elections, not removing a PM who won the biggest victory for their party in over 30 years as Boris did in 2019.

    Plus Starmer did tend to poll the best of the 3 Labour leadership contenders
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    tlg86 said:

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.

    I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
    There are elections in many countries where democracy exists in name only. Hungary had some recently, for example.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,320
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    Nothing was ever predetermined. I said a couple of years ago that all options are possible from a Labour majority to an increased Tory majority and was laughed at for that, by people insisting neither option was possible.

    Swings can always happen and they can always go in either direction, and as I said a couple of years ago if the swing is large enough to wipe out the majority then don't rule out it being large enough to actually create one for the other side.
    I don't agree. I heard EXACTLY the same argument during John Major's 1992-7 Government. There was a genuine belief that he could pull off a surprise win again, like he did in 1992. There were those who refused to believe the opinion polls, who thought it was all mid-term blues, who believed it could be turned around and that 'all things were possible.'

    It's astonishing to me that some people simply don't realise what's happening, fail to perceive the shift that has happened. When a seismic shift happens, it happens. I saw it in 1978-9 and again in 1992-7. The former is the really interesting one because Maggie did not win a huge majority in May 1979: but the shift was sufficient.

    December 2021 will come to be seen as a seismic shift. Your man was caught. The nation will not forget.

    People are furious and hurt about partygate and no amount of dissing the topic by the Right on here is going to undo that. You will lose your majority unless you remove Johnson.

    Of course, added to this is the economic and fiscal meltdown that we're entering.

    Even a plurality of Con voters think Johnson is a liar:

    71% of Britons - including 49% of Conservative voters - think that Boris Johnson is not genuinely sorry about what happened in Downing Street during lockdowns

    https://t.co/mGLUs12GBK https://t.co/cnRUOEBRsq
    So 29% are either brain dead or don,t have a clue what is going on in the country
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,661

    Heathener said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    Nothing was ever predetermined. I said a couple of years ago that all options are possible from a Labour majority to an increased Tory majority and was laughed at for that, by people insisting neither option was possible.

    Swings can always happen and they can always go in either direction, and as I said a couple of years ago if the swing is large enough to wipe out the majority then don't rule out it being large enough to actually create one for the other side.
    I don't agree. I heard EXACTLY the same argument during John Major's 1992-7 Government. There was a genuine belief that he could pull off a surprise win again, like he did in 1992. There were those who refused to believe the opinion polls, who thought it was all mid-term blues, who believed it could be turned around and that 'all things were possible.'

    It's astonishing to me that some people simply don't realise what's happening, fail to perceive the shift that has happened. When a seismic shift happens, it happens. I saw it in 1978-9 and again in 1992-7. The former is the really interesting one because Maggie did not win a huge majority (44) in May 1979: but the shift was sufficient.

    December 2021 will come to be seen as a seismic shift. Your man was caught. The nation will not forget.

    People are furious and hurt about partygate and no amount of dissing the topic by the Right on here is going to undo that. You will lose your majority unless you remove Johnson.

    Of course, added to this is the economic and fiscal meltdown that we're entering.

    I will wait a while longer before allowing myself your level of confidence. We may not have an election until January 2025, so there’s a lot that can still happen. Sunak made a very big play this week, providing significant help on energy bills. Pensions are due a major uplift next year.

    The Tories have plenty of tools at their disposal - not least control of the electoral process. Don’t forget: they are making it harder to vote (a move that will affect non-Tory demographics disproportionately) and have ended the Electoral Commission’s independence. There is still time to do a lot more of the same. Control of the process gives a lot more control over the outcome, of course.

    All that said, if the polls don’t move much after Sunak’s announcement that should set a few more Tory alarm bells ringing, especially if accompanied by two by-election defeats.

    I would be surprised if Sunak moves the polls, i doubt there is a huge amount of gratitude out there for only being significantly worse off rather than catastrophically worse off. Arguably it is just an expensive way to highlight the problem that will be absorbed just like 5p off a litre of petrol

    Meanwhile, the cost of living and inflation eats away at the lifestyle and savings of ever increasing numbers of us,
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,716

    It's a very poor poll for the Tories, but this is your habitual reminder that MRP only becomes accurate in the last few days before polling day when it's modelling actual voting intention.

    Otherwise, it's just projecting mid-term blues.

    It might trigger a couple more letters asking for VONC, but basically I think Canzini will look at these figures and say we can make that up in dirty and vicious GE campaign, especially if we hide Johnson away.
  • Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals

    Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.

    It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.

    Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.

    Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
    The advance of the LDs is indeed a very worrying sign for the Conservative Party and its electoral prospects. I see they were up to 14% in one poll, and they seem pretty bullish about Tiverton.

    Btw, Hyufd fights on the front line. You can't afford self-delusion there.
    Surely the front line is people like HYUFD, but who live and operate in the marginal constituencies being discussed?

    As much as the South is slowly trending away from the Tories due to the increasing housing problems there, I would not consider Epping Forest with its 22,173 vote majority remotely on the 'front line'
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647
    DavidL said:

    I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.

    I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.

    I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.

    Whilst there is no real coherence to what this government is doing, there is no alternative plan outlined by Labour. To an extent, I understand why as the Tories steal Labour policies such as the windfall tax*, so a need to keep things under wraps. I just hope something is going on under cover.

    *actually first mooted by the LibDems, I believe, not that I particularly support it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,921
    edited May 2022

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals

    Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.

    It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.

    Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.

    Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
    The advance of the LDs is indeed a very worrying sign for the Conservative Party and its electoral prospects. I see they were up to 14% in one poll, and they seem pretty bullish about Tiverton.

    Btw, Hyufd fights on the front line. You can't afford self-delusion there.
    Surely the front line is people like HYUFD, but who live and operate in the marginal constituencies being discussed?

    As much as the South is slowly trending away from the Tories due to the increasing housing problems there, I would not consider Epping Forest with its 22,173 vote majority remotely on the 'front line'
    We Conservatives in Epping Forest will be fine regardless yes, we were Tory even in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 and Dame Eleanor got over 60% in 2019 and the Tories still have a majority on the council.

    Housing problems and lack of home owners is also more a London problem. If anything it is building too much on the greenbelt which the LDs scaremonger about locally here
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,661
    edited May 2022
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.

    I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.

    I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.

    Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
    Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,

    Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,894
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.

    I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.

    I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.

    Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
    Shades of GW Bush complaining his presidency was topped and tailed by the global financial crisis and 9/11.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,215
    edited May 2022
    I agree with Fishing and CR that mid-term polls hold little value as a guide 2+ years out.

    However, Tory MPs will take note of them - saving their own skins and saving the Tory brand in general may do for Johnson rather than the Partygate stuff itself.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,817
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.

    I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.

    I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.

    Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
    Yes, that is very fair. Almost any PM would have struggled with the last few years. I think the importance of Brexit is constantly overstated but there is also no question that the country has been deeply divided by it just as we in Scotland continue to be deeply divided by independence. Divided countries are never easy to govern but it needs a PM who can work hard at bringing people together and developing a sense of common purpose. Boris is almost the antithitis of this. He thrives on division, scorn and lying. It has undoubtedly aggravated the situation.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585

    Do we call them a 'shooter' because 'gunman' is sexist? It is always a man or men.

    The silicon chip inside her head
    Got switched to overload
    And nobody's gonna go to school today
    She's gonna make them stay at home


    Not always man or men. Usually is, but not always. 😞
    What's wrong with "murderer"? Nicely gender-free.
    "Active shooter" in these situations makes perfect sense as a term, while the shooting is still happening. It describes perfectly what they are doing, and you don't necessarily know (though its probable) if people are dead in an active shooter situation, they may have just seriously hurt people instead of killed them.

    But yes, after the fact, murderer is the right term.
    It’s a simple phrase, that means something specific to those tasked with responding.

    You see it a lot in fast-moving, high-pressured or technically complex situations, where clear communication is important. It’s why we have a phonetic alphabet, and why pilots say “affirm” and “negative”, rather than “yes” and “no”, on the radio.
  • Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.

    I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
    Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
    Oh cut the crap.

    The changes to the Ministerial Code are codifying in practice what has long already happened anyway, and were changes recommended by the Standards Committee, which I believe has amongst its members such well known Tory stooges as *checks notes* Dame Margaret Beckett.

    In the aftermath of the Patterson scandal the PM promised to implement whatever changes were recommended by the Committee, after that was demanded by MPs across the House. Now that he's done so, you're complaining about it.

    There's plenty of serious stuff to complain about the PM for, without resorting to artificial synthetic outrage.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647
    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    Nothing was ever predetermined. I said a couple of years ago that all options are possible from a Labour majority to an increased Tory majority and was laughed at for that, by people insisting neither option was possible.

    Swings can always happen and they can always go in either direction, and as I said a couple of years ago if the swing is large enough to wipe out the majority then don't rule out it being large enough to actually create one for the other side.
    I don't agree. I heard EXACTLY the same argument during John Major's 1992-7 Government. There was a genuine belief that he could pull off a surprise win again, like he did in 1992. There were those who refused to believe the opinion polls, who thought it was all mid-term blues, who believed it could be turned around and that 'all things were possible.'

    It's astonishing to me that some people simply don't realise what's happening, fail to perceive the shift that has happened. When a seismic shift happens, it happens. I saw it in 1978-9 and again in 1992-7. The former is the really interesting one because Maggie did not win a huge majority in May 1979: but the shift was sufficient.

    December 2021 will come to be seen as a seismic shift. Your man was caught. The nation will not forget.

    People are furious and hurt about partygate and no amount of dissing the topic by the Right on here is going to undo that. You will lose your majority unless you remove Johnson.

    Of course, added to this is the economic and fiscal meltdown that we're entering.

    Even a plurality of Con voters think Johnson is a liar:

    71% of Britons - including 49% of Conservative voters - think that Boris Johnson is not genuinely sorry about what happened in Downing Street during lockdowns

    https://t.co/mGLUs12GBK https://t.co/cnRUOEBRsq
    So 29% are either brain dead or don,t have a clue what is going on in the country
    Only 15% believe that Johnson is genuinely sorry (only 34% even of Con voters) the other 14% are don't knows.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,215
    A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:

    If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:

    1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP

    or

    2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition

    Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.

    Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,661

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.

    I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
    Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
    Oh cut the crap.

    The changes to the Ministerial Code are codifying in practice what has long already happened anyway, and were changes recommended by the Standards Committee, which I believe has amongst its members such well known Tory stooges as *checks notes* Dame Margaret Beckett.

    In the aftermath of the Patterson scandal the PM promised to implement whatever changes were recommended by the Committee, after that was demanded by MPs across the House. Now that he's done so, you're complaining about it.

    There's plenty of serious stuff to complain about the PM for, without resorting to artificial synthetic outrage.
    Sorry, I think I touched a nerve.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    tlg86 said:

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.

    I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
    I give you Russia.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647
    Stocky said:

    A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:

    If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:

    1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP

    or

    2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition

    Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.

    Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.

    I think no Coalition, but Confidence and Supply only, with support on a bill by bill basis. Probably shortlived as a government with a further election after 18-24 months.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,034
    Heathener said:

    It's fine. Let the Right continue with their willy-obsession for the next two years.

    The country will boot them out.

    Good morning

    The key is to oust Boris and the sooner the better

    Rishi made an extraordinary play for popularity this week with a support package far more generous than labour and has attracted compliments from many including the IFS

    His vow to upgrade pensions and benefits by this September's inflation rate next April is huge and it must not be forgotten he is to address business taxes this Autumn

    He has promised further help next year if necessary and will have several more opportunities to reduce tax before the next GE including the already announced 19% standard rate in April 24

    There is so much for conservatives mps to be positive about once Boris is gone and his dead weight on the party removed

    I really hope over this holiday period they come to their senses and do the right thing..

    Also my pre Rishi announcement to reassess Rishi for next PM may not be so outlandish
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,523
    DavidL said:

    I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.

    I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.

    I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.

    Our current leaflet (featuring a cartoon by Marf, who many will remember) focus on "Do you really want another SEVEN YEARS of this?" - on the basis of the Tories winning re-election in two years' time.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,215
    edited May 2022
    DavidL said:

    I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.

    I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.

    I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.

    Populism: the CP currently stands for the brain-farts of the ignorant. End of. Government by focus-group - it's a shocking state of affairs.

    There is principle and ideology there but it is buried deep, occasionally popping up like an unflushable one; but one only gets a glimpse.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,894
    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.

    Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.

    Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.

    Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.

    Nothing is pre-determined.
    A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
    Nothing was ever predetermined. I said a couple of years ago that all options are possible from a Labour majority to an increased Tory majority and was laughed at for that, by people insisting neither option was possible.

    Swings can always happen and they can always go in either direction, and as I said a couple of years ago if the swing is large enough to wipe out the majority then don't rule out it being large enough to actually create one for the other side.
    I don't agree. I heard EXACTLY the same argument during John Major's 1992-7 Government. There was a genuine belief that he could pull off a surprise win again, like he did in 1992. There were those who refused to believe the opinion polls, who thought it was all mid-term blues, who believed it could be turned around and that 'all things were possible.'

    It's astonishing to me that some people simply don't realise what's happening, fail to perceive the shift that has happened. When a seismic shift happens, it happens. I saw it in 1978-9 and again in 1992-7. The former is the really interesting one because Maggie did not win a huge majority (44) in May 1979: but the shift was sufficient.

    December 2021 will come to be seen as a seismic shift. Your man was caught. The nation will not forget.

    People are furious and hurt about partygate and no amount of dissing the topic by the Right on here is going to undo that. You will lose your majority unless you remove Johnson.

    Of course, added to this is the economic and fiscal meltdown that we're entering.

    I will wait a while longer before allowing myself your level of confidence. We may not have an election until January 2025, so there’s a lot that can still happen. Sunak made a very big play this week, providing significant help on energy bills. Pensions are due a major uplift next year.

    The Tories have plenty of tools at their disposal - not least control of the electoral process. Don’t forget: they are making it harder to vote (a move that will affect non-Tory demographics disproportionately) and have ended the Electoral Commission’s independence. There is still time to do a lot more of the same. Control of the process gives a lot more control over the outcome, of course.

    All that said, if the polls don’t move much after Sunak’s announcement that should set a few more Tory alarm bells ringing, especially if accompanied by two by-election defeats.

    I would be surprised if Sunak moves the polls, i doubt there is a huge amount of gratitude out there for only being significantly worse off rather than catastrophically worse off. Arguably it is just an expensive way to highlight the problem that will be absorbed just like 5p off a litre of petrol

    Meanwhile, the cost of living and inflation eats away at the lifestyle and savings of ever increasing numbers of us,
    It might. One powerful factor in 2019 was the notion that Conservatives were somehow "on your side" whereas Labour was, although not hostile, more concerned about conditions in Palestine and Venezuela than in deepest, darkest Abingdon.

    The question is whether, after the rebates, Conservatives can now say, we know times are hard but at least Rishi the government is on your side.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.

    I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
    Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
    Oh cut the crap.

    The changes to the Ministerial Code are codifying in practice what has long already happened anyway, and were changes recommended by the Standards Committee, which I believe has amongst its members such well known Tory stooges as *checks notes* Dame Margaret Beckett.

    In the aftermath of the Patterson scandal the PM promised to implement whatever changes were recommended by the Committee, after that was demanded by MPs across the House. Now that he's done so, you're complaining about it.

    There's plenty of serious stuff to complain about the PM for, without resorting to artificial synthetic outrage.
    Sorry, I think I touched a nerve.
    That's the most clichéd and ridiculous thing to write on a discussion forum. If someone calls you out for writing nonsense, then rather than defend the nonsense just say "I must have touched a nerve" and make it about the other person, rather than the fact you wrote nonsense.

    I want the PM to go, I've said so for a long time now. But to say he is undermining democracy because he implemented the reforms recommended by the Standards Committee after MPs around the house demanded that he implements the reforms recommended by the Standards Committee, and after he pledged in the House to implement the reforms recommended by the Standards Committee is just utterly ridiculous.

    If he didn't implement these reforms, then you'd be complaining that he'd lied to the House when he said he would. If he does, he's undermining democracy.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals

    Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.

    It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.

    Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.

    Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
    So what? LD gains or SNP gains add 0 to the chances of a Labour majority and yes it included Conservative v Labour marginals in Wales
    It adds to the chances of a Tory defeat
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.

    By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.

    I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
    Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
    Oh cut the crap.

    The changes to the Ministerial Code are codifying in practice what has long already happened anyway, and were changes recommended by the Standards Committee, which I believe has amongst its members such well known Tory stooges as *checks notes* Dame Margaret Beckett.

    In the aftermath of the Patterson scandal the PM promised to implement whatever changes were recommended by the Committee, after that was demanded by MPs across the House. Now that he's done so, you're complaining about it.

    There's plenty of serious stuff to complain about the PM for, without resorting to artificial synthetic outrage.
    Yes, there are proposed changes, but the current code is the one applicable now and @Jonathan is right that this government is not abiding by it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,817
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.

    I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.

    I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.

    Whilst there is no real coherence to what this government is doing, there is no alternative plan outlined by Labour. To an extent, I understand why as the Tories steal Labour policies such as the windfall tax*, so a need to keep things under wraps. I just hope something is going on under cover.

    *actually first mooted by the LibDems, I believe, not that I particularly support it.
    The windfall tax is a terrible idea. It damages our reputation as a place that is suitable for investment and it does it for what is effectively spare change. The reality is that the incredibly high prices for fuel have already given the government a windfall of tax through both VAT and CT for those companies lucky enough to gain from the prices. They really didn't need more to focus on those who needed focused on, namely those on UC. To further damage our reputation as an economic safe haven to increase the level of bribes to parts of the electorate the government need was very poor economics and not even particularly smart politics.

    Taking your point the fact that this stupidity is what Labour were coming up with as an alternative to the government policy (now abandoned) does not inspire optimism.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,788
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: some interesting things in practice. Bottas just not troubling the top half of the timesheets is unexpected. And Norris could be worth a shot for a podium at 8.2.

    Right now, Sainz at 7 for qualifying (or 6 each way with Ladbrokes) is tempting. And if Red Bull can sort themselves out then Perez at 15 (or 22 on Betfair) is way too long.

    I'd suggest hedging, as traffic or errors can easily halt fast laps.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    edited May 2022
    BoJo's talent is to project an image successfully. An amateur blundering around, but at heart someone who wants the best for the country. Harold Wilson projected a cuddly image. Margaret Thatcher a competent, functional image.

    All successful ones do. People who take politics seriously are annoyed by this. Some feel that it somehow shouldn't be allowed. But taking politics seriously doesn't mean you're better at it. We have people allowed out on their own who believe North Korea is the route to go down. If only people could see what Kim, whoever he is now, is being seriously maligned.

    For what it's worth, I have no time for Bojo, but he's good at what he does. It may feel like Frankie Howerd on a bad day, but I have only one vote.

    Wilson took to a pipe, Bojo has a vaudeville routine, Corbyn is a Trotsky tribute act, Putin controls the media. Whichever stage act you prefer automatically gains credibility. There's no science to it. Political science is a great oxymoron.

    Let it wash over you. Democracy is the important thing.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,215
    Foxy said:

    Stocky said:

    A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:

    If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:

    1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP

    or

    2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition

    Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.

    Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.

    I think no Coalition, but Confidence and Supply only, with support on a bill by bill basis. Probably shortlived as a government with a further election after 18-24 months.
    As @DecrepiterJohnL suggests below, is there some principled or constitutional rule that would actually prevent SNP from entering coalition and holding cabinet positions?

    As for the LDs, would Davey give up the chance of being, say, Deputy PM or Chancellor?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,901
    Heathener said:

    Bob Neil's article in the Daily Telegraph is MUST reading, especially for those remaining Boris supporters on here.

    You should read this ... and weep.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/27/tories-win-next-election-boris-has-go/

    He claims to have been a member for over 50 years and was vice-Chair of the party,. But HY will insist he isn't a true Tory and can be ignored. As can the Tory voters saying they can't vote Tory as they never were Tories and anyway Bromley was never a Tory seat etc etc etc etc.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,836
    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    Losing 85 out of 88 marginals

    Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.

    It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.

    Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.

    Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
    The advance of the LDs is indeed a very worrying sign for the Conservative Party and its electoral prospects. I see they were up to 14% in one poll, and they seem pretty bullish about Tiverton.

    Btw, Hyufd fights on the front line. You can't afford self-delusion there.
    Surely the front line is people like HYUFD, but who live and operate in the marginal constituencies being discussed?

    As much as the South is slowly trending away from the Tories due to the increasing housing problems there, I would not consider Epping Forest with its 22,173 vote majority remotely on the 'front line'
    We Conservatives in Epping Forest will be fine regardless yes, we were Tory even in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 and Dame Eleanor got over 60% in 2019 and the Tories still have a majority on the council.

    Housing problems and lack of home owners is also more a London problem. If anything it is building too much on the greenbelt which the LDs scaremonger about locally here
    I'm sure that the survival of Fortress Epping in all its ideological purity will be a great consolation to all the other Tories, including Mr J.
This discussion has been closed.