Howdy, Stranger!

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

Another reason why Boris Johnson had to go – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 31 in General
Another reason why Boris Johnson had to go – politicalbetting.com

While some Tories are calling for Boris Johnson to remain PM, for fear that his successors will prove less popular, his ratings are worse than Truss and Sunak among both the general public and those voters the party is currently losing https://t.co/maOxw3GRHN pic.twitter.com/CV7lXfdhFp

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,795
    edited July 28
    Typo.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,683

    NEW THREAD

    Wrong thread!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,795

    NEW THREAD

    Wrong thread!
    It's far too early for me.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,683
    Morning punters should compare markets

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.21 Liz Truss 83%
    5.8 Rishi Sunak 17%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.18 Liz Truss 85%
    6.4 Rishi Sunak 16%
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,683
    Opinion polls still seem to show house effects with Opinium better for Rishi and the more frequent Yougov polls favouring Liz Truss.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Mr. JohnL, what does 'better' for Rishi mean in terms of lead/deficit?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    I'm LOLing at Owen Jones. He is symptomatic of the last ravings of the Corbynite cult; a cult he was not really a member of, but has attached himself to. The longer Starmer's Labour leads in the polls, the more incoherent and nasty their rantings get.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294
    Vote for Rishi, or you’re racist:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/27/uk-will-seen-racist-tories-reject-rishi-sunak-warns-donor/

    “Britain will be seen as “racist” if Rishi Sunak loses the Tory leadership election, a Conservative donor has said.

    “Lord Ranger, the founder of Sun Mark, a supply and distribution firm, urged the party to ensure a “watershed moment” in politics by making Mr Sunak the first British Asian prime minister.

    “He said he was supporting Mr Sunak because he considered him the best candidate and warned of reputational consequences for the Conservatives if party members opted for Liz Truss instead.

    ““If people reject him, it will be a bad name for the party and the country because this will be perceived as racist,” Lord Ranger told Bharat Tak, an Indian news network.”
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,683
    Cuts leave military at risk amid rising threats, say MPs

    The report describes as "perverse" the decision to cut the number of troops in the regular army from 82,000 to 73,000

    Planned cuts to the British military leave it vulnerable at a time of rising threat, a report from MPs says.

    The Commons defence select committee report says flaws in a major defence review have been exposed by the Ukraine war and the return of the Taliban.

    It adds the Ministry of Defence appears arrogant and unwilling to learn lessons by refusing to revise its plans.

    The MoD said it would adapt its "strategy and response to meet emerging threats and challenges".

    The Integrated Defence and Security review, published in March 2021, was completed before Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Nato's withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62327524
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,778
    So basically Tories who have moved to Labour have done so mainly because they really don't Boris Johnson. Tories who are unenamoured with the party but have not yet moved have largely failed to do so because they are underwhelmed by SKS.

    Its this wonderful positivity that makes our politics so much fun. But it is also indicative that a Tory recovery under a leader who is not Boris remains possible.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,683
    DavidL said:

    So basically Tories who have moved to Labour have done so mainly because they really don't Boris Johnson. Tories who are unenamoured with the party but have not yet moved have largely failed to do so because they are underwhelmed by SKS.

    Its this wonderful positivity that makes our politics so much fun. But it is also indicative that a Tory recovery under a leader who is not Boris remains possible.

    If Keir Starmer's offer is a Labour government that would follow Conservative policies but without Boris, the Tories will shoot that fox on 5th September.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701
    edited July 28
    Among Scottish respondents - Net favourability

    Keir Starmer -12
    Liz Truss -47
    Rishi Sunak -48
    The Oaf -68

    (YouGov; 10-24 July)

    For comparison:

    Net favourability:



    Nicola Sturgeon +15

    Anas Sarwar +3
    Keir Starmer 0

    Alex Cole-Hamilton -11

    Patrick Harvie -11

    Lorna Slater -11

    Douglas Ross -26
    Rishi Sunak -28
    UK govt -51

    Alex Salmond -61

    The Oaf -62

    (Savanta ComRes; 23-28 June)

    Starmer’s and especially Sunak’s popularity has absolutely plummeted in Scotland. Not difficult to surmise why.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    Sandpit said:

    Vote for Rishi, or you’re racist:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/27/uk-will-seen-racist-tories-reject-rishi-sunak-warns-donor/

    “Britain will be seen as “racist” if Rishi Sunak loses the Tory leadership election, a Conservative donor has said.

    “Lord Ranger, the founder of Sun Mark, a supply and distribution firm, urged the party to ensure a “watershed moment” in politics by making Mr Sunak the first British Asian prime minister.

    “He said he was supporting Mr Sunak because he considered him the best candidate and warned of reputational consequences for the Conservatives if party members opted for Liz Truss instead.

    ““If people reject him, it will be a bad name for the party and the country because this will be perceived as racist,” Lord Ranger told Bharat Tak, an Indian news network.”

    I think there must be some racists in the Conservative party, as indeed there are in all walks of life. Whether that is 0.1% or 10% is unknown, but it could make a difference in a close contest.

    I think that Truss will win by a clear margin, and for other reasons than racial prejudice, so am now backing the 65%+ band, currently at 8 on Smarkets.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,040
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Vote for Rishi, or you’re racist:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/27/uk-will-seen-racist-tories-reject-rishi-sunak-warns-donor/

    “Britain will be seen as “racist” if Rishi Sunak loses the Tory leadership election, a Conservative donor has said.

    “Lord Ranger, the founder of Sun Mark, a supply and distribution firm, urged the party to ensure a “watershed moment” in politics by making Mr Sunak the first British Asian prime minister.

    “He said he was supporting Mr Sunak because he considered him the best candidate and warned of reputational consequences for the Conservatives if party members opted for Liz Truss instead.

    ““If people reject him, it will be a bad name for the party and the country because this will be perceived as racist,” Lord Ranger told Bharat Tak, an Indian news network.”

    I think there must be some racists in the Conservative party, as indeed there are in all walks of life. Whether that is 0.1% or 10% is unknown, but it could make a difference in a close contest.

    I think that Truss will win by a clear margin, and for other reasons than racial prejudice, so am now backing the 65%+ band, currently at 8 on Smarkets.
    Betfair punters certainly seem to have decided already, with La Truss at 1.19
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701
    Next Con Leader

    Truss 1.18
    Sunak 6.2

    Looks like punters think this is all done and dusted. Hard to disagree with them. Con VI in 12 months time is going to be hilarious, especially in northern England, Scotland and Wales. That’s when the blind panic will set in. Stock up on popcorn.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701

    Mr. Dickson, if the polling's bad then, it won't be blind panic. It'll be statistically informed panic.

    I stand corrected! 😄
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701
    Mr Dancer, you asked me a question last week which I have rudely not responded to. Even Scottish patriots have an IRL. I will dig it out and respond. It concerned distinctly Scottish governmental functions in the 1707-1999 period, and I felt it deserved a well-researched response. But in summary, no! Not just Scots law.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449

    Next Con Leader

    Truss 1.18
    Sunak 6.2

    Looks like punters think this is all done and dusted. Hard to disagree with them. Con VI in 12 months time is going to be hilarious, especially in northern England, Scotland and Wales. That’s when the blind panic will set in. Stock up on popcorn.

    Hang on, 5 minutes ago you said sunak was lead ballooning in Scotland. I doubt there was ever a Bozza what a lad vote there so I don't see what difference anything makes. I agree VI will be through the floor mind.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,087
    DavidL said:

    Cuts leave military at risk amid rising threats, say MPs

    The report describes as "perverse" the decision to cut the number of troops in the regular army from 82,000 to 73,000

    Planned cuts to the British military leave it vulnerable at a time of rising threat, a report from MPs says.

    The Commons defence select committee report says flaws in a major defence review have been exposed by the Ukraine war and the return of the Taliban.

    It adds the Ministry of Defence appears arrogant and unwilling to learn lessons by refusing to revise its plans.

    The MoD said it would adapt its "strategy and response to meet emerging threats and challenges".

    The Integrated Defence and Security review, published in March 2021, was completed before Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Nato's withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62327524

    The cut in troop numbers clearly needs to be reversed in the current environment but the idea that we face a huge military threat from Russia needs to be looked at quite critically. According to reports the Russians have deployed something like 85% of their military force against Ukraine and they are really struggling.

    How on earth would they be able to take on Poland, or Germany, or even France before they got near us? It is frankly ludicrous. We need the extra troops not to protect the UK, which is not under conventional threat at all, but to honour our obligations to our NATO allies, specifically the Baltic states. If we reduce our numbers as planned sustaining any kind of force for an extended period in the Baltic states would, with rotations, become extremely difficult.
    A few things. Firstly, a large proportion of the equipment of the Polish Army is already fighting Russia as it has been donated to the Ukrainians.

    Secondly, the greatest threat is not from the status quo, but from an isolationist US President taking office in January 2025, and pulling out of NATO. We need a plan for collective European defence in the absence of the US.

    Even if the US remains in NATO they will want to focus attention on China and the Pacific. So we could do with being able to defend Europe without their help.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    Talking about things that are blind something, has CHB resurfaced...?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,683

    Opinion polls still seem to show house effects with Opinium better for Rishi and the more frequent Yougov polls favouring Liz Truss.

    Otoh Yougov had some good news for Rishi yesterday.

    Rishi Sunak has edge over Liz Truss with swing voters
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/27/rishi-sunak-has-edge-over-liz-truss-swing-voters
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432

    Opinion polls still seem to show house effects with Opinium better for Rishi and the more frequent Yougov polls favouring Liz Truss.

    Otoh Yougov had some good news for Rishi yesterday.

    Rishi Sunak has edge over Liz Truss with swing voters
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/27/rishi-sunak-has-edge-over-liz-truss-swing-voters
    That's not good news for him, just very bad news for the Tories.

    OTOH since it's their fault they're getting Johnson in a skirt, my sympathy is - limited.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Mr. JohnL, is that good news? Sunak having the edge with people who don't have a vote in the leadership election isn't all that useful for him.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701
    IshmaelZ said:

    Next Con Leader

    Truss 1.18
    Sunak 6.2

    Looks like punters think this is all done and dusted. Hard to disagree with them. Con VI in 12 months time is going to be hilarious, especially in northern England, Scotland and Wales. That’s when the blind panic will set in. Stock up on popcorn.

    Hang on, 5 minutes ago you said sunak was lead ballooning in Scotland. I doubt there was ever a Bozza what a lad vote there so I don't see what difference anything makes. I agree VI will be through the floor mind.
    Not me that says Sunak is lead ballooning in Scotland, but YouGov 😉

    I don’t think the problem for the Scottish Tories is the person in charge in London, it is the entire culture within the English Conservative Party: they have stopped caring about the Union. Openly mocking Scots and Scotland is perfectly accepted routine behaviour. Those who do truly care about the Union need to halt that trend, and fast.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    With regards to the Starmer - Tarry - Jones escapade, the funniest thing of all is the absolute fury that Jones has worked himself into because he has realised that Starmer played him for a fool.

    Wasn't it obvious from the start that Starmer wouldn't stick to the pledges he was making to placate hard left members? To start with most of those members would quickly become former members, so pledges to people who left the party in disgust at your election don't count for much.

    And it is wider than that. Starmer was obviously and pointedly telling them what they wanted to hear rather than what he actually thought. He didn't believe in the stuff he was pledging as anyone with eyes and a brain could see.

    So why is Jones so ANGRY? Because apparently he thought Starmer was being sincere. Only a fool learns to get fooled. And Jones is a prize fool. His "get out there, get in his face, tell him what you think" is a dangerous incitement.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,401
    DavidL said:

    So basically Tories who have moved to Labour have done so mainly because they really don't Boris Johnson. Tories who are unenamoured with the party but have not yet moved have largely failed to do so because they are underwhelmed by SKS.

    Its this wonderful positivity that makes our politics so much fun. But it is also indicative that a Tory recovery under a leader who is not Boris remains possible.

    What is there to be positive about ?
    Over half the electorate think the most consequential decision we made in the last decade was wrong, but is practically irreversible.
    We have no industrial strategy worth the name.
    We postponed for decades decisions on energy which might have saved us from the worst if the current mess.
    Out health, education and criminal justice systems are in pretty poor shape.

    And neither government nor the official opposition have much to say that addresses any of the above.

    Which new Tory leader fills you with hope ?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    HYUFD said:

    YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:

    London
    Lab 54%
    Con 20%
    LD 12%
    Grn 9%
    Ref 2%

    Rest of South
    Con 38%
    Lab 32%
    LD 19%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 40%
    Con 35%
    LD 8%
    Ref 6%
    Grn 6%
    PC 3%

    North
    Lab 46%
    Con 28%
    LD 8%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 4%

    Scotland
    SNP 43%
    Con 24%
    Lab 22%
    Grn 7%
    LD 4%

    (YouGov / The Times Survey Results
    Sample Size: 1692; 21st - 22nd July 2022)

    Swing of 0.5% SNP to SCon since 2019
    Keep believing.
    They might even gain Gordon from the SNP on that swing, Labour would also pick up Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath from the SNP on the Yougov Scottish figures
    Have you the faintest conception of what the MoE is on subsamples? Even correctly weighted ones? About 8%. Good luck with those seat predictions.

    The SCons were on 19% in the last proper, full-sample Scottish poll.
    Either way poor figures for Sturgeon given her desire for a thumping SNP win and big SNP gains at the next general election when the SC likely confirms no indyref2 affecting the Union without UK government consent
    Pro-independence parties at 51%
    BritNat parties at 48%

    Fill yer breeks Franco Fan.
    SNP and Greens at 50% combined not 51%, she would need to get pro independence parties well over 60% to have any leeway over a UK government which will continue to refuse indyref2 whether Starmer or Truss/Sunak is PM (unless Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and Starmer changes his mind to get into No 10)
    Alba is by far the biggest “Other” party, so yes, 51%.

    And don’t forget that approx 1/3 of SLab voters are pro-independence. So 52% + 7% = bloody close to your 60% figure.

    But by all means, continue to be complacent.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    ydoethur said:

    Opinion polls still seem to show house effects with Opinium better for Rishi and the more frequent Yougov polls favouring Liz Truss.

    Otoh Yougov had some good news for Rishi yesterday.

    Rishi Sunak has edge over Liz Truss with swing voters
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/27/rishi-sunak-has-edge-over-liz-truss-swing-voters
    That's not good news for him, just very bad news for the Tories.

    OTOH since it's their fault they're getting Johnson in a skirt, my sympathy is - limited.
    Plus Liz cleans up with the switch voters
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,040

    With regards to the Starmer - Tarry - Jones escapade, the funniest thing of all is the absolute fury that Jones has worked himself into because he has realised that Starmer played him for a fool.

    Wasn't it obvious from the start that Starmer wouldn't stick to the pledges he was making to placate hard left members? To start with most of those members would quickly become former members, so pledges to people who left the party in disgust at your election don't count for much.

    And it is wider than that. Starmer was obviously and pointedly telling them what they wanted to hear rather than what he actually thought. He didn't believe in the stuff he was pledging as anyone with eyes and a brain could see.

    So why is Jones so ANGRY? Because apparently he thought Starmer was being sincere. Only a fool learns to get fooled. And Jones is a prize fool. His "get out there, get in his face, tell him what you think" is a dangerous incitement.

    Starmer will be pleased to see the back of Tarry, anyhow - an unpleasant union bullyboy from East London who got the nomination for his seat in highly dubious circumstances and who is likely to be deselected for the next election; his affair with his parliamentary boss isn't a great look, either.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294

    With regards to the Starmer - Tarry - Jones escapade, the funniest thing of all is the absolute fury that Jones has worked himself into because he has realised that Starmer played him for a fool.

    Wasn't it obvious from the start that Starmer wouldn't stick to the pledges he was making to placate hard left members? To start with most of those members would quickly become former members, so pledges to people who left the party in disgust at your election don't count for much.

    And it is wider than that. Starmer was obviously and pointedly telling them what they wanted to hear rather than what he actually thought. He didn't believe in the stuff he was pledging as anyone with eyes and a brain could see.

    So why is Jones so ANGRY? Because apparently he thought Starmer was being sincere. Only a fool learns to get fooled. And Jones is a prize fool. His "get out there, get in his face, tell him what you think" is a dangerous incitement.

    Imagine making the terrible mistake of thinking that a politician is being honest, and not lying through his teeth telling people what they want to hear?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    IanB2 said:

    With regards to the Starmer - Tarry - Jones escapade, the funniest thing of all is the absolute fury that Jones has worked himself into because he has realised that Starmer played him for a fool.

    Wasn't it obvious from the start that Starmer wouldn't stick to the pledges he was making to placate hard left members? To start with most of those members would quickly become former members, so pledges to people who left the party in disgust at your election don't count for much.

    And it is wider than that. Starmer was obviously and pointedly telling them what they wanted to hear rather than what he actually thought. He didn't believe in the stuff he was pledging as anyone with eyes and a brain could see.

    So why is Jones so ANGRY? Because apparently he thought Starmer was being sincere. Only a fool learns to get fooled. And Jones is a prize fool. His "get out there, get in his face, tell him what you think" is a dangerous incitement.

    Starmer will be pleased to see the back of Tarry, anyhow - an unpleasant union bullyboy from East London who got the nomination for his seat in highly dubious circumstances and who is likely to be deselected for the next election; his affair with his parliamentary boss isn't a great look, either.
    I thought Tarry and Rayner were a thing...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,902

    With regards to the Starmer - Tarry - Jones escapade, the funniest thing of all is the absolute fury that Jones has worked himself into because he has realised that Starmer played him for a fool.

    Wasn't it obvious from the start that Starmer wouldn't stick to the pledges he was making to placate hard left members? To start with most of those members would quickly become former members, so pledges to people who left the party in disgust at your election don't count for much.

    And it is wider than that. Starmer was obviously and pointedly telling them what they wanted to hear rather than what he actually thought. He didn't believe in the stuff he was pledging as anyone with eyes and a brain could see.

    So why is Jones so ANGRY? Because apparently he thought Starmer was being sincere. Only a fool learns to get fooled. And Jones is a prize fool. His "get out there, get in his face, tell him what you think" is a dangerous incitement.

    I don't think Jones thought that Starmer was being sincere. If he did, why didn't he campaign for him to become leader? He just knows that fury is what his audience wants and he is providing it. The whole row is performative. As usual.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521

    With regards to the Starmer - Tarry - Jones escapade, the funniest thing of all is the absolute fury that Jones has worked himself into because he has realised that Starmer played him for a fool.

    Wasn't it obvious from the start that Starmer wouldn't stick to the pledges he was making to placate hard left members? To start with most of those members would quickly become former members, so pledges to people who left the party in disgust at your election don't count for much.

    And it is wider than that. Starmer was obviously and pointedly telling them what they wanted to hear rather than what he actually thought. He didn't believe in the stuff he was pledging as anyone with eyes and a brain could see.

    So why is Jones so ANGRY? Because apparently he thought Starmer was being sincere. Only a fool learns to get fooled. And Jones is a prize fool. His "get out there, get in his face, tell him what you think" is a dangerous incitement.

    Tarry is right though. Pushing through major real wage cuts for working people should not be Labour policy. The vast majority of people have not had a significant payrise in years, so clearly it is not wages driving inflation. The Fed is busy pushing up interest rates, but that too seems to not be addressing the underlying reasons for inflation.

    Until hydrocarbon fuels normalise, the war in Ukraine and Russia sanctions are over, and post covid supply chains recover we will have inflation. In the meantime suppressing workers wages and adding mortgage rate increases just piles on the misery and runs the risk of an unnecessarily sharp downturn in the economy.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 1,749

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    HYUFD said:

    YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:

    London
    Lab 54%
    Con 20%
    LD 12%
    Grn 9%
    Ref 2%

    Rest of South
    Con 38%
    Lab 32%
    LD 19%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 40%
    Con 35%
    LD 8%
    Ref 6%
    Grn 6%
    PC 3%

    North
    Lab 46%
    Con 28%
    LD 8%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 4%

    Scotland
    SNP 43%
    Con 24%
    Lab 22%
    Grn 7%
    LD 4%

    (YouGov / The Times Survey Results
    Sample Size: 1692; 21st - 22nd July 2022)

    Swing of 0.5% SNP to SCon since 2019
    Keep believing.
    They might even gain Gordon from the SNP on that swing, Labour would also pick up Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath from the SNP on the Yougov Scottish figures
    Have you the faintest conception of what the MoE is on subsamples? Even correctly weighted ones? About 8%. Good luck with those seat predictions.

    The SCons were on 19% in the last proper, full-sample Scottish poll.
    Either way poor figures for Sturgeon given her desire for a thumping SNP win and big SNP gains at the next general election when the SC likely confirms no indyref2 affecting the Union without UK government consent
    Pro-independence parties at 51%
    BritNat parties at 48%

    Fill yer breeks Franco Fan.
    SNP and Greens at 50% combined not 51%, she would need to get pro independence parties well over 60% to have any leeway over a UK government which will continue to refuse indyref2 whether Starmer or Truss/Sunak is PM (unless Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and Starmer changes his mind to get into No 10)
    Alba is by far the biggest “Other” party, so yes, 51%.

    And don’t forget that approx 1/3 of SLab voters are pro-independence. So 52% + 7% = bloody close to your 60% figure.

    But by all means, continue to be complacent.
    But some of the SNP/Green voters are anti-independence. We know that because we have regular polling on support for independence, and it’s below 50% of course!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,401
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Opinion polls still seem to show house effects with Opinium better for Rishi and the more frequent Yougov polls favouring Liz Truss.

    Otoh Yougov had some good news for Rishi yesterday.

    Rishi Sunak has edge over Liz Truss with swing voters
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/27/rishi-sunak-has-edge-over-liz-truss-swing-voters
    That's not good news for him, just very bad news for the Tories.

    OTOH since it's their fault they're getting Johnson in a skirt, my sympathy is - limited.
    Plus Liz cleans up with the switch voters
    But will they also vote for her ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Opinion polls still seem to show house effects with Opinium better for Rishi and the more frequent Yougov polls favouring Liz Truss.

    Otoh Yougov had some good news for Rishi yesterday.

    Rishi Sunak has edge over Liz Truss with swing voters
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/27/rishi-sunak-has-edge-over-liz-truss-swing-voters
    That's not good news for him, just very bad news for the Tories.

    OTOH since it's their fault they're getting Johnson in a skirt, my sympathy is - limited.
    Plus Liz cleans up with the switch voters
    She clearly dominates the minds of political bettors.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294

    DavidL said:

    Cuts leave military at risk amid rising threats, say MPs

    The report describes as "perverse" the decision to cut the number of troops in the regular army from 82,000 to 73,000

    Planned cuts to the British military leave it vulnerable at a time of rising threat, a report from MPs says.

    The Commons defence select committee report says flaws in a major defence review have been exposed by the Ukraine war and the return of the Taliban.

    It adds the Ministry of Defence appears arrogant and unwilling to learn lessons by refusing to revise its plans.

    The MoD said it would adapt its "strategy and response to meet emerging threats and challenges".

    The Integrated Defence and Security review, published in March 2021, was completed before Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Nato's withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62327524

    The cut in troop numbers clearly needs to be reversed in the current environment but the idea that we face a huge military threat from Russia needs to be looked at quite critically. According to reports the Russians have deployed something like 85% of their military force against Ukraine and they are really struggling.

    How on earth would they be able to take on Poland, or Germany, or even France before they got near us? It is frankly ludicrous. We need the extra troops not to protect the UK, which is not under conventional threat at all, but to honour our obligations to our NATO allies, specifically the Baltic states. If we reduce our numbers as planned sustaining any kind of force for an extended period in the Baltic states would, with rotations, become extremely difficult.
    A few things. Firstly, a large proportion of the equipment of the Polish Army is already fighting Russia as it has been donated to the Ukrainians.

    Secondly, the greatest threat is not from the status quo, but from an isolationist US President taking office in January 2025, and pulling out of NATO. We need a plan for collective European defence in the absence of the US.

    Even if the US remains in NATO they will want to focus attention on China and the Pacific. So we could do with being able to defend Europe without their help.
    Yes, the US focus is indeed likely to be on China and the Asia-Pacific region in the coming decade. We already see many otherwise intelligent American commentators and policymakers not understanding the war in Ukraine, and the existential threat to Europe posed by Putin. Europe needs to be able to defend itself, even though the Russian forces have been somewhat diminished by the present conflict. We need at least to replace the capability that has been lost defending Ukraine.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521

    IanB2 said:

    With regards to the Starmer - Tarry - Jones escapade, the funniest thing of all is the absolute fury that Jones has worked himself into because he has realised that Starmer played him for a fool.

    Wasn't it obvious from the start that Starmer wouldn't stick to the pledges he was making to placate hard left members? To start with most of those members would quickly become former members, so pledges to people who left the party in disgust at your election don't count for much.

    And it is wider than that. Starmer was obviously and pointedly telling them what they wanted to hear rather than what he actually thought. He didn't believe in the stuff he was pledging as anyone with eyes and a brain could see.

    So why is Jones so ANGRY? Because apparently he thought Starmer was being sincere. Only a fool learns to get fooled. And Jones is a prize fool. His "get out there, get in his face, tell him what you think" is a dangerous incitement.

    Starmer will be pleased to see the back of Tarry, anyhow - an unpleasant union bullyboy from East London who got the nomination for his seat in highly dubious circumstances and who is likely to be deselected for the next election; his affair with his parliamentary boss isn't a great look, either.
    I thought Tarry and Rayner were a thing...
    Rayner too was an active Trade Unionist, so could be a battle developing there.

    It seems strange that Starmer and Reeves can openly speak against Labour policy without punishment but Tarry cannot.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    HYUFD said:

    YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:

    London
    Lab 54%
    Con 20%
    LD 12%
    Grn 9%
    Ref 2%

    Rest of South
    Con 38%
    Lab 32%
    LD 19%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 40%
    Con 35%
    LD 8%
    Ref 6%
    Grn 6%
    PC 3%

    North
    Lab 46%
    Con 28%
    LD 8%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 4%

    Scotland
    SNP 43%
    Con 24%
    Lab 22%
    Grn 7%
    LD 4%

    (YouGov / The Times Survey Results
    Sample Size: 1692; 21st - 22nd July 2022)

    Swing of 0.5% SNP to SCon since 2019
    Keep believing.
    They might even gain Gordon from the SNP on that swing, Labour would also pick up Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath from the SNP on the Yougov Scottish figures
    Have you the faintest conception of what the MoE is on subsamples? Even correctly weighted ones? About 8%. Good luck with those seat predictions.

    The SCons were on 19% in the last proper, full-sample Scottish poll.
    Either way poor figures for Sturgeon given her desire for a thumping SNP win and big SNP gains at the next general election when the SC likely confirms no indyref2 affecting the Union without UK government consent
    Pro-independence parties at 51%
    BritNat parties at 48%

    Fill yer breeks Franco Fan.
    SNP and Greens at 50% combined not 51%, she would need to get pro independence parties well over 60% to have any leeway over a UK government which will continue to refuse indyref2 whether Starmer or Truss/Sunak is PM (unless Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and Starmer changes his mind to get into No 10)
    Alba is by far the biggest “Other” party, so yes, 51%.

    And don’t forget that approx 1/3 of SLab voters are pro-independence. So 52% + 7% = bloody close to your 60% figure.

    But by all means, continue to be complacent.
    But some of the SNP/Green voters are anti-independence. We know that because we have regular polling on support for independence, and it’s below 50% of course!
    The last poll (Panelbase/Sunday Times; 29 June-1 July) has Yes on 51%.

    But yes, you are of course correct: a small, but significant, number of SNP and Green voters are not pro-independence. But they are hardly diehard Unionists either! This is where the BetterTogether2 parties are making their key error: they continually address core No voters and ignore the soft centre.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    Foxy said:

    With regards to the Starmer - Tarry - Jones escapade, the funniest thing of all is the absolute fury that Jones has worked himself into because he has realised that Starmer played him for a fool.

    Wasn't it obvious from the start that Starmer wouldn't stick to the pledges he was making to placate hard left members? To start with most of those members would quickly become former members, so pledges to people who left the party in disgust at your election don't count for much.

    And it is wider than that. Starmer was obviously and pointedly telling them what they wanted to hear rather than what he actually thought. He didn't believe in the stuff he was pledging as anyone with eyes and a brain could see.

    So why is Jones so ANGRY? Because apparently he thought Starmer was being sincere. Only a fool learns to get fooled. And Jones is a prize fool. His "get out there, get in his face, tell him what you think" is a dangerous incitement.

    Tarry is right though. Pushing through major real wage cuts for working people should not be Labour policy. The vast majority of people have not had a significant payrise in years, so clearly it is not wages driving inflation. The Fed is busy pushing up interest rates, but that too seems to not be addressing the underlying reasons for inflation.

    Until hydrocarbon fuels normalise, the war in Ukraine and Russia sanctions are over, and post covid supply chains recover we will have inflation. In the meantime suppressing workers wages and adding mortgage rate increases just piles on the misery and runs the risk of an unnecessarily sharp downturn in the economy.
    Labour have always had a problem when it comes to union action. The problem is that the party - and more significantly most of its voters - don't take kindly to lunatic union bosses. Most of the unions are unaffiliated with Labour and way off to the left, and have no concern about what their actions do to Labour's chances of being elected.

    I agree that people should get pay rises in line with inflation as a minimum. But how Labour balances this off against people who see uppity unions and think "wankers" is a real problem. Remember though that Tarry wasn't sacked for his position on pay. It was for his position on claiming to be Shadow SofS and making up his own personal pay policy on the spot.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,087

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    HYUFD said:

    YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:

    London
    Lab 54%
    Con 20%
    LD 12%
    Grn 9%
    Ref 2%

    Rest of South
    Con 38%
    Lab 32%
    LD 19%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 40%
    Con 35%
    LD 8%
    Ref 6%
    Grn 6%
    PC 3%

    North
    Lab 46%
    Con 28%
    LD 8%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 4%

    Scotland
    SNP 43%
    Con 24%
    Lab 22%
    Grn 7%
    LD 4%

    (YouGov / The Times Survey Results
    Sample Size: 1692; 21st - 22nd July 2022)

    Swing of 0.5% SNP to SCon since 2019
    Keep believing.
    They might even gain Gordon from the SNP on that swing, Labour would also pick up Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath from the SNP on the Yougov Scottish figures
    Have you the faintest conception of what the MoE is on subsamples? Even correctly weighted ones? About 8%. Good luck with those seat predictions.

    The SCons were on 19% in the last proper, full-sample Scottish poll.
    Either way poor figures for Sturgeon given her desire for a thumping SNP win and big SNP gains at the next general election when the SC likely confirms no indyref2 affecting the Union without UK government consent
    Pro-independence parties at 51%
    BritNat parties at 48%

    Fill yer breeks Franco Fan.
    SNP and Greens at 50% combined not 51%, she would need to get pro independence parties well over 60% to have any leeway over a UK government which will continue to refuse indyref2 whether Starmer or Truss/Sunak is PM (unless Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and Starmer changes his mind to get into No 10)
    Alba is by far the biggest “Other” party, so yes, 51%.

    And don’t forget that approx 1/3 of SLab voters are pro-independence. So 52% + 7% = bloody close to your 60% figure.

    But by all means, continue to be complacent.
    Serious question: if you get to nearly 60% by that Maths, why isn't that shown in the polls on the Independence question?

    How many SNP voters are there who are voting for Sturgeon, but wouldn't vote for Independence?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Opinion polls still seem to show house effects with Opinium better for Rishi and the more frequent Yougov polls favouring Liz Truss.

    Otoh Yougov had some good news for Rishi yesterday.

    Rishi Sunak has edge over Liz Truss with swing voters
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/27/rishi-sunak-has-edge-over-liz-truss-swing-voters
    That's not good news for him, just very bad news for the Tories.

    OTOH since it's their fault they're getting Johnson in a skirt, my sympathy is - limited.
    Plus Liz cleans up with the switch voters
    But will they also vote for her ?
    They wouldn't dare vote against her. Think what she would do to them if she did...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701
    Andy_JS said:

    NOM 1.83
    Con Maj 3.9
    Lab Maj 4.5

    In my opinion the figures should be something like this: [assumes the new boundaries are in force]

    NOM 2.22
    Con Maj 2.22
    Lab Maj 10
    I concur with your Lab Maj 10 opinion, for the simple reason that Anas Sarwar has stalled in the low 20s, and the English Midlands are still stubbornly sticking with the Tories.

    However, your Con Maj 2.22 is waaaay too short. The economic shit has yet to hit the fan, and when it does the Tories are going to get all the blame.

    NOM looks like a shoo in. Barring… events dear boy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,401

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Opinion polls still seem to show house effects with Opinium better for Rishi and the more frequent Yougov polls favouring Liz Truss.

    Otoh Yougov had some good news for Rishi yesterday.

    Rishi Sunak has edge over Liz Truss with swing voters
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/27/rishi-sunak-has-edge-over-liz-truss-swing-voters
    That's not good news for him, just very bad news for the Tories.

    OTOH since it's their fault they're getting Johnson in a skirt, my sympathy is - limited.
    Plus Liz cleans up with the switch voters
    But will they also vote for her ?
    They wouldn't dare vote against her. Think what she would do to them if she did...
    Think what she might be able to do if she's PM...

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,584
    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    I wonder if the Government (Truss) may need to temporarily effectively nationalise the gas supply.

    If she does I expect it to command broad public support.

    The free market works brilliantly at efficiently allocating resources and stimulating production and distribution, competitively, in normal times but if we get to the stage where we have a highly constrained supply and it costs households over £500 a month then we'll be in a bidding war where the wealthiest will be able to carry on as normal, at a very high cost, whilst a lot of ordinary people freeze.

    That can't be allowed to happen.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,087

    I would love to see an analysis of the crowd funding of people like Owen Jones, Jolyon Maugham, Nigel Farage, Led by Donkeys et al to see where they are getting their money. If I were Russia, China or any other state wanting to interfere with our processes, these pieces of grit in the oyster of government would seem ideal targets for a few quid. And the nature of crowd-funding makes it a little opaque.

    They generate a lot of noise for very little expense.

    (Note, I am not saying that all their crowd-funded income comes from dodgy sources, or any of it - just that they'd be ideal targets for it.)

    You have to be careful with this sort of thinking because it's exactly the line of reasoning that authoritarians like Orban, Putin, etc, have used to crack down on dissent from civil society groups.

    Much as you might disagree with some of these people, they're a vital part of our democratic process.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    HYUFD said:

    YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:

    London
    Lab 54%
    Con 20%
    LD 12%
    Grn 9%
    Ref 2%

    Rest of South
    Con 38%
    Lab 32%
    LD 19%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 40%
    Con 35%
    LD 8%
    Ref 6%
    Grn 6%
    PC 3%

    North
    Lab 46%
    Con 28%
    LD 8%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 4%

    Scotland
    SNP 43%
    Con 24%
    Lab 22%
    Grn 7%
    LD 4%

    (YouGov / The Times Survey Results
    Sample Size: 1692; 21st - 22nd July 2022)

    Swing of 0.5% SNP to SCon since 2019
    Keep believing.
    They might even gain Gordon from the SNP on that swing, Labour would also pick up Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath from the SNP on the Yougov Scottish figures
    Have you the faintest conception of what the MoE is on subsamples? Even correctly weighted ones? About 8%. Good luck with those seat predictions.

    The SCons were on 19% in the last proper, full-sample Scottish poll.
    Either way poor figures for Sturgeon given her desire for a thumping SNP win and big SNP gains at the next general election when the SC likely confirms no indyref2 affecting the Union without UK government consent
    Pro-independence parties at 51%
    BritNat parties at 48%

    Fill yer breeks Franco Fan.
    SNP and Greens at 50% combined not 51%, she would need to get pro independence parties well over 60% to have any leeway over a UK government which will continue to refuse indyref2 whether Starmer or Truss/Sunak is PM (unless Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and Starmer changes his mind to get into No 10)
    Alba is by far the biggest “Other” party, so yes, 51%.

    And don’t forget that approx 1/3 of SLab voters are pro-independence. So 52% + 7% = bloody close to your 60% figure.

    But by all means, continue to be complacent.
    Serious question: if you get to nearly 60% by that Maths, why isn't that shown in the polls on the Independence question?

    How many SNP voters are there who are voting for Sturgeon, but wouldn't vote for Independence?
    As @bondegezou has already correctly identified: a small but significant number of SNP and Scottish Green Party voters do not back independence. See my response to his point above.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,401

    Andy_JS said:

    NOM 1.83
    Con Maj 3.9
    Lab Maj 4.5

    In my opinion the figures should be something like this: [assumes the new boundaries are in force]

    NOM 2.22
    Con Maj 2.22
    Lab Maj 10
    I concur with your Lab Maj 10 opinion, for the simple reason that Anas Sarwar has stalled in the low 20s, and the English Midlands are still stubbornly sticking with the Tories.

    However, your Con Maj 2.22 is waaaay too short. The economic shit has yet to hit the fan, and when it does the Tories are going to get all the blame.

    NOM looks like a shoo in. Barring… events dear boy.
    Labour largest party looks the safest bet.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Sandpit said:

    Vote for Rishi, or you’re racist:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/27/uk-will-seen-racist-tories-reject-rishi-sunak-warns-donor/

    “Britain will be seen as “racist” if Rishi Sunak loses the Tory leadership election, a Conservative donor has said.

    “Lord Ranger, the founder of Sun Mark, a supply and distribution firm, urged the party to ensure a “watershed moment” in politics by making Mr Sunak the first British Asian prime minister.

    “He said he was supporting Mr Sunak because he considered him the best candidate and warned of reputational consequences for the Conservatives if party members opted for Liz Truss instead.

    ““If people reject him, it will be a bad name for the party and the country because this will be perceived as racist,” Lord Ranger told Bharat Tak, an Indian news network.”

    That's the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    It's potentially catastrophic to Rishi's campaign and may have cost him my vote.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    Football innit. Wee loons in the park. Jumpers for goalpoasts.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701
    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    NOM 1.83
    Con Maj 3.9
    Lab Maj 4.5

    In my opinion the figures should be something like this: [assumes the new boundaries are in force]

    NOM 2.22
    Con Maj 2.22
    Lab Maj 10
    I concur with your Lab Maj 10 opinion, for the simple reason that Anas Sarwar has stalled in the low 20s, and the English Midlands are still stubbornly sticking with the Tories.

    However, your Con Maj 2.22 is waaaay too short. The economic shit has yet to hit the fan, and when it does the Tories are going to get all the blame.

    NOM looks like a shoo in. Barring… events dear boy.
    Labour largest party looks the safest bet.
    Indeed, but that’s a different market 😉
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    There’s a determined effort by the BBC (and Sky) to give women’s sports equal billing.

    Their argument is that the men’s team qualifying for a major final would be top of the news, so they should do the same for the women’s team.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    DavidL said:

    So basically Tories who have moved to Labour have done so mainly because they really don't Boris Johnson. Tories who are unenamoured with the party but have not yet moved have largely failed to do so because they are underwhelmed by SKS.

    Its this wonderful positivity that makes our politics so much fun. But it is also indicative that a Tory recovery under a leader who is not Boris remains possible.

    Direct movement between the Tories to Labour remains modest.

    Truss can stage a recovery simply by replacing Boris and moving Conservative non-voters and don't knows back into the Conservative column.

    The rest will need to be based on performance and how she leads.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,401
    .

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    NOM 1.83
    Con Maj 3.9
    Lab Maj 4.5

    In my opinion the figures should be something like this: [assumes the new boundaries are in force]

    NOM 2.22
    Con Maj 2.22
    Lab Maj 10
    I concur with your Lab Maj 10 opinion, for the simple reason that Anas Sarwar has stalled in the low 20s, and the English Midlands are still stubbornly sticking with the Tories.

    However, your Con Maj 2.22 is waaaay too short. The economic shit has yet to hit the fan, and when it does the Tories are going to get all the blame.

    NOM looks like a shoo in. Barring… events dear boy.
    Labour largest party looks the safest bet.
    Indeed, but that’s a different market 😉
    The only one I've bet on so far, FWIW.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,948

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    HYUFD said:

    YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:

    London
    Lab 54%
    Con 20%
    LD 12%
    Grn 9%
    Ref 2%

    Rest of South
    Con 38%
    Lab 32%
    LD 19%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 40%
    Con 35%
    LD 8%
    Ref 6%
    Grn 6%
    PC 3%

    North
    Lab 46%
    Con 28%
    LD 8%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 4%

    Scotland
    SNP 43%
    Con 24%
    Lab 22%
    Grn 7%
    LD 4%

    (YouGov / The Times Survey Results
    Sample Size: 1692; 21st - 22nd July 2022)

    Swing of 0.5% SNP to SCon since 2019
    Keep believing.
    They might even gain Gordon from the SNP on that swing, Labour would also pick up Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath from the SNP on the Yougov Scottish figures
    Have you the faintest conception of what the MoE is on subsamples? Even correctly weighted ones? About 8%. Good luck with those seat predictions.

    The SCons were on 19% in the last proper, full-sample Scottish poll.
    Either way poor figures for Sturgeon given her desire for a thumping SNP win and big SNP gains at the next general election when the SC likely confirms no indyref2 affecting the Union without UK government consent
    Pro-independence parties at 51%
    BritNat parties at 48%

    Fill yer breeks Franco Fan.
    SNP and Greens at 50% combined not 51%, she would need to get pro independence parties well over 60% to have any leeway over a UK government which will continue to refuse indyref2 whether Starmer or Truss/Sunak is PM (unless Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and Starmer changes his mind to get into No 10)
    Alba is by far the biggest “Other” party, so yes, 51%.

    And don’t forget that approx 1/3 of SLab voters are pro-independence. So 52% + 7% = bloody close to your 60% figure.

    But by all means, continue to be complacent.
    Serious question: if you get to nearly 60% by that Maths, why isn't that shown in the polls on the Independence question?

    How many SNP voters are there who are voting for Sturgeon, but wouldn't vote for Independence?
    As @bondegezou has already correctly identified: a small but significant number of SNP and Scottish Green Party voters do not back independence. See my response to his point above.
    And if Labour start catching up with the SNP, it might not be an increase in support for the union - just unionists shifting over to a Unionist party.

    I think that could happen in the run up to a referendum.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    Ingerlaaaand! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

    The rise and rise of English national self-awareness. One of the intelligentsia’s most under-commented cultural phenomena of the age.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521

    I would love to see an analysis of the crowd funding of people like Owen Jones, Jolyon Maugham, Nigel Farage, Led by Donkeys et al to see where they are getting their money. If I were Russia, China or any other state wanting to interfere with our processes, these pieces of grit in the oyster of government would seem ideal targets for a few quid. And the nature of crowd-funding makes it a little opaque.

    They generate a lot of noise for very little expense.

    (Note, I am not saying that all their crowd-funded income comes from dodgy sources, or any of it - just that they'd be ideal targets for it.)

    You have to be careful with this sort of thinking because it's exactly the line of reasoning that authoritarians like Orban, Putin, etc, have used to crack down on dissent from civil society groups.

    Much as you might disagree with some of these people, they're a vital part of our democratic process.
    The nature of crowd funding is that it is lots of small donations, usually visible even if anonymous. Difficult for a state actor to organise.

    More usually foreign states influence policy by buying newspapers, other media, creating sock puppet think tanks, party donations via intermediaries and even bunga bunga parties at Italian castles. That is where scrutiny of foreign manipulation of our politics should be, not on whether I bung Led by Donkeys another purple drinking voucher.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803

    I wonder if the Government (Truss) may need to temporarily effectively nationalise the gas supply.

    If she does I expect it to command broad public support.

    The free market works brilliantly at efficiently allocating resources and stimulating production and distribution, competitively, in normal times but if we get to the stage where we have a highly constrained supply and it costs households over £500 a month then we'll be in a bidding war where the wealthiest will be able to carry on as normal, at a very high cost, whilst a lot of ordinary people freeze.

    That can't be allowed to happen.

    Won't BR be along shortly to say thats exactly what should happen?

    You are right to highlight what looks like it is going to be a very serious crisis this winter. Under Johnson the Tories big problem was that the demonstrated they didn't believe there was a problem, and that they didn't care if people were struggling. If Truss can change even the latter its a step forward for them.

    I don't use gas so I have no idea how they would ration supplies. If prices are going to be as insane as suggested then it may not be rationing by supply that happens but rationing by price.

    Quite simply we need to do what some other governments do. Impose a subsidised tariff on the energy companies. Even if that is only for the bottom 20% of household incomes it would make a huge difference. Will cost the government money, but so will the riots and deaths that will happen if they don't.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,580
    Foxy said:

    With regards to the Starmer - Tarry - Jones escapade, the funniest thing of all is the absolute fury that Jones has worked himself into because he has realised that Starmer played him for a fool.

    Wasn't it obvious from the start that Starmer wouldn't stick to the pledges he was making to placate hard left members? To start with most of those members would quickly become former members, so pledges to people who left the party in disgust at your election don't count for much.

    And it is wider than that. Starmer was obviously and pointedly telling them what they wanted to hear rather than what he actually thought. He didn't believe in the stuff he was pledging as anyone with eyes and a brain could see.

    So why is Jones so ANGRY? Because apparently he thought Starmer was being sincere. Only a fool learns to get fooled. And Jones is a prize fool. His "get out there, get in his face, tell him what you think" is a dangerous incitement.

    Tarry is right though. Pushing through major real wage cuts for working people should not be Labour policy. The vast majority of people have not had a significant payrise in years, so clearly it is not wages driving inflation. The Fed is busy pushing up interest rates, but that too seems to not be addressing the underlying reasons for inflation.

    Until hydrocarbon fuels normalise, the war in Ukraine and Russia sanctions are over, and post covid supply chains recover we will have inflation. In the meantime suppressing workers wages and adding mortgage rate increases just piles on the misery and runs the risk of an unnecessarily sharp downturn in the economy.
    Unfortunately a significant real terms pay cut is inevitable. We have just had a very big negative shock to the terms of trade which has reduced productivity which means a significant real terms pay cut.

    The only question is whether the pain is felt through a general, and hopefully one off, rise in prices or through nominal pay cuts. I think the former is better for a number of reasons, but that sadly doesn't stop it being painful to many people.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    There’s a determined effort by the BBC (and Sky) to give women’s sports equal billing.

    Their argument is that the men’s team qualifying for a major final would be top of the news, so they should do the same for the women’s team.
    And a Wembley final gives a welcome boost to the cocaine and fireworks markets
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,087

    Sandpit said:

    Vote for Rishi, or you’re racist:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/27/uk-will-seen-racist-tories-reject-rishi-sunak-warns-donor/

    “Britain will be seen as “racist” if Rishi Sunak loses the Tory leadership election, a Conservative donor has said.

    “Lord Ranger, the founder of Sun Mark, a supply and distribution firm, urged the party to ensure a “watershed moment” in politics by making Mr Sunak the first British Asian prime minister.

    “He said he was supporting Mr Sunak because he considered him the best candidate and warned of reputational consequences for the Conservatives if party members opted for Liz Truss instead.

    ““If people reject him, it will be a bad name for the party and the country because this will be perceived as racist,” Lord Ranger told Bharat Tak, an Indian news network.”

    That's the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    It's potentially catastrophic to Rishi's campaign and may have cost him my vote.
    No-one wants to feel coerced into voting a certain way.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,902
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    With regards to the Starmer - Tarry - Jones escapade, the funniest thing of all is the absolute fury that Jones has worked himself into because he has realised that Starmer played him for a fool.

    Wasn't it obvious from the start that Starmer wouldn't stick to the pledges he was making to placate hard left members? To start with most of those members would quickly become former members, so pledges to people who left the party in disgust at your election don't count for much.

    And it is wider than that. Starmer was obviously and pointedly telling them what they wanted to hear rather than what he actually thought. He didn't believe in the stuff he was pledging as anyone with eyes and a brain could see.

    So why is Jones so ANGRY? Because apparently he thought Starmer was being sincere. Only a fool learns to get fooled. And Jones is a prize fool. His "get out there, get in his face, tell him what you think" is a dangerous incitement.

    Starmer will be pleased to see the back of Tarry, anyhow - an unpleasant union bullyboy from East London who got the nomination for his seat in highly dubious circumstances and who is likely to be deselected for the next election; his affair with his parliamentary boss isn't a great look, either.
    I thought Tarry and Rayner were a thing...
    Rayner too was an active Trade Unionist, so could be a battle developing there.

    It seems strange that Starmer and Reeves can openly speak against Labour policy without punishment but Tarry cannot.

    Tarry organised an entire media round without telling either his boss or the leadership. He knew what he was doing. He did it because he is facing a deselection battle, having been imposed on his CLP against its will by the-then Corbyn dominated NEC, and needed the publicity. It was an entirely cynical move. Where was he during the first round of strikes before his deselection became a real possibility?

  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,967
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    There’s a determined effort by the BBC (and Sky) to give women’s sports equal billing.

    Their argument is that the men’s team qualifying for a major final would be top of the news, so they should do the same for the women’s team.
    Yes, that's it exactly.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    Women's football has come a long way, but still lags significantly. Nonetheless an English football team in a final vs Germany and in top form is a rare bit of good news. Enjoy it, the girls done good.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    Wokery.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,948
    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    HYUFD said:

    YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:

    London
    Lab 54%
    Con 20%
    LD 12%
    Grn 9%
    Ref 2%

    Rest of South
    Con 38%
    Lab 32%
    LD 19%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 40%
    Con 35%
    LD 8%
    Ref 6%
    Grn 6%
    PC 3%

    North
    Lab 46%
    Con 28%
    LD 8%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 4%

    Scotland
    SNP 43%
    Con 24%
    Lab 22%
    Grn 7%
    LD 4%

    (YouGov / The Times Survey Results
    Sample Size: 1692; 21st - 22nd July 2022)

    Swing of 0.5% SNP to SCon since 2019
    Keep believing.
    They might even gain Gordon from the SNP on that swing, Labour would also pick up Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath from the SNP on the Yougov Scottish figures
    Have you the faintest conception of what the MoE is on subsamples? Even correctly weighted ones? About 8%. Good luck with those seat predictions.

    The SCons were on 19% in the last proper, full-sample Scottish poll.
    Either way poor figures for Sturgeon given her desire for a thumping SNP win and big SNP gains at the next general election when the SC likely confirms no indyref2 affecting the Union without UK government consent
    Pro-independence parties at 51%
    BritNat parties at 48%

    Fill yer breeks Franco Fan.
    SNP and Greens at 50% combined not 51%, she would need to get pro independence parties well over 60% to have any leeway over a UK government which will continue to refuse indyref2 whether Starmer or Truss/Sunak is PM (unless Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and Starmer changes his mind to get into No 10)
    Alba is by far the biggest “Other” party, so yes, 51%.

    And don’t forget that approx 1/3 of SLab voters are pro-independence. So 52% + 7% = bloody close to your 60% figure.

    But by all means, continue to be complacent.
    Serious question: if you get to nearly 60% by that Maths, why isn't that shown in the polls on the Independence question?

    How many SNP voters are there who are voting for Sturgeon, but wouldn't vote for Independence?
    As @bondegezou has already correctly identified: a small but significant number of SNP and Scottish Green Party voters do not back independence. See my response to his point above.
    And if Labour start catching up with the SNP, it might not be an increase in support for the union - just unionists shifting over to a Unionist party.

    I think that could happen in the run up to a referendum.
    The still surprising thing about SNP support is how many voted Leave in 2016 - over a third, and just short of the Scottish average and the Labour percentage UK-wide.

    I think that's a perfectly consistent position, but worth bearing in mind when we consider leaving the EU as a material reason for Indyref2.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    If just one tenth of this story is accurate, then it's so deeply shocking on a number of levels that a very large number of social workers need to be facing criminal charges.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62290696

    Cumbria County Council is being abolished next year. It seems to me that's a good time to hit total reset on their social services by hiring new ones only from outside.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,105
    edited July 28
    Mr Cole,

    It's cheap to put on, and it makes the BBC feel superior.

    I've dipped in and out and it's reasonably entertaining. They don''t fall on the floor so much, which is a big plus.

    However, the commentators refuse to point out any errors. Two of the England goals against Sweden were massive goalkeeper mistakes. Had they been men, they would have analysed over and over. Probably sympathetically ... he won't be happy with that etc, but no one seemed keen to point it out at all.

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,573

    Andy_JS said:

    NOM 1.83
    Con Maj 3.9
    Lab Maj 4.5

    In my opinion the figures should be something like this: [assumes the new boundaries are in force]

    NOM 2.22
    Con Maj 2.22
    Lab Maj 10
    I concur with your Lab Maj 10 opinion, for the simple reason that Anas Sarwar has stalled in the low 20s, and the English Midlands are still stubbornly sticking with the Tories.

    However, your Con Maj 2.22 is waaaay too short. The economic shit has yet to hit the fan, and when it does the Tories are going to get all the blame.

    NOM looks like a shoo in. Barring… events dear boy.
    That 10/1 is right if Labour cannot make progress in Scotland. I have the impression they are failing to do so, but it's not my subject. (I rarely travel North of Birmingham.)

    Is that your impression too SD?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701
    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    HYUFD said:

    YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:

    London
    Lab 54%
    Con 20%
    LD 12%
    Grn 9%
    Ref 2%

    Rest of South
    Con 38%
    Lab 32%
    LD 19%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 40%
    Con 35%
    LD 8%
    Ref 6%
    Grn 6%
    PC 3%

    North
    Lab 46%
    Con 28%
    LD 8%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 4%

    Scotland
    SNP 43%
    Con 24%
    Lab 22%
    Grn 7%
    LD 4%

    (YouGov / The Times Survey Results
    Sample Size: 1692; 21st - 22nd July 2022)

    Swing of 0.5% SNP to SCon since 2019
    Keep believing.
    They might even gain Gordon from the SNP on that swing, Labour would also pick up Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath from the SNP on the Yougov Scottish figures
    Have you the faintest conception of what the MoE is on subsamples? Even correctly weighted ones? About 8%. Good luck with those seat predictions.

    The SCons were on 19% in the last proper, full-sample Scottish poll.
    Either way poor figures for Sturgeon given her desire for a thumping SNP win and big SNP gains at the next general election when the SC likely confirms no indyref2 affecting the Union without UK government consent
    Pro-independence parties at 51%
    BritNat parties at 48%

    Fill yer breeks Franco Fan.
    SNP and Greens at 50% combined not 51%, she would need to get pro independence parties well over 60% to have any leeway over a UK government which will continue to refuse indyref2 whether Starmer or Truss/Sunak is PM (unless Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and Starmer changes his mind to get into No 10)
    Alba is by far the biggest “Other” party, so yes, 51%.

    And don’t forget that approx 1/3 of SLab voters are pro-independence. So 52% + 7% = bloody close to your 60% figure.

    But by all means, continue to be complacent.
    Serious question: if you get to nearly 60% by that Maths, why isn't that shown in the polls on the Independence question?

    How many SNP voters are there who are voting for Sturgeon, but wouldn't vote for Independence?
    As @bondegezou has already correctly identified: a small but significant number of SNP and Scottish Green Party voters do not back independence. See my response to his point above.
    And if Labour start catching up with the SNP, it might not be an increase in support for the union - just unionists shifting over to a Unionist party.

    I think that could happen in the run up to a referendum.
    Indeed! But the opposite is also true: that 1/3 of SLab voters who are pro-independence would shift over to the SNP and SGP.

    The limited pool of Unionist voters simply drifting between parties is not going to change the big picture: in the long run there are simply too few of them. Unionists need to make the Union more popular, and they never make the slightest effort in that direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,802
    Manchin has flipped and now backs the Democrat omnibus reconciliation bill.

    Just Sinema to go.

    Did not se that coming.
  • “The free market works brilliantly … but …”
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    Incidentally, the BMA (usually a supine bunch of management lackeys) have moved quite quickly, with a policy of refusing extracontractual overtime, except at rates significantly higher than on offer from most Trusts, starting immediately. They seem to be growing a spine.

    https://twitter.com/trentconsultant/status/1549648965204951041?t=DOyHTk-kEk4p99QqrO1OoQ&s=19
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,802
    Oh, holy shit, the CHIPS bill got passed before Manchin announced his flip on the reconciliation bill.

    That is West Wing level fantasy politics shit.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,939
    As a habitual Tory voter who would currently vote Labour I recognise the figures in the middle purple column as being pretty much where I am personally.

    Because all politics is relative, and for most voters only between two parties, this could be unbalanced easily by some proper old fashioned Labour internal wars.

    See for example

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2022/07/keir-starmers-sacking-of-sam-tarry-threatens-a-new-labour-civil-war

  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,466
    My god Nadine Dorries is absolute poison. Listening to her on Today.

    Apparently you cannot understand the people and be PM if wearing expensive shoes - sadly she wasn’t asked if someone who spaffs thousands on wallpaper etc is in touch. She admitted she has expensive shoes so not suitable as PM. Good to see the party of aspiration wearing its hair-shirt…

    Apparently the Treasury is terrible as it stands in the way of Truss-onomics but the Treasury, sorry the Govt is amazing for giving people cash to help with energy costs.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294
    ydoethur said:

    If just one tenth of this story is accurate, then it's so deeply shocking on a number of levels that a very large number of social workers need to be facing criminal charges.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62290696

    Cumbria County Council is being abolished next year. It seems to me that's a good time to hit total reset on their social services by hiring new ones only from outside.

    There does seem to be one horror story after another, from what’s euphemistically called the ‘care’ system.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    Foxy said:

    Incidentally, the BMA (usually a supine bunch of management lackeys) have moved quite quickly, with a policy of refusing extracontractual overtime, except at rates significantly higher than on offer from most Trusts, starting immediately. They seem to be growing a spine.

    https://twitter.com/trentconsultant/status/1549648965204951041?t=DOyHTk-kEk4p99QqrO1OoQ&s=19

    They want £150 to £250 an hour for overtime?

    I wonder if the wider public will be very sympathetic?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    Alistair said:

    Oh, holy shit, the CHIPS bill got passed before Manchin announced his flip on the reconciliation bill.

    That is West Wing level fantasy politics shit.

    Why is that such a shock? Genuine question.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,040
    The £ is heading for parity with the $, isn't it?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,584
    edited July 28
    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    Women's football has come a long way, but still lags significantly. Nonetheless an English football team in a final vs Germany and in top form is a rare bit of good news. Enjoy it, the girls done good.
    Started this to see what the responses are would be. Interestingly of my five granddaughters two are in UK and three in Thailand. Neither of those in UK are, or have been, involved in football; at school or anywhere else. The international school in Thailand which the other three attend has a very active football programme and the elder two girls are heavily involved in it.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,087

    I wonder if the Government (Truss) may need to temporarily effectively nationalise the gas supply.

    If she does I expect it to command broad public support.

    The free market works brilliantly at efficiently allocating resources and stimulating production and distribution, competitively, in normal times but if we get to the stage where we have a highly constrained supply and it costs households over £500 a month then we'll be in a bidding war where the wealthiest will be able to carry on as normal, at a very high cost, whilst a lot of ordinary people freeze.

    That can't be allowed to happen.

    Won't BR be along shortly to say thats exactly what should happen?

    You are right to highlight what looks like it is going to be a very serious crisis this winter. Under Johnson the Tories big problem was that the demonstrated they didn't believe there was a problem, and that they didn't care if people were struggling. If Truss can change even the latter its a step forward for them.

    I don't use gas so I have no idea how they would ration supplies. If prices are going to be as insane as suggested then it may not be rationing by supply that happens but rationing by price.

    Quite simply we need to do what some other governments do. Impose a subsidised tariff on the energy companies. Even if that is only for the bottom 20% of household incomes it would make a huge difference. Will cost the government money, but so will the riots and deaths that will happen if they don't.
    The simplest thing the government can do to ensure that rationing by price does not hit the poorest extra hard is to abolish the daily standing charge. My daily standing charge is 88.83p, or £6.22 a week, or £27.02 a month, which is 8.1% of Universal Credit in return for nothing.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,701

    Andy_JS said:

    NOM 1.83
    Con Maj 3.9
    Lab Maj 4.5

    In my opinion the figures should be something like this: [assumes the new boundaries are in force]

    NOM 2.22
    Con Maj 2.22
    Lab Maj 10
    I concur with your Lab Maj 10 opinion, for the simple reason that Anas Sarwar has stalled in the low 20s, and the English Midlands are still stubbornly sticking with the Tories.

    However, your Con Maj 2.22 is waaaay too short. The economic shit has yet to hit the fan, and when it does the Tories are going to get all the blame.

    NOM looks like a shoo in. Barring… events dear boy.
    That 10/1 is right if Labour cannot make progress in Scotland. I have the impression they are failing to do so, but it's not my subject. (I rarely travel North of Birmingham.)

    Is that your impression too SD?
    Yes.

    SLab VI in last 10 Scottish full-sample polls (reverse chronological order):

    23
    25
    23
    22
    24
    26
    27
    22
    18
    20

    Lab Maj is screwed unless Anas Sarwar can consistently start scoring 30+, preferably 35+

    He’s miles off that, and going the wrong way. Starmer’s idiotic Muscular Unionism stance of the past 3 months has been a catastrophic shot in his own foot.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294

    Foxy said:

    Incidentally, the BMA (usually a supine bunch of management lackeys) have moved quite quickly, with a policy of refusing extracontractual overtime, except at rates significantly higher than on offer from most Trusts, starting immediately. They seem to be growing a spine.

    https://twitter.com/trentconsultant/status/1549648965204951041?t=DOyHTk-kEk4p99QqrO1OoQ&s=19

    They want £150 to £250 an hour for overtime?

    I wonder if the wider public will be very sympathetic?
    They’ll get about as much sympathy as the barristers.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,829

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    Football innit. Wee loons in the park. Jumpers for goalpoasts.
    its about the only football they have the rights to show live... Plus its a good thing to see such positive sporting role models for girls and women everywhere. If you believe, as I do, that more sport is always better for society, then getting young girls interested in playing sport can only be good.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,948

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    HYUFD said:

    YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:

    London
    Lab 54%
    Con 20%
    LD 12%
    Grn 9%
    Ref 2%

    Rest of South
    Con 38%
    Lab 32%
    LD 19%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 40%
    Con 35%
    LD 8%
    Ref 6%
    Grn 6%
    PC 3%

    North
    Lab 46%
    Con 28%
    LD 8%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 4%

    Scotland
    SNP 43%
    Con 24%
    Lab 22%
    Grn 7%
    LD 4%

    (YouGov / The Times Survey Results
    Sample Size: 1692; 21st - 22nd July 2022)

    Swing of 0.5% SNP to SCon since 2019
    Keep believing.
    They might even gain Gordon from the SNP on that swing, Labour would also pick up Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath from the SNP on the Yougov Scottish figures
    Have you the faintest conception of what the MoE is on subsamples? Even correctly weighted ones? About 8%. Good luck with those seat predictions.

    The SCons were on 19% in the last proper, full-sample Scottish poll.
    Either way poor figures for Sturgeon given her desire for a thumping SNP win and big SNP gains at the next general election when the SC likely confirms no indyref2 affecting the Union without UK government consent
    Pro-independence parties at 51%
    BritNat parties at 48%

    Fill yer breeks Franco Fan.
    SNP and Greens at 50% combined not 51%, she would need to get pro independence parties well over 60% to have any leeway over a UK government which will continue to refuse indyref2 whether Starmer or Truss/Sunak is PM (unless Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and Starmer changes his mind to get into No 10)
    Alba is by far the biggest “Other” party, so yes, 51%.

    And don’t forget that approx 1/3 of SLab voters are pro-independence. So 52% + 7% = bloody close to your 60% figure.

    But by all means, continue to be complacent.
    Serious question: if you get to nearly 60% by that Maths, why isn't that shown in the polls on the Independence question?

    How many SNP voters are there who are voting for Sturgeon, but wouldn't vote for Independence?
    As @bondegezou has already correctly identified: a small but significant number of SNP and Scottish Green Party voters do not back independence. See my response to his point above.
    And if Labour start catching up with the SNP, it might not be an increase in support for the union - just unionists shifting over to a Unionist party.

    I think that could happen in the run up to a referendum.
    Indeed! But the opposite is also true: that 1/3 of SLab voters who are pro-independence would shift over to the SNP and SGP.

    The limited pool of Unionist voters simply drifting between parties is not going to change the big picture: in the long run there are simply too few of them. Unionists need to make the Union more popular, and they never make the slightest effort in that direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
    I agree that there is a limited pool of unionist voters, but I also think the pool of committed Indy voters has fallen since 2014 (The example of Brexit to blame, perhaps).

    That might be a result of a second referendum still feeling a bit unlikely, but I reckon the chunk of voters in the middle will be much larger next time round.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    edited July 28

    “The free market works brilliantly … but …”

    But not when a labour shortage is allowing workers to demand better pay?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    Women's football has come a long way, but still lags significantly. Nonetheless an English football team in a final vs Germany and in top form is a rare bit of good news. Enjoy it, the girls done good.
    It must infuriate Stonewall, showcasing nasty transphobic exclusionary cis women's sport.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146

    “The free market works brilliantly … but …”

    Isn't there always a 'but' ?

    One problem some of the modern Conservative Party has is they think 'what would Thatcher do c.1983?' and apply that to any and every problem for the rest of time.

    It's a form of dogma. You can be idealistic about the free market just as you can be idealistic about nationalisation and common ownership.

    My view of conservatism is based on pragmatism and realism.

    In times of war and highly constrained supply to ensure the population survives you may need to ration - that doesn't mean it's fun, nor something you want to retain a moment more than needed, but we aren't far off that point now.

    In normal times rationing would constrain supply, deliver a lower quality of life (basic needs only), lead to poor customer service, limited to no innovation, and be economically inefficient, so I'd absolutely favour the free market.

    But we're approaching an emergency situation now and we can't have a situation where only 20-25% of the population can afford to hear their homes whilst everyone else freezes.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,040

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    NOM 1.83
    Con Maj 3.9
    Lab Maj 4.5

    In my opinion the figures should be something like this: [assumes the new boundaries are in force]

    NOM 2.22
    Con Maj 2.22
    Lab Maj 10
    I concur with your Lab Maj 10 opinion, for the simple reason that Anas Sarwar has stalled in the low 20s, and the English Midlands are still stubbornly sticking with the Tories.

    However, your Con Maj 2.22 is waaaay too short. The economic shit has yet to hit the fan, and when it does the Tories are going to get all the blame.

    NOM looks like a shoo in. Barring… events dear boy.
    Labour largest party looks the safest bet.
    Indeed, but that’s a different market 😉
    And the Venn diagram of possible outcomes has quite a large space where the Tories are the largest party in a NOM. Labour's electoral performance remains disappointing for the midterm, the economic **** is already hitting the fan, they have a mountain to climb and the boundaries are against them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    edited July 28
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    If just one tenth of this story is accurate, then it's so deeply shocking on a number of levels that a very large number of social workers need to be facing criminal charges.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62290696

    Cumbria County Council is being abolished next year. It seems to me that's a good time to hit total reset on their social services by hiring new ones only from outside.

    There does seem to be one horror story after another, from what’s euphemistically called the ‘care’ system.
    It's under appalling pressure. It's chronically under-resourced, it's difficult to recruit staff, and good ones are very fed up and will leave (with which I have of course every sympathy). Also, they don't often deal with easy cases, because if they were easy social services wouldn't need to be involved. About the only free hits they get are rich children staying with relatives during the week while attending private school nearby.

    But there's also a dangerous groupthink that 'we're doing what's best for children so we must be right and if people disagree with us they're wrong and evil.' A bit like OFSTED, only with much more serious consequences as people only listen to OSFTED when they talk sense (which they can do) whereas they have to listen to social services on anything. You see it in this case - where clearly the paperwork wasn't done and somebody made dud choices on a hurried basis to meet targets, and is now lying to cover themselves - and in cases like @Dura_Ace 's when Social Services made fools of themselves by saying in so many words they had the power to take those two orphans he and his wife are looking after into care.

    It's not great. But whether it's great or not, that story is clearly well beyond ordinary incompetence.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,802
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Oh, holy shit, the CHIPS bill got passed before Manchin announced his flip on the reconciliation bill.

    That is West Wing level fantasy politics shit.

    Why is that such a shock? Genuine question.
    McConnell refused to pass the CHIPS+ legislation while the reconciliation bill was live,
    Manchin (and Sinema, we'll get back to that in a bit) convinced McConnell that reconciliation was dead. Biden and Schumer have spent months wailing and gnashing teeth about what a big meanio Manchin has been
    A couple of hours after passing CHIPS+ Manchin and Schumer host a joint statement that reconciliation is still on baby with most of the good stuff in it.

    All on the anniversary of John McCain sinking Trump/McConnell's attempt at repealing Obamacare.

    Of course Sinema can still sink this but as far as I know she's never been the sole Dem to vote against something in the Senate.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,598

    DavidL said:

    So basically Tories who have moved to Labour have done so mainly because they really don't Boris Johnson. Tories who are unenamoured with the party but have not yet moved have largely failed to do so because they are underwhelmed by SKS.

    Its this wonderful positivity that makes our politics so much fun. But it is also indicative that a Tory recovery under a leader who is not Boris remains possible.

    If Keir Starmer's offer is a Labour government that would follow Conservative policies but without Boris, the Tories will shoot that fox on 5th September.
    It's all very well shooting the fox, but the Conservatives seem determined to replace him with an almost-identical vixen.

    That may be what loyal Conservatives want, much like a child who must never find out that Mr Sunffles is in fact the third guinea pig of that name.

    But it's unlikely to fool swing voters for long.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,284

    Foxy said:

    Incidentally, the BMA (usually a supine bunch of management lackeys) have moved quite quickly, with a policy of refusing extracontractual overtime, except at rates significantly higher than on offer from most Trusts, starting immediately. They seem to be growing a spine.

    https://twitter.com/trentconsultant/status/1549648965204951041?t=DOyHTk-kEk4p99QqrO1OoQ&s=19

    They want £150 to £250 an hour for overtime?

    I wonder if the wider public will be very sympathetic?
    Nope - they are simply pricing things in such a way that overtime isn't an option unless the Trust is beyond desperate.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,034

    Good morning everybody; quite bright and cheerful here this morning!

    Off topic I admit but can anyone explain to me why the BBCNews has gone "Over the top" with regard to the women's football? Entertaining I grant you but why is it so often top of the bill?

    Women's football is all the BBC has been able to afford. It's not bigging up women's sport. It's bigging up their incredibly threadbare sports offering. Which I find very cynical.

    A view shared by a good few in BBC sports.
This discussion has been closed.