Howdy, Stranger!

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

A CON majority drops to a 17% betting chance – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 9 in General
imageA CON majority drops to a 17% betting chance – politicalbetting.com

Given the way the polls have moved in the last week or so this morning’s big conference speech was always going to be tricky for the new PM. Her party has dropped to its worst position for decades and so far punters don’t anticipate any change.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    edited October 5
    Was this before the speech?

    Could be in single digits now.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    Pulpstar said:

    Greenpeace protest looks to have been well done to me. Message on the National news, no disruption to the nation at large, no destruction of property.

    Yes, absolutely masterfully executed. You have to hand it to those two girls – they looked the part and got maximum airtime with a simple resonant message.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    DavidL said:

    Was this before the speech?

    Could be in single digits now.

    Truss gives every impression of wanting to make as many enemies as possible – "the anti-growth coalition" seems to comprise 60% of the population – a point that Danny Fink makes succinctly in today's Times.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    "The big risk for anyone betting on LAB is that LizT might not survive." Really? We have a pretty clear pattern of Tory PMs being succeeded by even worse Tory PMs, Suella clearly intent on outflanking Liz on the barking front and not going to acquiesce in a coronation of Baldy Ben, no sane successors on the horizon. I think Liz going probably enhances the chances of lab maj.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    Modest drop in the £ after the speech, says Sky
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    £ dropping
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,121
    The only outcomes I can see now is whether the Tories will manage to hold 220-250 seats or so (not great but build-backable) or whether we are looking at sub 200 and a 1997 style rout.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,620

    £ dropping

    I've got a large incoming USD payment. Thanks Liz.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    IshmaelZ said:

    "The big risk for anyone betting on LAB is that LizT might not survive." Really? We have a pretty clear pattern of Tory PMs being succeeded by even worse Tory PMs, Suella clearly intent on outflanking Liz on the barking front and not going to acquiesce in a coronation of Baldy Ben, no sane successors on the horizon. I think Liz going probably enhances the chances of lab maj.

    Yes, it is a good point. How are they to engineer a coronation given the party is close to splitting over sound money and is having a collective breakdown?

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    DavidL said:

    Was this before the speech?

    Could be in single digits now.

    This was a screen grab about five minutes after the speech
    Have you made full allowance for the shock and awe/stupor that the speech will have inspired?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    So one of Coffey’s first moves is to bin the obesity strategy…which was always going to be a hard one for her to deliver.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,569
    Parody Prime Minister
    @Parody_PM
    ·
    16h
    Replying to
    @trussliz
    and
    @Conservatives
    My speech is almost finished. I just need to go through and mark all the places where I pause and smile gormlessly while waiting for a laugh that doesn't come.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,088

    IshmaelZ said:

    "The big risk for anyone betting on LAB is that LizT might not survive." Really? We have a pretty clear pattern of Tory PMs being succeeded by even worse Tory PMs, Suella clearly intent on outflanking Liz on the barking front and not going to acquiesce in a coronation of Baldy Ben, no sane successors on the horizon. I think Liz going probably enhances the chances of lab maj.

    Yes, it is a good point. How are they to engineer a coronation given the party is close to splitting over sound money and is having a collective breakdown?

    Not to mention the Other Coronation. Ordering HMtK about like that.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,520
    Going for growth is fine, but it's just a number, a statistic of GDP.

    At the moment it's just
    1) Get growth (somehow)
    2)......
    3)......
    4)......
    5) Profit!

    What's needed is how that will impact upon people's lifes in a tangible and clear way and how we get from A to B. How are public services going to be improved, how are people getting more opportunities and freedom etc.

    Even if we get growth, if people don't feel it, then it's pointless.

    There's very little which they've sad how so far.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    IshmaelZ said:

    "The big risk for anyone betting on LAB is that LizT might not survive." Really? We have a pretty clear pattern of Tory PMs being succeeded by even worse Tory PMs, Suella clearly intent on outflanking Liz on the barking front and not going to acquiesce in a coronation of Baldy Ben, no sane successors on the horizon. I think Liz going probably enhances the chances of lab maj.

    I think this is right. Wallace wouldn't win but would be a decent damage-limiter in the Howard mould. But, there'd be another factional scrum and someone would probably come the middle who almost nobody favoured – a la Truss.

    My wife, who is rarely WFH today due to being poorly, popped into the room to see Truss' speech. She has zero interest in politics. "She's so weird, and she just says anything she likes. Of all the people they could have chosen, why her?"

    Why indeed.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,529
    I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, apparently, but Truss's three priorities (growth, growth, growth) didn't have the same resonance as Blair's (education, education, education). Not a trick that can succeed more than once, I think.

    Maybe she wanted to prove that she has influences other than Thatcher.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    Going for growth is fine, but it's just a number, a statistic of GDP.

    At the moment it's just
    1) Get growth (somehow)
    2)......
    3)......
    4)......
    5) Profit!

    What's needed is how that will impact upon people's lifes in a tangible and clear way and how we get from A to B. How are public services going to be improved, how are people getting more opportunities and freedom etc.

    Even if we get growth, if people don't feel it, then it's pointless.

    There's very little which they've sad how so far.

    More pie. Which at least is consistent with the dropping of the obesity program. If they had offered more cake I would be fully signed up.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,088
    edited October 5
    IanB2 said:

    So one of Coffey’s first moves is to bin the obesity strategy…which was always going to be a hard one for her to deliver.

    Not if she didn't also commit to it personally.

    Even if it involved eating larval tapeworms or something drastic. No worse than Ms Dorries in the jungle and macropod testes/rectums (whatever it was).

    https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-horrifying-legacy-of-the-victorian-tapeworm-diet

    Edit: not a point I would normally raise, but if you are thinking that she would find it hard to front that campaign, given the nature of politics and the media, and with some truth whether we like it or not, then there is a positive solution. Whatever the actual diet.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,121

    Roger said:

    This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.

    97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
    This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.

    If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.

    The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695
    Nice touch with one of the protesters in full "Liz Truss Blue" suit.

    Did anyone check to see if she was wearing a necklace also?
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    FPT

    What happens next is anyone’s guess. Her poll ratings won’t improve, so I guess we are in a holding pattern for a bit

    Meanwhile, fixed rate mortgages topping 6%..

    This time last week after Nationwide binned their old rates a 2 year fixed rate less than 75% mortgage was 5.59%
    Today it's 6.24%
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695
    OK Soz didn't see the speech and have been listening to JOB on the wireless.

    Any good/redeeming points whatsoever?
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    IshmaelZ said:

    "The big risk for anyone betting on LAB is that LizT might not survive." Really? We have a pretty clear pattern of Tory PMs being succeeded by even worse Tory PMs, Suella clearly intent on outflanking Liz on the barking front and not going to acquiesce in a coronation of Baldy Ben, no sane successors on the horizon. I think Liz going probably enhances the chances of lab maj.

    That has to be the scariest thing for Tory MPs at the moment - Truss isn't any good but their leadership election system almost guarantees that the next leader will be worse....
  • PaulSimonPaulSimon Posts: 34
    If Liz is ditching BoJo's nanny state obesity nonsense, she should go the whole hog and scrap the hated sugar tax. Every time I detect the foul taste of Aspartame in a drink that used to contain real sugar, it reminds me how much I viscerally despise George Osborne for introducing it.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    edited October 5
    The trouble with markets like this is that the worse things get for Liz, the more likely the Tories are to replace her with someone else i.e more electable. I think both Labour and Conservatives are prone to ideological purity but Labour see virtue in a principled defeat whereas the Tories can't abide a loser.

    I'd rate a Tory majority under Truss at less than 10%.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    PM was as bad as I feared then?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075
    Something has happened this morning as European stocks reverse good gains into negative territory and both the pound and euro fall

    And no it is not Truss but looks like oil producers are going to limit supplies
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695
    edited October 5
    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    OK Soz didn't see the speech and have been listening to JOB on the wireless.

    Any good/redeeming points whatsoever?

    No, James O'Brien doesn't have any...
    Oh I know that; he is a self-hating public schoolboy.

    But I still want to know about the speech as apart from his (and Lewis Goodall's on his programme) I have no feedback. In particular any good things about it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    TOPPING said:

    OK Soz didn't see the speech and have been listening to JOB on the wireless.

    Any good/redeeming points whatsoever?

    It was reasonably short
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    There's something seriously wrong with American police:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-63083486

    The sheer stupidity, incompetence and staggering shitness of putting a handcuffed woman in the back of a squad car... that is parked on a railway line.

    I hope she recovers well, and gets massive compensation from the ********.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075

    Roger said:

    This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.

    97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
    This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.

    If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.

    The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
    I agree and the conservatives need a period in opposition
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    PaulSimon said:

    If Liz is ditching BoJo's nanny state obesity nonsense, she should go the whole hog and scrap the hated sugar tax. Every time I detect the foul taste of Aspartame in a drink that used to contain real sugar, it reminds me how much I viscerally despise George Osborne for introducing it.

    Whether the strategy is being binned as a great blow for libertarianism or because the Health Minister eats too much cake, who can say?
  • PM was as bad as I feared then?

    QTWAIN.

    The usual suspects who really disliked her already will continue to dislike her, but actually many people have said she did better than expected.

    She handled the hecklers pretty well too, responding with a smile and a decent joke about them, which is the best way to handle hecklers.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    edited October 5

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    By any normal standard she was pretty rubbish, but perhaps exceeded expectations this week.

    Everyone is glad this is over.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    She got through it but then that is saying something

    I expect she remains in place not least as the utter disruption of removing her just now is a worse prospect but she will be removed in 23 if she cannot turn things round
  • There's something seriously wrong with American police:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-63083486

    The sheer stupidity, incompetence and staggering shitness of putting a handcuffed woman in the back of a squad car... that is parked on a railway line.

    I hope she recovers well, and gets massive compensation from the ********.

    Whisky Tango Foxtrot!

    That is just awful. The concept of qualified immunity for Police that America has, which never seems to actually be qualified, needs abolishing. Those officers should be facing criminal charges.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912
    So why were the Tory MPs so silly, as to put someone as manifestly unsuitable as Rishi Sunak on a shortlist of two?
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,673

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    QTWAIN.

    The usual suspects who really disliked her already will continue to dislike her, but actually many people have said she did better than expected.

    She handled the hecklers pretty well too, responding with a smile and a decent joke about them, which is the best way to handle hecklers.
    The usual suspects - 60% + of the country I assume?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    The 'anti growth coalition' is a lazy attempt at dividing lines. It's complete bullshit.

    Opposing tax breaks to the super rich when people are struggling to make ends meet has absolutely nothing to do with growth.

    All governments of every flavour like growth.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075
    Bloomberg

    US mortgage rates highest in 16 years
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912

    Bloomberg

    US mortgage rates highest in 16 years

    That’s Liz Truss’s fault, that is.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    I think that depends on the scope of your imagination.

    In fairness, it wasn't really really terrible. We didn't have an excursus into Peppa Pig land or anything like that. It was just dull, so, so, so dull.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    edited October 5
    Sandpit said:

    So why were the Tory MPs so silly, as to put someone as manifestly unsuitable as Rishi Sunak on a shortlist of two?

    They were answering the question - "who do I think is the best choice to be PM?"

    and not the more nuanced question of "who do I think is the best choice to be PM and has a chance of winning our batshit crazy second stage?"
  • Sandpit said:

    Bloomberg

    US mortgage rates highest in 16 years

    That’s Liz Truss’s fault, that is.
    And Brexit. Mustn't forget Brexit.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    I have to report a crime against the English language. Robert Peston has turned “nutshell” into a verb.

    https://twitter.com/peston/status/1577618964607270915
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912

    I have to report a crime against the English language. Robert Peston has turned “nutshell” into a verb.

    https://twitter.com/peston/status/1577618964607270915

    That deserves to medal in the word-crime Olympics.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922
    Jonathan said:

    The 'anti growth coalition' is a lazy attempt at dividing lines. It's complete bullshit.

    Opposing tax breaks to the super rich when people are struggling to make ends meet has absolutely nothing to do with growth.

    All governments of every flavour like growth.

    There are probably 5-10% of the country who are anti growth, quite a few of whom will vote Tory as very socially conservative. The rest are going to be mostly Greens.

    When you label opponents there has to be something tangible there for it to be effective. Pretending Sunak for example is against growth is simply absurd. He just has a different path to get there which does not involve bankruptcy and wiping out the Tory parliamentary party to achieve it.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,221
    Sandpit said:

    I have to report a crime against the English language. Robert Peston has turned “nutshell” into a verb.

    https://twitter.com/peston/status/1577618964607270915

    That deserves to medal in the word-crime Olympics.
    Surely "to podium"? 🙂
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,088
    edited October 5

    I have to report a crime against the English language. Robert Peston has turned “nutshell” into a verb.

    https://twitter.com/peston/status/1577618964607270915

    Not fair. It is a transitive verb.

    OED confirms: To sum up in a few words; to state concisely.Eg Twain Life on Mississippi The clerk nut-shelled the contrast between the former time and the present.

    Edit: both nutshell and nut-shell forms are listed.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Sandpit said:

    Bloomberg

    US mortgage rates highest in 16 years

    That’s Liz Truss’s fault, that is.
    Well....it is her Government's fault to exacerbate uncertainty in the domestic market when external pressures were already pointing to higher rates.

    That's the Chancellor's fault, that is.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Another flaw in Liz Truss's growth plans


  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,075
    Jonathan said:

    The 'anti growth coalition' is a lazy attempt at dividing lines. It's complete bullshit.

    Opposing tax breaks to the super rich when people are struggling to make ends meet has absolutely nothing to do with growth.

    All governments of every flavour like growth.

    She has basically adopted 'We are Millwall - no one likes us but we don't care' attitude
  • eek said:

    Another flaw in Liz Truss's growth plans


    How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.

    The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,088
    Driver said:

    Sandpit said:

    I have to report a crime against the English language. Robert Peston has turned “nutshell” into a verb.

    https://twitter.com/peston/status/1577618964607270915

    That deserves to medal in the word-crime Olympics.
    Surely "to podium"? 🙂
    In the OED too - intransitive verb.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Truss will hope her speech steadied the ship at least. Even if at the moment it seems most memorable for bring interrupted by Greenpeace hecklers
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    DavidL said:

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    I think that depends on the scope of your imagination.

    In fairness, it wasn't really really terrible. We didn't have an excursus into Peppa Pig land or anything like that. It was just dull, so, so, so dull.
    She spoke to the public like they were five years old.

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.

    The Tories are going to lose the next election, whether they deserve to or not.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,529
    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    Was this before the speech?

    Could be in single digits now.

    Truss gives every impression of wanting to make as many enemies as possible – "the anti-growth coalition" seems to comprise 60% of the population – a point that Danny Fink makes succinctly in today's Times.
    I think Truss has a point about the anti-growth/NIMBY/BANANA types, what she doesn't seem to have grasped is that the Tory party is full of such people.
    I think that's right, and is not commented on enough. Shire Tories in particular are against any disruption to their idylls, whether new houses, fracking, or whatever.

    Ironically, I reckon Labour voters are less inclined to Nimbyism. Being largely city/urban dwellers, they are more familiar with, and tolerant of, large-scale building or infrastructure projects.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,088

    DavidL said:

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    I think that depends on the scope of your imagination.

    In fairness, it wasn't really really terrible. We didn't have an excursus into Peppa Pig land or anything like that. It was just dull, so, so, so dull.
    She spoke to the public like they were five years old.

    So Peppa Pig would have been a welcome leaven?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146

    eek said:

    Another flaw in Liz Truss's growth plans


    How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.

    The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
    Or they lose it anyway as seats like Chesham and Amersham are lost with NIMBYs going LD if they think too much of the greenbelt will be developed
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,221

    Jonathan said:

    The 'anti growth coalition' is a lazy attempt at dividing lines. It's complete bullshit.

    Opposing tax breaks to the super rich when people are struggling to make ends meet has absolutely nothing to do with growth.

    All governments of every flavour like growth.

    She has basically adopted 'We are Millwall - no one likes us but we don't care' attitude
    Which would be fair enough, if she could be sure of getting her policies through the Commons...
  • The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.

    The Tories are going to lose the next election, whether they deserve to or not.
    If they're going to lose anyway, then she may as well stick to her guns and get her ideas through, that she can.

    No point pandering to opinion polls if you're going to lose anyway. There can be advantages to being a lame duck.
  • HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Another flaw in Liz Truss's growth plans


    How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.

    The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
    Or they lose it anyway as seats like Chesham and Amersham are lost with NIMBYs going LD if they think too much of the greenbelt will be developed
    So they should.

    There's no reason to hold those seats, if you're going to be big state NIMBYs interfering in the market with those seats.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    Was this before the speech?

    Could be in single digits now.

    Truss gives every impression of wanting to make as many enemies as possible – "the anti-growth coalition" seems to comprise 60% of the population – a point that Danny Fink makes succinctly in today's Times.
    I think Truss has a point about the anti-growth/NIMBY/BANANA types, what she doesn't seem to have grasped is that the Tory party is full of such people.
    I think that's right, and is not commented on enough. Shire Tories in particular are against any disruption to their idylls, whether new houses, fracking, or whatever.

    Ironically, I reckon Labour voters are less inclined to Nimbyism. Being largely city/urban dwellers, they are more familiar with, and tolerant of, large-scale building or infrastructure projects.
    Indeed. Starmer has said he will do a big housebuilding programme.

    It is more the LDs, Greens and Residents Associations who are the biggest opposition to new development and easing planning laws, not Labour. Especially as in the greenbelt and home counties they are often the main opposition to the Tories at council level, not Labour.

    Labour councillors are mainly based in big cities and suburbs and university towns
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,551
    The speech in terms of expectations didn’t disappoint . It was wooden and full of vacuous nonsense , it was a box ticking exercise .

    Unfortunately for Truss the news will show the Greenpeace protests. Although Truss dealt with this well the slogan who voted for this? Really sums up what many feel . The public did not vote for Truss and she is now without any democratic mandate embarking on a set of policies no one voted for apart from 80,000 Tory members .
  • HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    Was this before the speech?

    Could be in single digits now.

    Truss gives every impression of wanting to make as many enemies as possible – "the anti-growth coalition" seems to comprise 60% of the population – a point that Danny Fink makes succinctly in today's Times.
    I think Truss has a point about the anti-growth/NIMBY/BANANA types, what she doesn't seem to have grasped is that the Tory party is full of such people.
    I think that's right, and is not commented on enough. Shire Tories in particular are against any disruption to their idylls, whether new houses, fracking, or whatever.

    Ironically, I reckon Labour voters are less inclined to Nimbyism. Being largely city/urban dwellers, they are more familiar with, and tolerant of, large-scale building or infrastructure projects.
    Indeed. Starmer has said he will do a big housebuilding programme.

    It is more the LDs, Greens and Residents Associations who are the biggest opposition to new development and easing planning laws, not Labour. Especially as in the greenbelt and home counties they are often the main opposition to the Tories at council level, not Labour.

    Labour councillors are mainly based in big cities and suburbs and university towns
    If the Tory leadership or MPs act like you then this is the only appropriate response.

    image

    I have hope Truss won't, but if backbench rebels thinking like you block any reforms or house building then maybe a vote for Labour would be the right response?
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,402

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    QTWAIN.

    The usual suspects who really disliked her already will continue to dislike her, but actually many people have said she did better than expected.

    She handled the hecklers pretty well too, responding with a smile and a decent joke about them, which is the best way to handle hecklers.
    The usual suspects - 60% + of the country I assume?
    Polling generally rates very few political leaders much above 40% in terms of 'like' - in most democratic countries of the world. She was a poor choice of leader and is unlikely to win a GE anytime soon. There are much worse options than a politician arguing for a pro-growth agenda. In that sense she did better than expected today. Unfortunately it is all too little and much to late now. She's not the one.. and never was.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922
    Jonathan said:

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    By any normal standard she was pretty rubbish, but perhaps exceeded expectations this week.

    Everyone is glad this is over.
    It wasn't actually that bad, a bit pointless and delivered with mediocrity, sure. But didn't cause any major mayhem or dig themselves deeper into their self inflicted holes.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,581

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    It wasn’t as bad as Theresa May’s speech in 2017.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    She got through it but then that is saying something

    I expect she remains in place not least as the utter disruption of removing her just now is a worse prospect but she will be removed in 23 if she cannot turn things round
    There are still 12½ weeks left of 2022 that she needs to survive. Plenty of time for the Defenestration Committee to act.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    felix said:

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    QTWAIN.

    The usual suspects who really disliked her already will continue to dislike her, but actually many people have said she did better than expected.

    She handled the hecklers pretty well too, responding with a smile and a decent joke about them, which is the best way to handle hecklers.
    The usual suspects - 60% + of the country I assume?
    Polling generally rates very few political leaders much above 40% in terms of 'like' - in most democratic countries of the world. She was a poor choice of leader and is unlikely to win a GE anytime soon. There are much worse options than a politician arguing for a pro-growth agenda. In that sense she did better than expected today. Unfortunately it is all too little and much to late now. She's not the one.. and never was.
    She talks about arguing for a pro-growth agenda a lot, but she's not actually arguing for a pro-growth agenda. She makes wild claims that her policies will somehow, magically, lead to growth, but it's unclear how.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,620
    nico679 said:

    The speech in terms of expectations didn’t disappoint . It was wooden and full of vacuous nonsense , it was a box ticking exercise .

    Unfortunately for Truss the news will show the Greenpeace protests. Although Truss dealt with this well the slogan who voted for this? Really sums up what many feel . The public did not vote for Truss and she is now without any democratic mandate embarking on a set of policies no one voted for apart from 80,000 Tory members .

    And yet again this is wrong. We voted for a set of MPs. Those MPs are the ones who can decide whether or not to support Truss (and I hope they don't). We don't need a General Election, we need MPs with the sense to exercise their Parliamentary duty - what they were supposed to be elected for - and represent the best interests of their constituents. That may well in turn lead to a GE but that will be a decision for the MPs to make which is at it should be.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,581
    Oh God, her speech is ripped from a Starmer speech.


  • felixfelix Posts: 14,402

    DavidL said:

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    I think that depends on the scope of your imagination.

    In fairness, it wasn't really really terrible. We didn't have an excursus into Peppa Pig land or anything like that. It was just dull, so, so, so dull.
    She spoke to the public like they were five years old.

    Maybe she was just talking to you....
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    eek said:

    Another flaw in Liz Truss's growth plans


    How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.

    The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
    The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election

    * other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Thomas C. Theiner
    @noclador
    As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.

    A short thread🧵:

    In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one
    1/n

    https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1577324136220839937
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.

    The Tories are going to lose the next election, whether they deserve to or not.
    If they're going to lose anyway, then she may as well stick to her guns and get her ideas through, that she can.

    No point pandering to opinion polls if you're going to lose anyway. There can be advantages to being a lame duck.
    I think that you are missing the point of the analogy. A lame duck walks around in pointless circles going nowhere.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    Another flaw in Liz Truss's growth plans


    How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.

    The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
    The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election

    * other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
    They're in office, they're responsible.

    If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.

    If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.

    If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571

    Something has happened this morning as European stocks reverse good gains into negative territory and both the pound and euro fall

    And no it is not Truss but looks like oil producers are going to limit supplies

    Putin and Saud working together?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    DavidL said:

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    I think that depends on the scope of your imagination.

    In fairness, it wasn't really really terrible. We didn't have an excursus into Peppa Pig land or anything like that. It was just dull, so, so, so dull.
    So was Starmer.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146

    HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    Was this before the speech?

    Could be in single digits now.

    Truss gives every impression of wanting to make as many enemies as possible – "the anti-growth coalition" seems to comprise 60% of the population – a point that Danny Fink makes succinctly in today's Times.
    I think Truss has a point about the anti-growth/NIMBY/BANANA types, what she doesn't seem to have grasped is that the Tory party is full of such people.
    I think that's right, and is not commented on enough. Shire Tories in particular are against any disruption to their idylls, whether new houses, fracking, or whatever.

    Ironically, I reckon Labour voters are less inclined to Nimbyism. Being largely city/urban dwellers, they are more familiar with, and tolerant of, large-scale building or infrastructure projects.
    Indeed. Starmer has said he will do a big housebuilding programme.

    It is more the LDs, Greens and Residents Associations who are the biggest opposition to new development and easing planning laws, not Labour. Especially as in the greenbelt and home counties they are often the main opposition to the Tories at council level, not Labour.

    Labour councillors are mainly based in big cities and suburbs and university towns
    If the Tory leadership or MPs act like you then this is the only appropriate response.

    image

    I have hope Truss won't, but if backbench rebels thinking like you block any reforms or house building then maybe a vote for Labour would be the right response?
    Fine, vote Labour then. If Labour want to build all over the greenbelt the Tories can then blame them if they get in power and do it
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    DavidL said:

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    I think that depends on the scope of your imagination.

    In fairness, it wasn't really really terrible. We didn't have an excursus into Peppa Pig land or anything like that. It was just dull, so, so, so dull.
    She spoke to the public like they were five years old.

    Tsk, she almost got it right but the phrase is underestimating the intelligence of the...people not overestimating it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Truss also gives the electorate a choice, will they re elect her, the first UK PM elected solely at a comprehensive for secondary education? Or the grammar and private school educated Sir Keir?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,618
    IanB2 said:

    So one of Coffey’s first moves is to bin the obesity strategy…which was always going to be a hard one for her to deliver.

    So going for growth around our midriff...
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571

    Sandpit said:

    Bloomberg

    US mortgage rates highest in 16 years

    That’s Liz Truss’s fault, that is.
    And Brexit. Mustn't forget Brexit.
    Being serious for a second, why do US need them so high - have they over reacted, would markets have acted against them if they hadn’t?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697


    Thomas C. Theiner
    @noclador
    As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.

    A short thread🧵:

    In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one
    1/n

    https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1577324136220839937

    Looking at the map, the "right bank" is on the left. No wonder I've been confused.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    DavidL said:

    PM was as bad as I feared then?

    I think that depends on the scope of your imagination.

    In fairness, it wasn't really really terrible. We didn't have an excursus into Peppa Pig land or anything like that. It was just dull, so, so, so dull.
    So was Starmer.
    Well, yes. Ed Davey undoubtedly did best. Cancelling their conference was an inspired move.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    edited October 5
    Braverman is 50-1 next PM at Smarkets. I've had a nibble.
    Cleverly too.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,620

    Roger said:

    This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.

    97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
    This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.

    If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.

    The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
    It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.

    Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    https://twitter.com/David__Osland/status/1577611953094230018

    David__Osland
    @David__Osland
    Liz Truss's speech is the strongest attack on the last five Conservative governments I've ever heard outside a Labour conference fringe meeting
    11:49 AM · Oct 5, 2022
This discussion has been closed.