Categories
The Tories still favorite to win most General Election seats – politicalbetting.com
The Tories still favorite to win most General Election seats – politicalbetting.com
With everything else that is happening we have barely looked at the next general election betting and the latest position is in the chart above. The Tories are now down to a 51.55% chance for most seats with LAB not far behind.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
PM Mordaunt will get a 3-figure majority.
However, Boris going, hopefully by the conference, would change the narrative as would Starmer and Rayner re the FPN, but I think it is most unlikely they will receive FPN's
She is not Boris Johnson.
She is not SKS.
...you need more than this??
I would like to see the PB Tory view is of the "Blue Wall". The remain seats with 30%+ graduates that the LDs have been working on.
Also there are few signs that the Tories can hold their red wall seats.
Don't know about gamechanger though. The 'game' will still be asking the voters if they want yet more Tory govt after 14 years of what no-one can honestly describe as inspiring stewardship.
But that "clean slate" is what the Tories will need post Boris and they absolutely need to be post Boris by the election.
"I can't help but wonder if Lord Geidt's resignation letter to the PM contains some dynamite. Normally, such letters, and the PM's "thanks for your service" response, are published as a matter of course, but this one is clearly being sat on. Why? Hopefully, Geidt himself will be brave and honourable enough to release it."
So far we know 3 things:-
1. Lord Geidt was the PM's ethics advisor.
2. According to Raab he was asked to advise on a "commercially sensitive matter".
3. The PM has decided not to publish the resignation letter.
There is an obvious potential explanation which screams out at me from those facts.
While Labour gains from the Tories may be enough to produce a hung parliament therefore on current polls, it could be gains from the Tories in Remain areas of the South that end up giving Labour most seats. That would also be a key difference from 2015 when the Tories made their biggest gains from the LDs not Labour after being in coalition with them, enabling the first Tory majority in 18 years
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/football/61783101.amp
https://twitter.com/chrisbutlerpol/status/1537070044500348929
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/analysis-geidt-resignation-means-johnson-cant-move-on_uk_62aacaf5e4b0cf43c8527421
But if Geidt had been asked to advise on or opined on a commercial arrangement involving the PM either now or in the future and that this had something to do with his resignation, well, that might well be something the PM wants to keep away from the public domain.
It is that phrase "commercially sensitive matter" and this being asked of the PM's ethics advisor which intrigues me.
Of course Raab may well not know what he is talking about. Which is a very strong - and maybe even the likelier - possibility.
Definite losses are 3 and possibles 2
In 1997 though Kent and Essex for example had many marginal seats which went Labour but almost all seats there are safe Conservative now
Looking forward to seeing the back of Jonathan Lord in Woking too. Useless
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61822998
This saga seems to have been running my entire adult life. The ground is a decrepit shambles. And I haven't been for 30 years.
Don't know if this will affect the by-election?
The role of the ethics advisor is, in addition to advising on breaches of the Ministerial Code, to advise Ministers on managing their private interests, so as to avoid any potential or perceived conflicts of interest. He also publishes a ‘List of Ministers’ Interests’ twice a year, setting out the relevant private interests of all government ministers.
I may be completely wrong. But if I were a journalist - rather than rehashing Partygate stories - this is where I'd be probing.
Anyway it looks as if we will know soon. I expect as a former advisor to HMQ Lord Geidt's letter will be couched in the sort of polite language that hides more than it reveals.
And perhaps even in her own constituency at the next election.
The first bit sounds rather odd, though.
Those fulminating about the courts frustrating democracy haven't talked much about Patel having forced the Rwanda policy through without either Parliamentary approval or proper scrutiny.
Extraordinary video this.
@adilray notes that there are currently no legal routes to asylum for Afghans and Tory columnist Quentin Letts has a minor meltdown, protesting that Adil is being unfair for *pointing out the facts*
https://twitter.com/ImIncorrigible/status/1537319330047840257/video/1
50bps is the minimum acceptable, but as you say they should really be matching the Fed.
However, the Boris brand is now tainted and becoming more tainted by the day.
The longer he remains in post, the more his negative ratings will rub off on the rest of the Conservative party.
There was a reason Major held on till April 1992 (rather than 1991). He thought he would lose, but also to give some clear time between Thatcher going and him allowing himself to assert himself as someone different from Thatcher.
Johnson needs replacing by this autumn for a May 2024 election.
Alternatively, if that doesn't work, if they can force him out next autumn (2023) then his successor could go for a January 25 election, but that smacks of desperation.
Having said all that - I don't agree with Major's reasons - I'm of the opinion a new PM *Should* go to the country within SIX months of attaining the premiership. Since 1945, almost no PM change within a parliamentary term has led to a good result at the next election UNLESS the new PM goes to the country within six months.
Eden - April 1955 - called a GE for May 1955 and won with an increased majority.
Home - October 1963 - held on to October 1964 and lost.
Callaghan - March 1976 and then lost in May 1979.
Major - November 1990 and WON in April 1992 but still lost seats from 1987.
Brown and May, hopefully I don't need to tell anyone about those.
Only Macmillian bucks the trend. Taking over in January 1957 and then won in 1959 and gained seats from 1955.
Johnson is going to lose in 2024/2025. But the Conservative can still win. They just need to realise this and get on with it.
Furthermore the ghost of Lord Tony Newton says hi.
The UK is at a bit of a governance crossroads when Johnson goes. Either the new PM comes in and significantly strengthens the ethical framework and reinforces the independence of institutions, or Johnson's total disregard for conventions in this area becomes the norm, which is very worrying in terms of where it leads in 30 years.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1537370532261289986
Braintree was Labour in 1997 but has a 24,673 Conservative majority now, even bigger than the 17,494 Conservative majority in 1992.
So that does not really dispute what I said
We can live in hope and to see PM our next PM
Ooh real hint there from Ellis he knows what's in the letter
Says those "looking for scandal under every stone" may well "be disappointed".
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1537372706789904385
The next few years are going to be a long ride.
I can see why Marx's I'm a Socialist not because I love the poor but because I hate them is so popular.
How’s about they start reporting the news for once, rather than trying to create it?
He was given a polite but thorough monstering by everyone on the committee, Tories included. If it didn't cause the resignation, it surely encouraged it.
It is more the fact that the upper middle class are voting increasingly more for liberal parties, while the core vote for conservatives is now the skilled working class.
A trend across the western world
It was a poor interview by Raab. He was floundering and speculated that the letter may touch on matters that are confidential for commercial reasons (e.g. relating to a current government contract negotiation) or even for personal reasons (e.g. relating to Geidt's own health). That was unhelpful as he was both saying he didn't know, and tossing out various reasons why you might not publish a letter, thus increasing interest in the real reason and inviting further speculation on points. But I don't actually think it implied any misconduct by Geidt.
The reality is presumably that the letter is embarrassing, and Number 10 were seeking legal advice that may justify not disclosing, but didn't get the answer they wanted in the end and decided to publish rather than draw it out and then publish.
(I'm assuming all are posh.)
They’d all convinced themselves that the status quo of the past decade was now the new normal, that globalisation and just-in-time manufacturing would continue to grow forever - then a big shock happened, followed by another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)
The entire area is as safe Tory as anywhere apart from parts of Lincolnshire