Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sunak has had almost no impact on the election betting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 15 in General
imageSunak has had almost no impact on the election betting – politicalbetting.com

It is early days yet of course but so far Sunak does not seem to have had any impact on the next general election betting. Maybe this is because his arrival has been what the market has expected for well over a year.

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    First to go to work!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    And here is why the betting hasn't changed:


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    It was always quite hard to see a path to a majority for the Tories to win a majority in 2024. Only one party has even held power for fourteen consecutive years.

    Their best chance was if Johnson quit about 6-12 months before the election in favour of somebody sane, coherent and competent (probably still Sunak) who then got a polling bounce as Starmer floundered against him.

    Unfortunately first Johnson blew himself up over Paterson and Partygate and then the membership committed the most epochal act of mass suicide since doomsday cults went out of fashion by electing Truss to replace him despite the fact she was manifestly totally unsuited to the role.

    Under those circumstances any chance Sunak had of being a fresh start in the eyes of the public was gone, and with it, their chances at the next election.

    Seems unlikely Labour will win outright given the constraints they face, but you never know.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913
    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,625
    edited November 5
    FPT @MoonRabbit



    Those numbers sound far too high to me. I suspect the asylum system is being operated with very little rigour.

    That said, our solutions are similar in some respects. I agree that it's unfair to be sent to Rwanda before a verdict is reached with no prospect of return. What I suggest is for claims to be processed there (or somewhere else overseas) before successful claimants are transported to the UK. That way, those with false claims never make it.

    It could potentially be done via our embassies. If you want asylum in the UK, apply via the British embassy nearest to you. They process your claim there, and when you get asylum, the process is arranged. Genuine asylum seekers benefit from not having a hellish journey to get here, fake ones there's no point in even applying. There should be no asylum processing on UK shores.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,698
    edited November 5
    My energy provider is taking the piss. Many hundreds in credit, only marginally reduced my direct debit, refusing a refund.

    Must be a widespread problem for people in small flats and low energy usage after the government intervention.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    Foxy said:

    And here is why the betting hasn't changed:


    That graphic does indicate that if the Tories can get their ratings back to merely HY disaster territory - 10% behind - then a Labour majority looks unlikely.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    The majority / no overall majority betting has changed a bit since Sunak became leader.
  • IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    And here is why the betting hasn't changed:


    That graphic does indicate that if the Tories can get their ratings back to merely HY disaster territory - 10% behind - then a Labour majority looks unlikely.
    That depends on several unknowns.

    Big one is how big and persistent Sunak's honeymoon bounce is. Given how much of the 30+ point lead was driven by "OMG, there are nutters in Downing Street", that should be good for Sunak.

    Next one is how the economy pans out over the next two years. The future's not ours to see (yet) but it's not looking good. And "yes, my party elected a nutter as PM, but I'm fixing the damage" is a tough sell.

    Next, how much classic swingback will there be?

    Finally, how will the tactical dynamics of 2024 be different to 2019?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    And here is why the betting hasn't changed:


    That graphic does indicate that if the Tories can get their ratings back to merely HY disaster territory - 10% behind - then a Labour majority looks unlikely.
    That depends on several unknowns.

    Big one is how big and persistent Sunak's honeymoon bounce is. Given how much of the 30+ point lead was driven by "OMG, there are nutters in Downing Street", that should be good for Sunak.

    Next one is how the economy pans out over the next two years. The future's not ours to see (yet) but it's not looking good. And "yes, my party elected a nutter as PM, but I'm fixing the damage" is a tough sell.

    Next, how much classic swingback will there be?

    Finally, how will the tactical dynamics of 2024 be different to 2019?
    Mr Meeks reckons that the above graphic underestimates Tory losses as he expects heavy tactical voting FWIW.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1588604141500522496?t=6xpSGThKLaQWpsvGGXhFBg&s=19
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913

    FPT @MoonRabbit



    Those numbers sound far too high to me. I suspect the asylum system is being operated with very little rigour.

    That said, our solutions are similar in some respects. I agree that it's unfair to be sent to Rwanda before a verdict is reached with no prospect of return. What I suggest is for claims to be processed there (or somewhere else overseas) before successful claimants are transported to the UK. That way, those with false claims never make it.

    It could potentially be done via our embassies. If you want asylum in the UK, apply via the British embassy nearest to you. They process your claim there, and when you get asylum, the process is arranged. Genuine asylum seekers benefit from not having a hellish journey to get here, fake ones there's no point in even applying. There should be no asylum processing on UK shores.

    The whole asylum system needs a serious looking at.

    Going back to first principals, the system is supposed to be a temporary refuge for those persecuted in the own country or fleeing war. It was not designed for the volume of migration we see today, nor a global travel and media world that makes a few Western countries appear a very attractive destination for billions of people.

    The idea that anyone arriving unconventionally from France is worthy of asylum, seems preposterous to many Brits. France is a safe country, signatory to many of the same conventions as the UK. With very few exceptions, perhaps an opposition politician arrested who turns up at the British Embassy requesting asylum, no-one arrivng from France should be considered eligible.

    I agree that accepting applications only abroad, and guaranteeing anyone arriving by boat either a free flight home or to a third country, or detention at a military base until a decision can be made on their case, doesn’t sound unreasonable - to those genuinely fleeing from persecution. Alongside efforts to support war zones, as the UK did well in Syria a decade ago.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    England having to chase today, it's like old times. Wickets in the power play will be key. SL are much better with the ball in their hand than the bat. England want to really exploit this today.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    And here is why the betting hasn't changed:


    That graphic does indicate that if the Tories can get their ratings back to merely HY disaster territory - 10% behind - then a Labour majority looks unlikely.
    There’s a very wide hung parliament zone in that graph. Con largest party but still out of power, is a strong possibility. A good-sized Lab majority only comes through retaking Scotland.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250
    Toyoda Gosei UK (car parts manufacturer) confirms in its latest annual report that it will undergo controlled closure over next 2-3 years, due to reduction in UK demand, global changes, following end of consultation. Were 1192 employees in 2016, now 566. As for Brexit... 1/3

    "Leaving the EU has increased administration, cost + pressure on on-time deliveries, which, at times, has + continues to cause lost production days." 2/3

    Toyoda Gosei's UK closure first flagged up in April 2021. It had moved some of its production to its main site in the Czech Republic which will become a central hub for production following factory closures in Germany and the UK. 3/3
    https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/car-parts-supplier-toyoda-gosei-20480709
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    He really won't do that. The reservoir behind that dam supplies nearly 90% of the Crimea's fresh water. If they blew the dam the Crimea would need to be evacuated.

    Sri Lanka win the battle of the anthems. Hope that's it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    He really won't do that. The reservoir behind that dam supplies nearly 90% of the Crimea's fresh water. If they blew the dam the Crimea would need to be evacuated.

    Sri Lanka win the battle of the anthems. Hope that's it.
    They also won the toss. That probably is it.
  • Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    And here is why the betting hasn't changed:


    That graphic does indicate that if the Tories can get their ratings back to merely HY disaster territory - 10% behind - then a Labour majority looks unlikely.
    That depends on several unknowns.

    Big one is how big and persistent Sunak's honeymoon bounce is. Given how much of the 30+ point lead was driven by "OMG, there are nutters in Downing Street", that should be good for Sunak.

    Next one is how the economy pans out over the next two years. The future's not ours to see (yet) but it's not looking good. And "yes, my party elected a nutter as PM, but I'm fixing the damage" is a tough sell.

    Next, how much classic swingback will there be?

    Finally, how will the tactical dynamics of 2024 be different to 2019?
    Mr Meeks reckons that the above graphic underestimates Tory losses as he expects heavy tactical voting FWIW.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1588604141500522496?t=6xpSGThKLaQWpsvGGXhFBg&s=19
    If nothing else, the unwind of the "must stop Corbyn" vote won't be trivial.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    And here is why the betting hasn't changed:


    That graphic does indicate that if the Tories can get their ratings back to merely HY disaster territory - 10% behind - then a Labour majority looks unlikely.
    That depends on several unknowns.

    Big one is how big and persistent Sunak's honeymoon bounce is. Given how much of the 30+ point lead was driven by "OMG, there are nutters in Downing Street", that should be good for Sunak.

    Next one is how the economy pans out over the next two years. The future's not ours to see (yet) but it's not looking good. And "yes, my party elected a nutter as PM, but I'm fixing the damage" is a tough sell.

    Next, how much classic swingback will there be?

    Finally, how will the tactical dynamics of 2024 be different to 2019?
    Mr Meeks reckons that the above graphic underestimates Tory losses as he expects heavy tactical voting FWIW.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1588604141500522496?t=6xpSGThKLaQWpsvGGXhFBg&s=19
    Not sure about that. Would definitely have been the case against Boris, very probably against Truss but Rishi? I suspect he doesn't aminate the opposition to anything like the same extent.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    Sri Lanka v England about to start.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60119102
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    He really won't do that. The reservoir behind that dam supplies nearly 90% of the Crimea's fresh water. If they blew the dam the Crimea would need to be evacuated.

    Sri Lanka win the battle of the anthems. Hope that's it.
    Didn't they manage without that water supply from 2014 to 2022 due to the closure of the Crimean Canal?

    Doesn't suggest the peninsula would need evacuating if he blew it, although it might have unfortunate effects for him in other ways.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    He really won't do that. The reservoir behind that dam supplies nearly 90% of the Crimea's fresh water. If they blew the dam the Crimea would need to be evacuated.

    Sri Lanka win the battle of the anthems. Hope that's it.
    The biggest fear was the weather. That seems ok.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434
    Andy_JS said:

    Sri Lanka v England about to start.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60119102

    Divided loyalties in our house. 🇱🇰🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065
    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
    They've made some good kit over the years because of their isolation and the internal strife meaning they had to have a strong home arms industry.

    However, what scale can they manufacture it on?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Lots of Australians cheering on Sri Lanka.

    Which would probably have happened anyway, TBF.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197

    FPT @MoonRabbit



    Those numbers sound far too high to me. I suspect the asylum system is being operated with very little rigour.

    That said, our solutions are similar in some respects. I agree that it's unfair to be sent to Rwanda before a verdict is reached with no prospect of return. What I suggest is for claims to be processed there (or somewhere else overseas) before successful claimants are transported to the UK. That way, those with false claims never make it.

    It could potentially be done via our embassies. If you want asylum in the UK, apply via the British embassy nearest to you. They process your claim there, and when you get asylum, the process is arranged. Genuine asylum seekers benefit from not having a hellish journey to get here, fake ones there's no point in even applying. There should be no asylum processing on UK shores.

    The unsaid thing here, though, is that the rules are so broad that if we did this - given we have a British embassy in almost every country in the world - we'd get millions of applications each year.

    If we, rapidly, processed those claims with lots of staff and found that, say, 70% qualified , what then?

    The unpalatable truth is that under current rules the difficulty of getting here to claim asylum is the only real tool we have to control the numbers being given asylum.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Good start from Sri Lanka.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
    They've made some good kit over the years because of their isolation and the internal strife meaning they had to have a strong home arms industry.

    However, what scale can they manufacture it on?
    AIUI Russia and SA have been cooperating on weapons development for a few years now. And I'd guess that , with finance, they'd be able to provide quite a bit. Transport might be a bit of a problem, although western attempts to stop SA exporting them might annoy other African governments.

    The post-Apartheid SA governments have not been as good as one might have hoped in the 1990s, have they?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
    They've made some good kit over the years because of their isolation and the internal strife meaning they had to have a strong home arms industry.

    However, what scale can they manufacture it on?
    AIUI Russia and SA have been cooperating on weapons development for a few years now. And I'd guess that , with finance, they'd be able to provide quite a bit. Transport might be a bit of a problem, although western attempts to stop SA exporting them might annoy other African governments.

    The post-Apartheid SA governments have not been as good as one might have hoped in the 1990s, have they?
    Bluntly, given the enormous difficulties they laboured under they were never likely to be very good. The legacies of apartheid are manifold and complex, but they included a trashed economy, an inadequate education system, a lack of properly formed, democratically stable systems and a leadership that was very elderly.

    It would have been a near-miracle if a decent government system had emerged from that. The issues around the likes of Zuma and Ramaphosa were always likely to emerge unless Mandela had achieved extraordinary political longevity and impeccable judgement (which he didn't).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Excellent catch. England really needed that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    So far, England looking like Australia in disguise.

    They're not going to win if they keep bowling like this.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148
    edited November 5
    Wait, what, do we need to add pussies and gerbils to the gender list? Apparently not ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/nov/04/joe-rogan-school-litter-boxes-kids-furries-gender

    'Joe Rogan has acknowledged spreading misinformation after he suggested that elementary schools were installing litter boxes for students who “identify” as furries.'

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    DavidL said:

    Excellent catch. England really needed that.

    There's clearly a delay on the feed I'm watching.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    ydoethur said:

    So far, England looking like Australia in disguise.

    They're not going to win if they keep bowling like this.

    I'll give you that one. But yes, express pace really hasn't worked, they need pace off.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,595
    edited November 5
    Surrey are going to get relegated and probably cease to being a CCC soon.

    An entire generation of bowlers have just been utterly screwed.

    Surrey have today signed Azhar Mahmood, Jade Dernbach and Jim Troughton to the coaching staff full-time.


    Dernbach returns to the Club as an Assistant Coach and his primary responsibility will be leading the Surrey Second XI as well as offering

    bowling expertise to the whole squad. Having retired in 2021 after a long and successful career with the Club, the former Surrey T20 Captain spent the 2022 season in north London with Middlesex as a Consultant Fast Bowling Coach.


    https://www.kiaoval.com/surrey-sign-three-to-coaching-staff/

  • England are going to lose today.

    Silverwood’s revenge is nailed on.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    So far, England looking like Australia in disguise.

    They're not going to win if they keep bowling like this.

    I'll give you that one. But yes, express pace really hasn't worked, they need pace off.
    Which is bad news given the nature of Sri Lanka's attack.

    Anything over 130 will be a tough ask.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    England are going to lose today.

    Silverwood’s revenge is nailed on.

    So there's one England fast bowler who's doing well?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
    They've made some good kit over the years because of their isolation and the internal strife meaning they had to have a strong home arms industry.

    However, what scale can they manufacture it on?
    AIUI Russia and SA have been cooperating on weapons development for a few years now. And I'd guess that , with finance, they'd be able to provide quite a bit. Transport might be a bit of a problem, although western attempts to stop SA exporting them might annoy other African governments.

    The post-Apartheid SA governments have not been as good as one might have hoped in the 1990s, have they?
    Bluntly, given the enormous difficulties they laboured under they were never likely to be very good. The legacies of apartheid are manifold and complex, but they included a trashed economy, an inadequate education system, a lack of properly formed, democratically stable systems and a leadership that was very elderly.

    It would have been a near-miracle if a decent government system had emerged from that. The issues around the likes of Zuma and Ramaphosa were always likely to emerge unless Mandela had achieved extraordinary political longevity and impeccable judgement (which he didn't).
    I think that's very fair.

    I would ask for an example of an African country with a well-run government; then realised that the UK isn't a shining example of that at the moment. ;)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    Actually, that's the one thing I don't have a problem with as I think support for parties is a mile wide and an inch deep these days; people are far more fickle and willing to change their loyalties.

    It's just that Labour's leadership and programme haven't really come into focus yet, and I don't expect them to have better answers. To the extent their leadership has, it already trails Sunak. Once Tory DKs and WNVs are rallied during a GE campaign, it will look more complex.

    I think "time for a change" will get them a long way, but not all the way.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,938
    edited November 5
    Eabhal said:

    My energy provider is taking the piss. Many hundreds in credit, only marginally reduced my direct debit, refusing a refund.

    Must be a widespread problem for people in small flats and low energy usage after the government intervention.

    @Eabhal I have a solution for you. I had a similar problem. We use very little energy in our second home. In credit and pay more than we use, but not significantly, so I have never done anything about it. Then they wanted to double our Direct Debit. Rational discussion proved impossible, so I simply changed payment (still by DD) to actual usage which is always available. Several months now of paying nothing due to existing credit.

    They just didn't get it. Bonkers.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,758
    edited November 5
    Good morning. In further “Britain is a creaking rustbucket” news here’s a sad thread from Peter Foster on river pollution:

    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1588792898300317696?s=46&t=wpMe0O7pWcjn5g0suBtNqA

    The unpleasant dilemma we find ourselves in as a country is that public services and agencies have got themselves in an abject state because of a decade of cuts and
    desperately need proper funding, at the same time as the UK finds itself running out of money and needing to save more.

    In this case enforcement of environmental regulations. If you don’t have enough capacity to catch the polluters, they keep polluting because they know they’ll get away with it.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,000
    edited November 5
    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    There have only been two elections in the past 100 years which have followed 14+ years of unbroken one party government, as will be the case in 2024. 1997 and 1945, when Blair and Attlee won huge majorities for Labour.

    So the sample is small, but the precedent suggests that the situation won't be as difficult for Labour as you suggest. Strange things happen after very long periods of unbroken dominance by one party. People come to the conclusion that "enough is enough" en masse.

    You can throw in 1964 and 2010 (both held after 13 years), and while neither resulted in significant majorities, both did show very significant gains by the winning party. The governing party had clearly run out of steam, and the government changed colour.

    So, in the last 100 years, the only four general elections contested after a party had governed for 13 or more years all resulted in a change of government, and in three of the four the incoming party had a majority.

    Big swings at the end of a long period in government are the norm, not the exception.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,365
    kjh said:

    Eabhal said:

    My energy provider is taking the piss. Many hundreds in credit, only marginally reduced my direct debit, refusing a refund.

    Must be a widespread problem for people in small flats and low energy usage after the government intervention.

    @Eabhal I have a solution for you. I had a similar problem. We use very little energy in our second home. In credit and pay more than we use, but not significantly, so I have never done anything about it. Then they wanted to double our Direct Debit. Rational discussion proved impossible, so I simply changed payment (still by DD) to actual usage which is always available. Several months now of paying nothing due to existing credit.

    They just didn't get it. Bonkers.
    I found cancelling my DD concentrated EON’s minds wonderfully (after non answers to emails & Whatsapp); they offered to reduce my monthly charge from £500+ to £200. Bunch of effing chancers.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066

    Andy_JS said:

    Sri Lanka v England about to start.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60119102

    Divided loyalties in our house. 🇱🇰🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
    In general I prefer a close and exciting game in which England lose to a one-sided win for either side.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    Actually, that's the one thing I don't have a problem with as I think support for parties is a mile wide and an inch deep these days; people are far more fickle and willing to change their loyalties.

    It's just that Labour's leadership and programme haven't really come into focus yet, and I don't expect them to have better answers. To the extent their leadership has, it already trails Sunak. Once Tory DKs and WNVs are rallied during a GE campaign, it will look more complex.

    I think "time for a change" will get them a long way, but not all the way.
    The next election will be close. It will be interesting to see where we are once the post Truss novelty of Sunak wears off and he takes full ownership of the economic problems..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    There have only been two elections in the past 100 years which have followed 14+ years of unbroken one party government, as will be the case in 2024. 1997 and 1945, when Blair and Attlee won huge majorities for Labour.

    So the sample is small, but the precedent suggests that the situation won't be as difficult for Labour as you suggest. Strange things happen after very long periods of unbroken dominance by one party. People come to the conclusion that "enough is enough" en masse.

    You can throw in 1964 and 2010 (both held after 13 years), and while neither resulted in significant majorities, both did show very significant gains by the winning party. The governing party had clearly run out of steam, and the government changed colour.

    So, in the last 100 years, the only four general elections contested after a party had governed for 13 or more years all resulted in a change of government, and in three of the four the incoming party had a majority.

    Big swings at the end of a long period in government are the norm, not the exception.
    1945 was not a 14+ year period of unbroken one-party government. It followed six weeks of unbroken one-party government.

    Personally I would expect Labour to be just short of a majority. They may do better but Starmer is a dull figure, very unlike Wilson or Blair, and I think he will be voted for with resignation rather than enthusiasm.

    But, I could easily be completely wrong. As pointed out upthread, a lot depends on the economy and I don't see how that gets turned around.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Sri Lanka on course for around 180.

    Can't see England chasing that down unless Moeen does something exceptional.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    There have only been two elections in the past 100 years which have followed 14+ years of unbroken one party government, as will be the case in 2024. 1997 and 1945, when Blair and Attlee won huge majorities for Labour.

    So the sample is small, but the precedent suggests that the situation won't be as difficult for Labour as you suggest. Strange things happen after very long periods of unbroken dominance by one party. People come to the conclusion that "enough is enough" en masse.

    You can throw in 1964 and 2010 (both held after 13 years), and while neither resulted in significant majorities, both did show very significant gains by the winning party. The governing party had clearly run out of steam, and the government changed colour.

    So, in the last 100 years, the only four general elections contested after a party had governed for 13 or more years all resulted in a change of government, and in three of the four the incoming party had a majority.

    Big swings at the end of a long period in government are the norm, not the exception.
    1945 was not a 14+ year period of unbroken one-party government. It followed six weeks of unbroken one-party government.

    Personally I would expect Labour to be just short of a majority. They may do better but Starmer is a dull figure, very unlike Wilson or Blair, and I think he will be voted for with resignation rather than enthusiasm.

    But, I could easily be completely wrong. As pointed out upthread, a lot depends on the economy and I don't see how that gets turned around.
    Curious paradox: a Labour government depending on some sort of understanding with the Lib Dems is likely to be forced to be more radical than one with a majority of its own.

    That's how boring Boring Old Starmer is.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    kjh said:

    Eabhal said:

    My energy provider is taking the piss. Many hundreds in credit, only marginally reduced my direct debit, refusing a refund.

    Must be a widespread problem for people in small flats and low energy usage after the government intervention.

    @Eabhal I have a solution for you. I had a similar problem. We use very little energy in our second home. In credit and pay more than we use, but not significantly, so I have never done anything about it. Then they wanted to double our Direct Debit. Rational discussion proved impossible, so I simply changed payment (still by DD) to actual usage which is always available. Several months now of paying nothing due to existing credit.

    They just didn't get it. Bonkers.
    I did similar when I moved in January. Have paid less than £50 in total since then due to existing credit.
    Back in credit now due to government scheme. You just have to remember to submit a reading every month.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    Actually, that's the one thing I don't have a problem with as I think support for parties is a mile wide and an inch deep these days; people are far more fickle and willing to change their loyalties.

    It's just that Labour's leadership and programme haven't really come into focus yet, and I don't expect them to have better answers. To the extent their leadership has, it already trails Sunak. Once Tory DKs and WNVs are rallied during a GE campaign, it will look more complex.

    I think "time for a change" will get them a long way, but not all the way.
    The next election will be close. It will be interesting to see where we are once the post Truss novelty of Sunak wears off and he takes full ownership of the economic problems..
    It's refreshing to see your objectivity about it.

    FWIW, I could be wrong and it could be a Labour blowout. I am on both NOM/majority and, of course, I have my own preference - as you'd expect - but will keep my betting under review.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    What a shambles on that runout from everybody. Collision, poor throw, missed stumps. Even the Keystone Cops would blush at that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    He really won't do that. The reservoir behind that dam supplies nearly 90% of the Crimea's fresh water. If they blew the dam the Crimea would need to be evacuated.

    Sri Lanka win the battle of the anthems. Hope that's it.
    You’d think that it was obvious to the Russians, of the need to maintain the Crimean water supply - but if they’re on the retreat they won’t care. They’ll blame “the Ukranian sabotage” of the dam, for the need to depopulate Crimea and escalate the war further.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    There have only been two elections in the past 100 years which have followed 14+ years of unbroken one party government, as will be the case in 2024. 1997 and 1945, when Blair and Attlee won huge majorities for Labour.

    So the sample is small, but the precedent suggests that the situation won't be as difficult for Labour as you suggest. Strange things happen after very long periods of unbroken dominance by one party. People come to the conclusion that "enough is enough" en masse.

    You can throw in 1964 and 2010 (both held after 13 years), and while neither resulted in significant majorities, both did show very significant gains by the winning party. The governing party had clearly run out of steam, and the government changed colour.

    So, in the last 100 years, the only four general elections contested after a party had governed for 13 or more years all resulted in a change of government, and in three of the four the incoming party had a majority.

    Big swings at the end of a long period in government are the norm, not the exception.
    1945 was not a 14+ year period of unbroken one-party government. It followed six weeks of unbroken one-party government.

    Personally I would expect Labour to be just short of a majority. They may do better but Starmer is a dull figure, very unlike Wilson or Blair, and I think he will be voted for with resignation rather than enthusiasm.

    But, I could easily be completely wrong. As pointed out upthread, a lot depends on the economy and I don't see how that gets turned around.
    Curious paradox: a Labour government depending on some sort of understanding with the Lib Dems is likely to be forced to be more radical than one with a majority of its own.

    That's how boring Boring Old Starmer is.
    I think actually it would be radical in different ways. The LDs would demand electoral reform as a priority. The Labour left would demand economic reform as a priority. It would be impossible to deliver both in a coalition as Davey wouldn't support the proposals of the likes of Burgon. But it might lead them to do more meddling in the constitution than Starmer intended as a distraction.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
    They've made some good kit over the years because of their isolation and the internal strife meaning they had to have a strong home arms industry.

    However, what scale can they manufacture it on?
    AIUI Russia and SA have been cooperating on weapons development for a few years now. And I'd guess that , with finance, they'd be able to provide quite a bit. Transport might be a bit of a problem, although western attempts to stop SA exporting them might annoy other African governments.

    The post-Apartheid SA governments have not been as good as one might have hoped in the 1990s, have they?
    Bluntly, given the enormous difficulties they laboured under they were never likely to be very good. The legacies of apartheid are manifold and complex, but they included a trashed economy, an inadequate education system, a lack of properly formed, democratically stable systems and a leadership that was very elderly.

    It would have been a near-miracle if a decent government system had emerged from that. The issues around the likes of Zuma and Ramaphosa were always likely to emerge unless Mandela had achieved extraordinary political longevity and impeccable judgement (which he didn't).
    I think that's very fair.

    I would ask for an example of an African country with a well-run government; then realised that the UK isn't a shining example of that at the moment. ;)
    Botswana and Mauritius stand out as well run democracies with strongly economies, but there are 56 countries in Africa (plus a few more unrecognised) and considering the challenges many are fine. Malawi, Ghana and Zambia for example.

    There is a residual support for Russia in much of Africa because of the USSR support for liberation movements against the colonial powers. Misplaced because times have changed and Russia is now a fascist colonising genocidal state, but it does take time for memories to fade.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,935

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
    Really? That’s just impossible to comprehend. Cyril Ramaposa, ex director of SAB Miller and Standard Bank, is going to risk secondary sanctions on South African business, by picking the losing side when it could just stay neutralish?

    Once the mid terms are done I would personally go “nuclear” with the sanctions regime. Anyone providing arms to Russia should face sanctions as severe as those imposed on Russia directly. Anyone buying its hydrocarbons should be blocked from the international trade of energy products.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    Actually, that's the one thing I don't have a problem with as I think support for parties is a mile wide and an inch deep these days; people are far more fickle and willing to change their loyalties.

    It's just that Labour's leadership and programme haven't really come into focus yet, and I don't expect them to have better answers. To the extent their leadership has, it already trails Sunak. Once Tory DKs and WNVs are rallied during a GE campaign, it will look more complex.

    I think "time for a change" will get them a long way, but not all the way.
    The next election will be close. It will be interesting to see where we are once the post Truss novelty of Sunak wears off and he takes full ownership of the economic problems..
    It's refreshing to see your objectivity about it.

    FWIW, I could be wrong and it could be a Labour blowout. I am on both NOM/majority and, of course, I have my own preference - as you'd expect - but will keep my betting under review.
    I’ve never put much store in mid term polls. Labour start from a long way back, the fact they even have a chance of a majority is remarkable. 2024 could easily be 1992.

    Obviously I hope not, it would be better for everyone if the Tories lost. Essential for our democracy. Good for the country. Good for the Tories.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
    They’re not that silly, surely? Do they all have short memories, of what it’s like being on the international pariah list?
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    There have only been two elections in the past 100 years which have followed 14+ years of unbroken one party government, as will be the case in 2024. 1997 and 1945, when Blair and Attlee won huge majorities for Labour.

    So the sample is small, but the precedent suggests that the situation won't be as difficult for Labour as you suggest. Strange things happen after very long periods of unbroken dominance by one party. People come to the conclusion that "enough is enough" en masse.

    You can throw in 1964 and 2010 (both held after 13 years), and while neither resulted in significant majorities, both did show very significant gains by the winning party. The governing party had clearly run out of steam, and the government changed colour.

    So, in the last 100 years, the only four general elections contested after a party had governed for 13 or more years all resulted in a change of government, and in three of the four the incoming party had a majority.

    Big swings at the end of a long period in government are the norm, not the exception.
    1945 was not a 14+ year period of unbroken one-party government. It followed six weeks of unbroken one-party government.

    Personally I would expect Labour to be just short of a majority. They may do better but Starmer is a dull figure, very unlike Wilson or Blair, and I think he will be voted for with resignation rather than enthusiasm.

    But, I could easily be completely wrong. As pointed out upthread, a lot depends on the economy and I don't see how that gets turned around.
    Good morning

    At present I expect a minority labour administration but it does come down to just who is trusted on the economy

    It should not be forgotten Starmer supported the cancellation of the NI rise and the reduction in the standard rate to 19% and apparently he is playing games with the triple lock by attempting next week to force the government to affirm pension and benefits will rise by the rate of inflation, which of course boxes him in on future attempts to abolish it

    He would also bend to union demands on pay rises at the cost of investment into public services, much as seen by Sturgeon this week, and has promised the TUC to repeal all trade union legislation since 2016

    He is utterly incapable of facing difficult decisions whereas I do see in Sunak/ Hunt politicians who will take difficult decisions and can be trusted on the economy
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,365
    Some echoes of last night’s report by the BBC on the weaponising of religion by the Trumper QAnon mob. Two out of the three nations able to end the world as we know it turning to apocalyptic crusading religion seems sub optimal.

    I wonder if Medvedev is going for the Gestapo or Goodfellas capo look with the leather coat? Bit of both maybe.




  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    edited November 5
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    He really won't do that. The reservoir behind that dam supplies nearly 90% of the Crimea's fresh water. If they blew the dam the Crimea would need to be evacuated.

    Sri Lanka win the battle of the anthems. Hope that's it.
    You’d think that it was obvious to the Russians, of the need to maintain the Crimean water supply - but if they’re on the retreat they won’t care. They’ll blame “the Ukranian sabotage” of the dam, for the need to depopulate Crimea and escalate the war further.
    The Crimean canal was blocked for most of the last 8 years. A problem for agriculture but not for civil use.

    Flooding would mostly affect the left, Russian held bank, but would make a more significant barrier. It works both ways, and Mikolayaiv and Odessa would be safer too from a renewed Russian attack.

    It does sound as if the Russian perimeter in Kherson is well dug in, and higher quality troops even if the city of Kherson is abandoned. It may be just that a hollow shell rather than defence in depth is better logistically for Russia.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,758
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    There have only been two elections in the past 100 years which have followed 14+ years of unbroken one party government, as will be the case in 2024. 1997 and 1945, when Blair and Attlee won huge majorities for Labour.

    So the sample is small, but the precedent suggests that the situation won't be as difficult for Labour as you suggest. Strange things happen after very long periods of unbroken dominance by one party. People come to the conclusion that "enough is enough" en masse.

    You can throw in 1964 and 2010 (both held after 13 years), and while neither resulted in significant majorities, both did show very significant gains by the winning party. The governing party had clearly run out of steam, and the government changed colour.

    So, in the last 100 years, the only four general elections contested after a party had governed for 13 or more years all resulted in a change of government, and in three of the four the incoming party had a majority.

    Big swings at the end of a long period in government are the norm, not the exception.
    1945 was not a 14+ year period of unbroken one-party government. It followed six weeks of unbroken one-party government.

    Personally I would expect Labour to be just short of a majority. They may do better but Starmer is a dull figure, very unlike Wilson or Blair, and I think he will be voted for with resignation rather than enthusiasm.

    But, I could easily be completely wrong. As pointed out upthread, a lot depends on the economy and I don't see how that gets turned around.
    Curious paradox: a Labour government depending on some sort of understanding with the Lib Dems is likely to be forced to be more radical than one with a majority of its own.

    That's how boring Boring Old Starmer is.
    I think actually it would be radical in different ways. The LDs would demand electoral reform as a priority. The Labour left would demand economic reform as a priority. It would be impossible to deliver both in a coalition as Davey wouldn't support the proposals of the likes of Burgon. But it might lead them to do more meddling in the constitution than Starmer intended as a distraction.
    I think they’d have common cause policy wise on most things: environmental policy and net zero, a fairly fiscally conservative but redistributive tax policy (after the Truss disaster), more money but nothing radical for the NHS, continued defence funding and support for Ukraine, a return to 0.7% for aid and so on.

    The big differences would be on nationalisation, EU/Brexit, voting reform and a few libertarian policies like legalising cannabis.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065

    Some echoes of last night’s report by the BBC on the weaponising of religion by the Trumper QAnon mob. Two out of the three nations able to end the world as we know it turning to apocalyptic crusading religion seems sub optimal.

    I wonder if Medvedev is going for the Gestapo or Goodfellas capo look with the leather coat? Bit of both maybe.


    Someone elsewhere suggested that the Russian regime's sudden appeal to God over the last month has been an effort to unite the various ethnicities in their army, given that there has been some (ahem) friction between Muslim and Christian elements.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,487

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
    SA is a defence relationship that the UK has shamefully neglected.

    Common language
    Complementary needs (they need technical help, the UK needs people and room to exercise)
    Helps project power into the South Atlantic

    A bit of imagination and effort could have lead to a very fruitful partnership.

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,205

    Some echoes of last night’s report by the BBC on the weaponising of religion by the Trumper QAnon mob. Two out of the three nations able to end the world as we know it turning to apocalyptic crusading religion seems sub optimal.

    I wonder if Medvedev is going for the Gestapo or Goodfellas capo look with the leather coat? Bit of both maybe.




    Its the war on woke. Not sure how it goes down with the domestic audience, but certainly helps with recruitment of supporters/sympathisers in the west.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197

    Some echoes of last night’s report by the BBC on the weaponising of religion by the Trumper QAnon mob. Two out of the three nations able to end the world as we know it turning to apocalyptic crusading religion seems sub optimal.

    I wonder if Medvedev is going for the Gestapo or Goodfellas capo look with the leather coat? Bit of both maybe.


    To be fair, it's quite a nice coat. I do love a leather jacket.

    NO, THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A NAZI.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,758
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    He really won't do that. The reservoir behind that dam supplies nearly 90% of the Crimea's fresh water. If they blew the dam the Crimea would need to be evacuated.

    Sri Lanka win the battle of the anthems. Hope that's it.
    You’d think that it was obvious to the Russians, of the need to maintain the Crimean water supply - but if they’re on the retreat they won’t care. They’ll blame “the Ukranian sabotage” of the dam, for the need to depopulate Crimea and escalate the war further.
    The Crimean canal was blocked for most of the last 8 years. A problem for agriculture but not for civil use.

    Flooding would mostly affect the left, Russian held bank, but would make a more significant barrier. It works both ways, and Mikolayaiv and Odessa would be safer too from a renewed Russian attack.

    It does sound as if the Russian perimeter in Kherson is well dug in, and higher quality troops even if the city of Kherson is abandoned. It may be just that a hollow shell rather than defence in depth is better logistically for Russia.
    Looking at the map one of the big mysteries for which I’m sure there is a valid reason, is why Ukraine hasn’t made a play for the big sweep of Russian held land between Zaporizhzhia and Mariupol, cutting off the Russians to the West. It looks so tempting and most is sparsely populated.

    I can only suppose it’s either logistically / militarily difficult to do, or is part of the plan once Kherson is back under control.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
    They've made some good kit over the years because of their isolation and the internal strife meaning they had to have a strong home arms industry.

    However, what scale can they manufacture it on?
    AIUI Russia and SA have been cooperating on weapons development for a few years now. And I'd guess that , with finance, they'd be able to provide quite a bit. Transport might be a bit of a problem, although western attempts to stop SA exporting them might annoy other African governments.

    The post-Apartheid SA governments have not been as good as one might have hoped in the 1990s, have they?
    Bluntly, given the enormous difficulties they laboured under they were never likely to be very good. The legacies of apartheid are manifold and complex, but they included a trashed economy, an inadequate education system, a lack of properly formed, democratically stable systems and a leadership that was very elderly.

    It would have been a near-miracle if a decent government system had emerged from that. The issues around the likes of Zuma and Ramaphosa were always likely to emerge unless Mandela had achieved extraordinary political longevity and impeccable judgement (which he didn't).
    I think that's very fair.

    I would ask for an example of an African country with a well-run government; then realised that the UK isn't a shining example of that at the moment. ;)
    Botswana and Mauritius stand out as well run democracies with strongly economies, but there are 56 countries in Africa (plus a few more unrecognised) and considering the challenges many are fine. Malawi, Ghana and Zambia for example.

    There is a residual support for Russia in much of Africa because of the USSR support for liberation movements against the colonial powers. Misplaced because times have changed and Russia is now a fascist colonising genocidal state, but it does take time for memories to fade.

    I've just found this article, which is quite interesting (I haven't come across the website before, so don't know of its reliability):
    https://www.theafricareport.com/187546/russia-africa-how-the-kremlin-places-its-pawns-for-arms-sales-mercenaries-agents-of-influence/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    edited November 5
    Sandpit said:

    FPT @MoonRabbit



    Those numbers sound far too high to me. I suspect the asylum system is being operated with very little rigour.

    That said, our solutions are similar in some respects. I agree that it's unfair to be sent to Rwanda before a verdict is reached with no prospect of return. What I suggest is for claims to be processed there (or somewhere else overseas) before successful claimants are transported to the UK. That way, those with false claims never make it.

    It could potentially be done via our embassies. If you want asylum in the UK, apply via the British embassy nearest to you. They process your claim there, and when you get asylum, the process is arranged. Genuine asylum seekers benefit from not having a hellish journey to get here, fake ones there's no point in even applying. There should be no asylum processing on UK shores.

    The whole asylum system needs a serious looking at.

    Going back to first principals, the system is supposed to be a temporary refuge for those persecuted in the own country or fleeing war. It was not designed for the volume of migration we see today, nor a global travel and media world that makes a few Western countries appear a very attractive destination for billions of people.
    The system was designed for the post WW2 world where there were millions of displaced persons across Europe, so was for mass resettlement.

    Worth noting too that until 1962 a quarter of the world's population, much from Africa and the Subcontinent could move here freely.

    It isn't that mass movements of peoples started recently, the problem is that recently we have attempted to restrict movements that were historically relatively free. With good reason perhaps, but it is a historic novelty.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,079
    edited November 5
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    There have only been two elections in the past 100 years which have followed 14+ years of unbroken one party government, as will be the case in 2024. 1997 and 1945, when Blair and Attlee won huge majorities for Labour.

    So the sample is small, but the precedent suggests that the situation won't be as difficult for Labour as you suggest. Strange things happen after very long periods of unbroken dominance by one party. People come to the conclusion that "enough is enough" en masse.

    You can throw in 1964 and 2010 (both held after 13 years), and while neither resulted in significant majorities, both did show very significant gains by the winning party. The governing party had clearly run out of steam, and the government changed colour.

    So, in the last 100 years, the only four general elections contested after a party had governed for 13 or more years all resulted in a change of government, and in three of the four the incoming party had a majority.

    Big swings at the end of a long period in government are the norm, not the exception.
    1945 was not a 14+ year period of unbroken one-party government. It followed six weeks of unbroken one-party government.

    Personally I would expect Labour to be just short of a majority. They may do better but Starmer is a dull figure, very unlike Wilson or Blair, and I think he will be voted for with resignation rather than enthusiasm.

    But, I could easily be completely wrong. As pointed out upthread, a lot depends on the economy and I don't see how that gets turned around.
    Good morning

    At present I expect a minority labour administration but it does come down to just who is trusted on the economy

    It should not be forgotten Starmer supported the cancellation of the NI rise and the reduction in the standard rate to 19% and apparently he is playing games with the triple lock by attempting next week to force the government to affirm pension and benefits will rise by the rate of inflation, which of course boxes him in on future attempts to abolish it

    He would also bend to union demands on pay rises at the cost of investment into public services, much as seen by Sturgeon this week, and has promised the TUC to repeal all trade union legislation since 2016

    He is utterly incapable of facing difficult decisions whereas I do see in Sunak/ Hunt politicians who will take difficult decisions and can be trusted on the economy
    Starmer has a stronger record on difficult decisions than Sunak. Sunak has had one difficult decision so far, but appointed her to the cabinet anyway. Starmer has taken a firm line with his party.
    They are not the decision on the economy, they are internal party politics

    Why is he backing the triple lock and cancelling all union legislation since 2016

    The Autumn statement on the 17th will show a government taking difficult decisions and I expect Sunak/ Hunt to be more trusted with the economy as a result

    As an aside Starmer would have cancelled the £400 fuel payment consumers are presently receiving
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT @MoonRabbit



    Those numbers sound far too high to me. I suspect the asylum system is being operated with very little rigour.

    That said, our solutions are similar in some respects. I agree that it's unfair to be sent to Rwanda before a verdict is reached with no prospect of return. What I suggest is for claims to be processed there (or somewhere else overseas) before successful claimants are transported to the UK. That way, those with false claims never make it.

    It could potentially be done via our embassies. If you want asylum in the UK, apply via the British embassy nearest to you. They process your claim there, and when you get asylum, the process is arranged. Genuine asylum seekers benefit from not having a hellish journey to get here, fake ones there's no point in even applying. There should be no asylum processing on UK shores.

    The whole asylum system needs a serious looking at.

    Going back to first principals, the system is supposed to be a temporary refuge for those persecuted in the own country or fleeing war. It was not designed for the volume of migration we see today, nor a global travel and media world that makes a few Western countries appear a very attractive destination for billions of people.
    The system was designed for the post WW2 world where there were millions of displaced persons across Europe, so was for mass resettlement.

    Worth noting too that until 1962 a quarter of the world's population, much from Africa and the Subcontinent could move here freely.

    It isn't that mass movements of peoples started recently, the problem is that recently we have attempted to restrict movements that were historically relatively free. With good reason perhaps, but it is a historic novelty.

    It’s the internet wot done it. And that makes it a tricky problem to solve.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,228
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    And here is why the betting hasn't changed:


    That graphic does indicate that if the Tories can get their ratings back to merely HY disaster territory - 10% behind - then a Labour majority looks unlikely.
    Yup, an election result of 42/35 is prime hung parliament territory and it isn't implausible for Rishi to scrape that. Fix the boats and he may even get to parity.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    There have only been two elections in the past 100 years which have followed 14+ years of unbroken one party government, as will be the case in 2024. 1997 and 1945, when Blair and Attlee won huge majorities for Labour.

    So the sample is small, but the precedent suggests that the situation won't be as difficult for Labour as you suggest. Strange things happen after very long periods of unbroken dominance by one party. People come to the conclusion that "enough is enough" en masse.

    You can throw in 1964 and 2010 (both held after 13 years), and while neither resulted in significant majorities, both did show very significant gains by the winning party. The governing party had clearly run out of steam, and the government changed colour.

    So, in the last 100 years, the only four general elections contested after a party had governed for 13 or more years all resulted in a change of government, and in three of the four the incoming party had a majority.

    Big swings at the end of a long period in government are the norm, not the exception.
    1945 was not a 14+ year period of unbroken one-party government. It followed six weeks of unbroken one-party government.

    Personally I would expect Labour to be just short of a majority. They may do better but Starmer is a dull figure, very unlike Wilson or Blair, and I think he will be voted for with resignation rather than enthusiasm.

    But, I could easily be completely wrong. As pointed out upthread, a lot depends on the economy and I don't see how that gets turned around.
    Good morning

    At present I expect a minority labour administration but it does come down to just who is trusted on the economy

    It should not be forgotten Starmer supported the cancellation of the NI rise and the reduction in the standard rate to 19% and apparently he is playing games with the triple lock by attempting next week to force the government to affirm pension and benefits will rise by the rate of inflation, which of course boxes him in on future attempts to abolish it

    He would also bend to union demands on pay rises at the cost of investment into public services, much as seen by Sturgeon this week, and has promised the TUC to repeal all trade union legislation since 2016

    He is utterly incapable of facing difficult decisions whereas I do see in Sunak/ Hunt politicians who will take difficult decisions and can be trusted on the economy
    Starmer has a stronger record on difficult decisions than Sunak. Sunak has had one difficult decision so far, but appointed her to the cabinet anyway. Starmer has taken a firm line with his party.
    They are not the decision on the economy, they are internal party politics

    Why is he backing the triple lock and cancelling all union legislation since 2016

    The Autumn statement on the 17th will show a government taking difficult decisions and I expect Sunak/ Hunt to be more trusted with the economy as a result
    Unions are a good thing. We need them in society. We owe them a lot. I’m glad they’re supported.

    The right strategy for the opposition is to be selective on how they differentiate themselves. We are two years from an election. The fact the Tories borrow Labour policy underlines that.

    Sunak/Hunt are clearing up their own mess. Should we be grateful? No

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250
    Exclusive:

    Rishi Sunak says state cannot be expected to 'fix every problem' as he vows to be honest with voters about scale of challenge ahead.

    He's says he's 'confident' public will judge Autumn budget to be 'fair & compassionate'


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/state-cant-fix-all-your-problems-says-rishi-sunak-6vlw6q3bw

    “The only difference between Compassionate Conservatism and Conservatism is that under Compassionate Conservatism they tell you they are not going to help you but they are really sorry about it” ©️Tony Blair

    https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1588807308389232640/photo/1
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,450
    Scott_xP said:

    Toyoda Gosei UK (car parts manufacturer) confirms in its latest annual report that it will undergo controlled closure over next 2-3 years, due to reduction in UK demand, global changes, following end of consultation. Were 1192 employees in 2016, now 566. As for Brexit... 1/3

    "Leaving the EU has increased administration, cost + pressure on on-time deliveries, which, at times, has + continues to cause lost production days." 2/3

    Toyoda Gosei's UK closure first flagged up in April 2021. It had moved some of its production to its main site in the Czech Republic which will become a central hub for production following factory closures in Germany and the UK. 3/3
    https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/car-parts-supplier-toyoda-gosei-20480709

    Sunny uplands here we come
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    edited November 5
    Pathum Nissanka so far very much the reason for Sri Lanka dominating. Never seen him bat before but he's impressive.

    Edit - I am a genius, although I wish I'd said it eight overs ago.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,585

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    Actually, that's the one thing I don't have a problem with as I think support for parties is a mile wide and an inch deep these days; people are far more fickle and willing to change their loyalties.

    It's just that Labour's leadership and programme haven't really come into focus yet, and I don't expect them to have better answers. To the extent their leadership has, it already trails Sunak. Once Tory DKs and WNVs are rallied during a GE campaign, it will look more complex.

    I think "time for a change" will get them a long way, but not all the way.
    The next GE will major on: tactical voting, competence and 'time for a change'.

    Con and Lab have good reason to avoid policy apart from minor retail special offers. They have no major disagreements about policy; and they have no money.

    An important culture change may be that it's now OK not to make ridiculous promises about no tax rises (first time since 1992) and golden elephants for pensioners. No-one will believe them and it damages credibility. Good.

  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,753
    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive:

    Rishi Sunak says state cannot be expected to 'fix every problem' as he vows to be honest with voters about scale of challenge ahead.

    He's says he's 'confident' public will judge Autumn budget to be 'fair & compassionate'


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/state-cant-fix-all-your-problems-says-rishi-sunak-6vlw6q3bw

    “The only difference between Compassionate Conservatism and Conservatism is that under Compassionate Conservatism they tell you they are not going to help you but they are really sorry about it” ©️Tony Blair

    https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1588807308389232640/photo/1

    More importantly, what's the difference between Compassionate Conservatism and Blairism? Tax and spend, coddling of dysfunctional public services, featherbedding of the old, etc. etc.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    ydoethur said:

    Pathum Nissanka so far very much the reason for Sri Lanka dominating. Never seen him bat before but he's impressive.

    Edit - I am a genius, although I wish I'd said it eight overs ago.

    Rashid has really turned up for England today. They are clawing back to parity but it is worrying that the slow bowlers are by far the most effective.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tentative good news from Ukraine overnight, as it does appear that the Russian military withdrawal from Kherson City is genuine.

    The worry is that the city is booby-trapped or full of hidden soldiers, or that Putin intends to flood the area downstream of the Kakhovka power station by bursting the dam.

    In tentative bad news, there are rumours that South Africa may provide Russia with arms.
    SA is a defence relationship that the UK has shamefully neglected.

    Common language
    Complementary needs (they need technical help, the UK needs people and room to exercise)
    Helps project power into the South Atlantic

    A bit of imagination and effort could have lead to a very fruitful partnership.

    Perhaps. On the other hand, it takes two to tango - would SA have wanted such a relationship? Then there's another side to it: given the SA government's actions, is it worth the bother? The UK gets criticised for its military cooperation with places like Saudi Arabia; imagine the cries of 'colonialism!' if we were seen as being heavily militarily involved in SA, with our history with them.

    (The same people doing the shrieking seem oblivious to when China or Russia get involved with those countries.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pathum Nissanka so far very much the reason for Sri Lanka dominating. Never seen him bat before but he's impressive.

    Edit - I am a genius, although I wish I'd said it eight overs ago.

    Rashid has really turned up for England today. They are clawing back to parity but it is worrying that the slow bowlers are by far the most effective.
    1-16 off 4 are magnificent figures by any standards. Other bowlers around 9.5 an over shows how well he's bowled.

    But as you say, does suggest this target is already going to be very tough for England.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,712
    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive:

    Rishi Sunak says state cannot be expected to 'fix every problem' as he vows to be honest with voters about scale of challenge ahead.

    He's says he's 'confident' public will judge Autumn budget to be 'fair & compassionate'


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/state-cant-fix-all-your-problems-says-rishi-sunak-6vlw6q3bw

    “The only difference between Compassionate Conservatism and Conservatism is that under Compassionate Conservatism they tell you they are not going to help you but they are really sorry about it” ©️Tony Blair

    https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1588807308389232640/photo/1

    More importantly, what's the difference between Compassionate Conservatism and Blairism? Tax and spend, coddling of dysfunctional public services, featherbedding of the old, etc. etc.
    Blairism opened Surestart centres. Compassionate Conservatism closed them down.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    I wonder if Malan will be able to bat as well?

    Won't make matters easier if he can't given he's a left hander and would be able to exploit the short boundary.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,753
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    Actually, that's the one thing I don't have a problem with as I think support for parties is a mile wide and an inch deep these days; people are far more fickle and willing to change their loyalties.

    It's just that Labour's leadership and programme haven't really come into focus yet, and I don't expect them to have better answers. To the extent their leadership has, it already trails Sunak. Once Tory DKs and WNVs are rallied during a GE campaign, it will look more complex.

    I think "time for a change" will get them a long way, but not all the way.
    The next election will be close. It will be interesting to see where we are once the post Truss novelty of Sunak wears off and he takes full ownership of the economic problems..
    It's refreshing to see your objectivity about it.

    FWIW, I could be wrong and it could be a Labour blowout. I am on both NOM/majority and, of course, I have my own preference - as you'd expect - but will keep my betting under review.
    I’ve never put much store in mid term polls. Labour start from a long way back, the fact they even have a chance of a majority is remarkable. 2024 could easily be 1992.

    Obviously I hope not, it would be better for everyone if the Tories lost. Essential for our democracy. Good for the country. Good for the Tories.
    You don't see the irony in saying that it's essential for our democracy that you get the result you want?
  • algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    Actually, that's the one thing I don't have a problem with as I think support for parties is a mile wide and an inch deep these days; people are far more fickle and willing to change their loyalties.

    It's just that Labour's leadership and programme haven't really come into focus yet, and I don't expect them to have better answers. To the extent their leadership has, it already trails Sunak. Once Tory DKs and WNVs are rallied during a GE campaign, it will look more complex.

    I think "time for a change" will get them a long way, but not all the way.
    The next GE will major on: tactical voting, competence and 'time for a change'.

    Con and Lab have good reason to avoid policy apart from minor retail special offers. They have no major disagreements about policy; and they have no money.

    An important culture change may be that it's now OK not to make ridiculous promises about no tax rises (first time since 1992) and golden elephants for pensioners. No-one will believe them and it damages credibility. Good.

    It's not that long ago that Rishi was floating a sixteen pence basic rate of tax.

    https://ifs.org.uk/articles/conservative-candidates-tax-plans-are-increasingly-similar-though-still-differ-scale-and

    It would be good to get away from the rate fetish, but I'm not sure we're there yet.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive:

    Rishi Sunak says state cannot be expected to 'fix every problem' as he vows to be honest with voters about scale of challenge ahead.

    He's says he's 'confident' public will judge Autumn budget to be 'fair & compassionate'


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/state-cant-fix-all-your-problems-says-rishi-sunak-6vlw6q3bw

    “The only difference between Compassionate Conservatism and Conservatism is that under Compassionate Conservatism they tell you they are not going to help you but they are really sorry about it” ©️Tony Blair

    https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1588807308389232640/photo/1

    More importantly, what's the difference between Compassionate Conservatism and Blairism? Tax and spend, coddling of dysfunctional public services, featherbedding of the old, etc. etc.
    Blairism opened Surestart centres. Compassionate Conservatism closed them down.
    There's nothing compassionate about spending other people's money we don't have.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    edited November 5
    Sri Lanka's score is a bit disappointing with 2 overs to go. 128/5.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60119102
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive:

    Rishi Sunak says state cannot be expected to 'fix every problem' as he vows to be honest with voters about scale of challenge ahead.

    He's says he's 'confident' public will judge Autumn budget to be 'fair & compassionate'


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/state-cant-fix-all-your-problems-says-rishi-sunak-6vlw6q3bw

    “The only difference between Compassionate Conservatism and Conservatism is that under Compassionate Conservatism they tell you they are not going to help you but they are really sorry about it” ©️Tony Blair

    https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1588807308389232640/photo/1

    He's right, but at present I'm not sure what problems they are fixing at all, if any, other than patching up the foot they just shot.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616
    edited November 5
    Fishing said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think the betting is balanced between NOM and a Labour majority, which implies a Labour lead of about 10-12% in an actual GE.

    Sounds about right to me.

    To get an overall majority they need a swing of 9%+ and to gain 124 seats.

    Not by any means impossible, but very difficult. Blair did it, but he was the first since Attlee, under very unusual circumstances. The only other party to win that many seats in one go were the Unionists under Baldwin in 1924 and 1931, and in both cases there were changes in the arrangements of other parties that made a considerable difference.
    Actually, that's the one thing I don't have a problem with as I think support for parties is a mile wide and an inch deep these days; people are far more fickle and willing to change their loyalties.

    It's just that Labour's leadership and programme haven't really come into focus yet, and I don't expect them to have better answers. To the extent their leadership has, it already trails Sunak. Once Tory DKs and WNVs are rallied during a GE campaign, it will look more complex.

    I think "time for a change" will get them a long way, but not all the way.
    The next election will be close. It will be interesting to see where we are once the post Truss novelty of Sunak wears off and he takes full ownership of the economic problems..
    It's refreshing to see your objectivity about it.

    FWIW, I could be wrong and it could be a Labour blowout. I am on both NOM/majority and, of course, I have my own preference - as you'd expect - but will keep my betting under review.
    I’ve never put much store in mid term polls. Labour start from a long way back, the fact they even have a chance of a majority is remarkable. 2024 could easily be 1992.

    Obviously I hope not, it would be better for everyone if the Tories lost. Essential for our democracy. Good for the country. Good for the Tories.
    You don't see the irony in saying that it's essential for our democracy that you get the result you want?
    They’re no irony. You can support a party and believe that a healthy democracy sees changes of government. In 2010 my side were tired and lost. That’s ok, it’s democracy and something to celebrate. Grown ups can support a party and democracy at the same time. Losing is ok.

    Next time after 14 years and a shed load of chaos, the Tories are tired. They should lose. It will be healthy for democracy if there is change.
  • I would just say Sunak / Hunt are doing something right when JRM riles against capital gains tax rises

    It is my fervent hope he is shown the door by his constituents at the next GE along with other fellow dinosaurs in the ERG
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    ydoethur said:

    I wonder if Malan will be able to bat as well?

    Won't make matters easier if he can't given he's a left hander and would be able to exploit the short boundary.

    He's very good against spin too. England have clawed this back magnificently but the pressure here is immense.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    I would just say Sunak / Hunt are doing something right when JRM riles against capital gains tax rises

    It is my fervent hope he is shown the door by his constituents at the next GE along with other fellow dinosaurs in the ERG

    Hear hear.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,712
    Cookie said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive:

    Rishi Sunak says state cannot be expected to 'fix every problem' as he vows to be honest with voters about scale of challenge ahead.

    He's says he's 'confident' public will judge Autumn budget to be 'fair & compassionate'


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/state-cant-fix-all-your-problems-says-rishi-sunak-6vlw6q3bw

    “The only difference between Compassionate Conservatism and Conservatism is that under Compassionate Conservatism they tell you they are not going to help you but they are really sorry about it” ©️Tony Blair

    https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1588807308389232640/photo/1

    More importantly, what's the difference between Compassionate Conservatism and Blairism? Tax and spend, coddling of dysfunctional public services, featherbedding of the old, etc. etc.
    Blairism opened Surestart centres. Compassionate Conservatism closed them down.
    There's nothing compassionate about spending other people's money we don't have.
    It's even less compassionate to prioritise non-doms and bankers ahead of disadvantaged pre-schoolers.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616

    I would just say Sunak / Hunt are doing something right when JRM riles against capital gains tax rises

    It is my fervent hope he is shown the door by his constituents at the next GE along with other fellow dinosaurs in the ERG

    Braverman too?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Curran has improved beyond all recognition in the last 12 months. Another magnificent over.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    edited November 5
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder if Malan will be able to bat as well?

    Won't make matters easier if he can't given he's a left hander and would be able to exploit the short boundary.

    He's very good against spin too. England have clawed this back magnificently but the pressure here is immense.
    Assuming Hales doesn't get going, which I don't expect him to, they need a fabulous performance from Buttler and the No.3 (Moeen?) to get close.

    Two early wickets and they're in big, big trouble.

    Now, who gets the last over?

    Edit - Mark Wood, who gets hit for four off the first ball.

    Edit edit - and takes a wicket with the second!
  • Jonathan said:

    I would just say Sunak / Hunt are doing something right when JRM riles against capital gains tax rises

    It is my fervent hope he is shown the door by his constituents at the next GE along with other fellow dinosaurs in the ERG

    Braverman too?
    Yes
This discussion has been closed.