Howdy, Stranger!

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

Can Sunak really win back CON to LAB switchers and retain power? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 21 in General
imageCan Sunak really win back CON to LAB switchers and retain power? – politicalbetting.com

At the weekend the Indy’s John Rentoul had an analysis under the heading “Here’s how Rishi Sunak can win the next election”. The heading was deliberately provocative and this an area that is worth looking at if only because it is against the prevailing narrative.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624
    No.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,000
    Possibly... probably not
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,143
    Time will tell, if he sticks to boring, competent governing then I think he will win enough back to prevent a 1997 style loss, it will be more like 2005. If the stars align he could pull off a 2010 victory.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411
    4th like I fear England will finish in the group...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609
    MaxPB said:

    Time will tell, if he sticks to boring, competent governing then I think he will win enough back to prevent a 1997 style loss, it will be more like 2005. If the stars align he could pull off a 2010 victory.

    I think it needs more than that.

    A black swan event (or reverse black swan?) perhaps... WW3, Putin dying, UK winning Eurovision,...

    Something outlandish anyway; it's too late for boring competence to save the Tories imho.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,303
    No.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,937
    No. The Conservative MP’s have left no stone unturned in their quest to lose the next election. They won a thumping majority in 2019, and then spent their time lining their pockets at public expense, and enjoying sex with unwilling partners.

    The aim must be to get above 200 seats.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,776
    Scotland abandoning universal health care? That's a big story that came out of the blue.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,000
    Sean_F said:

    No. The Conservative MP’s have left no stone unturned in their quest to lose the next election. They won a thumping majority in 2019, and then spent their time lining their pockets at public expense, and enjoying sex with unwilling partners.

    The aim must be to get above 200 seats.

    I suspect that 200 to 250 maybe the unofficial private target. Enough of a base to push for a win next time.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,222
    1992 shows it is possible. At that time the Tories had a leader who was broadly liked and thought competent who took over after a long period in power. He was opposed by Neil Kinnock who could give a great speech but who did not inspire economic competence. Even a recession (and Sunak is having to cope with this too) did not persuade people that the Tories were a part of the problem or that Labour had any meaningful answers.

    SKS has nothing like Kinnock's oratory skills but he does come across as a safer pair of hands. Hunt strikes me as a much smarter and smoother operator than Norman Lamont was. Reeves I remain unsure of.

    Is it likely? Hell no.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,859
    This is weird. Have just got my ticket for the match - at my local cinema. Anyone ever watched football in the cinema before? Hopefully it’s not me and 300 Iranians!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,467
    Sunak can't win these voters back, but Starmer could lose them.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,467
    Sandpit said:

    This is weird. Have just got my ticket for the match - at my local cinema. Anyone ever watched football in the cinema before? Hopefully it’s not me and 300 Iranians!

    I watched England's World Cup 2018 matches in pubs in Scotland. The experience of England's progress in that tournament was enhanced for me by the crushing disappointment felt by other viewers in the pub.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,268
    edited November 21
    Rishi will follow the Tory playbook of distancing his government from what came before, so:-

    Rishi Sunak is considering blocking Boris Johnson’s plan to elevate four Conservative MPs and loyal supporters to the House of Lords.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-may-block-boris-johnsons-peerages-6fh3flc9j (£££)

    Turns out there are constitutional issues. For Boris, rules are for other people
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,859

    Sandpit said:

    This is weird. Have just got my ticket for the match - at my local cinema. Anyone ever watched football in the cinema before? Hopefully it’s not me and 300 Iranians!

    I watched England's World Cup 2018 matches in pubs in Scotland. The experience of England's progress in that tournament was enhanced for me by the crushing disappointment felt by other viewers in the pub.
    There will undoubtedly be a small group of Scots dress in Iran shirts and waving Iran flags today.

    I would say that they shouldn’t be cheering for a regime with no respect for women’s rights, which sets out to violently clamp down on protests, but I guess it’s now something they’re quite used to up there…
  • OT Matt Hancock is back out to fourth in the I'm A Celebrity betting. Something must have happened.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219
    Ho ho. Mike does a subsamples thread and the man’s a genius. Stuart does a subsamples thread and the man’s a danger to polite society.

    Go figure.
  • DavidL said:

    1992 shows it is possible. At that time the Tories had a leader who was broadly liked and thought competent who took over after a long period in power. He was opposed by Neil Kinnock who could give a great speech but who did not inspire economic competence. Even a recession (and Sunak is having to cope with this too) did not persuade people that the Tories were a part of the problem or that Labour had any meaningful answers.

    SKS has nothing like Kinnock's oratory skills but he does come across as a safer pair of hands. Hunt strikes me as a much smarter and smoother operator than Norman Lamont was. Reeves I remain unsure of.

    Is it likely? Hell no.

    Whilst Starmer is no Blair, is there much sign of Sunak being half the retail politician that Major was, especially in the run-up to the 1992 election?

    The other question I have is whether anyone is tracking the voters who went Conservative for the first time in 2019. The ones who went blue for Boris and his Brexit. It's plausible for them to have peeled off, and Sunak (despite having supported Brexit since the early days) doesn't seem ideal to win them back.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,859
    Because of course they do. Cowards.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,972
    MaxPB said:

    Time will tell, if he sticks to boring, competent governing then I think he will win enough back to prevent a 1997 style loss, it will be more like 2005. If the stars align he could pull off a 2010 victory.

    The problem isn't Sunak IMO. Sunak is the epitome of boring and competent (or would be, if it were not for Starmer...)

    The problem is the party. It has a series of massive rifts; does he have the authority to fix them? Does he have the time to fix them> (Starmer's work on the Labour Party is still ongoing). In addition, the party is stale: it has run out of ideas and is far from fresh.
  • A lot of people will have already bet on an early booking.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    Nigelb said:

    FPT, and on topic, Nick posted this piece by Alastair.

    Good Meeks piece uncharacteristically suggesting sensible Leaver strategy:

    https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/the-nightwatchman-e5345c4bf51f

    That is one of his best articles.

    And I'd have said it's not uncharacteristic of him to offer his opponents good advice.
    There is a high degree of confidence that advice will go unheeded
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867
    Sunak is probably the Tories best bet for winning back Tory voters lost to Labour. However they also need to win back 2019 Tory voters who are now undecided and some of the 7% who now back RefUK
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624
    Off topic, just looking at Gridwatch this morning - we are running a coal-fired unit so that we can export the power to France.

    Doesn't sound too green to me.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,842
    edited November 21
    The Conservatives tried the desperate last throw of the dice in January 1997 with their Demon Eyes campaign against Tony Blair. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/election2001/images/0,9350,449562,00.html

    @MikeSmithson is reluctant to accept that Labour will win an outright victory next time because he is pinned to the precedent of swing. But these are unprecedented times. We have been through experiences last felt during the second world war and the economic situation is dire.

    But if you really want to fixate on the swing precedent then you should take as your pendulum starting point 2017 NOT 2019. The last General Election was an anomaly, focused on Brexit and against an unelectable Labour leader.

    My thesis is that we begin the next General Election from the 2017 hung parliament. The swing to Labour required to secure them an overall majority is small.

    The polls are not lying.They will win it resoundingly.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,657
    Mr. Urquhart, be fair. England's football team have developed a habit of falling to their knees.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867
    edited November 21
    DavidL said:

    1992 shows it is possible. At that time the Tories had a leader who was broadly liked and thought competent who took over after a long period in power. He was opposed by Neil Kinnock who could give a great speech but who did not inspire economic competence. Even a recession (and Sunak is having to cope with this too) did not persuade people that the Tories were a part of the problem or that Labour had any meaningful answers.

    SKS has nothing like Kinnock's oratory skills but he does come across as a safer pair of hands. Hunt strikes me as a much smarter and smoother operator than Norman Lamont was. Reeves I remain unsure of.

    Is it likely? Hell no.

    Major won in 1992 mainly to keep Kinnock out, despite over 10 years of Tory government. As soon as Labour
    had a more plausible leader in Blair then Major lost heavily in 1997.

    Starmer does not attract the sane negativity amongst swing voters Kinnock did and certainly much less than Corbyn did
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,519
    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219

    4th like I fear England will finish in the group...

    Then get down the bookies!

    Wales 6.25
    Draw 4.1
    England 1.63
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093
    He can and he probably will - but not enough to avoid a Lab majority.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,022
    Brains Trust:

    Can anyone point me to a good detailed analysis of the budget documents? As ever, that is where the devil is.

    Housing Market Support: I see that Mortgage Support has been changed - the 9 months required on certain benefits before people can request to turn their mortgage interest / capital repayments into a secured loan on part of the property is being reduced to 3 months from Apr 2023. Looks designed to prevent people who start to need benefits this winter being made homeless next year.

    I also see that various things are being frozen in cash terms (ie cut by 10% in real terms). Child TAx Credit being one example.

    Cheers

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,321

    A lot of people will have already bet on an early booking.
    It was 9/1 last night, which at least looks like a value loser.

    Did it close in?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    DavidL said:

    1992 shows it is possible. At that time the Tories had a leader who was broadly liked and thought competent who took over after a long period in power. He was opposed by Neil Kinnock who could give a great speech but who did not inspire economic competence. Even a recession (and Sunak is having to cope with this too) did not persuade people that the Tories were a part of the problem or that Labour had any meaningful answers.

    SKS has nothing like Kinnock's oratory skills but he does come across as a safer pair of hands. Hunt strikes me as a much smarter and smoother operator than Norman Lamont was. Reeves I remain unsure of.

    Is it likely? Hell no.

    That's a very good and fair summary. The big difference being, in 1992 the recession was over. How that plays out will possibly be decisive. Not sure that Sunak is the equal of Major in campaigning, but we will see.. Nor his Cabinet in competence neither.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Nigelb said:

    FPT, and on topic, Nick posted this piece by Alastair.

    Good Meeks piece uncharacteristically suggesting sensible Leaver strategy:

    https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/the-nightwatchman-e5345c4bf51f

    That is one of his best articles.

    And I'd have said it's not uncharacteristic of him to offer his opponents good advice.
    There is a high degree of confidence that advice will go unheeded
    It's blooming difficult advice to follow, to be fair. Both emotionally (2015-19 was all about the denial of something-for-something as a negotiation tactic, or at least a miscalculation of the values of what we were offering and demanding) and practically (what bone can remainers/rapprochementers/rejoiners be given that won't break the government?).
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219
    glw said:

    Scotland abandoning universal health care? That's a big story that came out of the blue.

    BBC universally abandoning journalistic integrity. That’s the big turd in Scottish public life.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,859
    edited November 21
    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    It would be more powerful if the players made their gestures of support, at a time when those gestures actually mean something, and there’s a chance they get into real trouble for them in front of the worldwide audience.

    Contrast with the virtue-signalling of the past couple of years, where everyone that mattered was cheering them on.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    Shameful, and renders their kneeling at kick-off risible.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624
    HYUFD said:

    Sunak is probably the Tories best bet for winning back Tory voters lost to Labour. However they also need to win back 2019 Tory voters who are now undecided and some of the 7% who now back RefUK

    The closet racists who have decamped to ReFuk won't be coming back with Sunak in charge.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267

    DavidL said:

    1992 shows it is possible. At that time the Tories had a leader who was broadly liked and thought competent who took over after a long period in power. He was opposed by Neil Kinnock who could give a great speech but who did not inspire economic competence. Even a recession (and Sunak is having to cope with this too) did not persuade people that the Tories were a part of the problem or that Labour had any meaningful answers.

    SKS has nothing like Kinnock's oratory skills but he does come across as a safer pair of hands. Hunt strikes me as a much smarter and smoother operator than Norman Lamont was. Reeves I remain unsure of.

    Is it likely? Hell no.

    Whilst Starmer is no Blair, is there much sign of Sunak being half the retail politician that Major was, especially in the run-up to the 1992 election?

    The other question I have is whether anyone is tracking the voters who went Conservative for the first time in 2019. The ones who went blue for Boris and his Brexit. It's plausible for them to have peeled off, and Sunak (despite having supported Brexit since the early days) doesn't seem ideal to win them back.
    Another good point. The consistent subsamples (I know) from the North suggest it is a fool me once scenario thus far.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,761
    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Even better, left Fifa and set up their own equivalent.

    I do however have some sympathy for Fifa on the particular issue of armbands. If my position is to keep politics out, I don't change my position just because I happen to agree with the issuein question (i.e. not persecuting gay people). And that position isn't dependent on Harry Kane wearing an armband or not.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917

    A lot of people will have already bet on an early booking.
    Check the rules. AIUI most bookies would not count a yellow card given before the start (or after the end) of the match anyway.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,321
    Sandpit said:

    This is weird. Have just got my ticket for the match - at my local cinema. Anyone ever watched football in the cinema before? Hopefully it’s not me and 300 Iranians!

    Is alcohol available on the premises?

    I did it last World Cup, but that was while in was in Northern Ireland. Not *quite* the same.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    I think SandyRentool has already adequately set out the rebuttal to the proposition with the first post.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,768
    edited November 21
    Driver said:

    Shameful, and renders their kneeling at kick-off risible.
    I am more outraged that it looks like Foden is going to be bench warming....while out of form Sterling, Mount, Shaw and Maguire start.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,467
    edited November 21

    Off topic, just looking at Gridwatch this morning - we are running a coal-fired unit so that we can export the power to France.

    Doesn't sound too green to me.

    French nuclear output is creeping back up, nearly 32 GW today, but it's still well down on the 40+ GW they produced last winter.

    So it's a case of needs must on exporting coal-fired electricity to France at the moment. It's a shame the government haven't pulled out all the stops on alternatives.

    Have Labour said anything interesting on energy policy?

    Edit: Interestingly gridwatch has France producing more wind energy than Britain at the moment, which seems unusual. They must have installed quite a lot of capacity fairly recently.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,470
    MaxPB said:

    Time will tell, if he sticks to boring, competent governing then I think he will win enough back to prevent a 1997 style loss, it will be more like 2005. If the stars align he could pull off a 2010 victory.

    You think he's governing, um, competently?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,859

    Sandpit said:

    This is weird. Have just got my ticket for the match - at my local cinema. Anyone ever watched football in the cinema before? Hopefully it’s not me and 300 Iranians!

    Is alcohol available on the premises?

    I did it last World Cup, but that was while in was in Northern Ireland. Not *quite* the same.
    Sadly not, all but a couple of boutique cinemas out here are ‘dry’. I’m working until right up to the kick off, next door to the cinema, and have to drive home afterwards! It was my only option.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    edited November 21
    Cookie said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Even better, left Fifa and set up their own equivalent.

    I do however have some sympathy for Fifa on the particular issue of armbands. If my position is to keep politics out, I don't change my position just because I happen to agree with the issuein question (i.e. not persecuting gay people). And that position isn't dependent on Harry Kane wearing an armband or not.
    Perhaps, except that Fifa rolling over on issues agreed before the tournament and they would normally be firm about (beer) and engaging in utterly absurd whataboutery about 3000 years of Western guilt to distract from criticism, does give the impression they are completely desperate to suck up to the Qataris, and they could have addressed all these things long before the tournament started.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    Nigelb said:

    FPT, and on topic, Nick posted this piece by Alastair.

    Good Meeks piece uncharacteristically suggesting sensible Leaver strategy:

    https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/the-nightwatchman-e5345c4bf51f

    That is one of his best articles.

    And I'd have said it's not uncharacteristic of him to offer his opponents good advice.
    It is very good, but it doesn’t look like he’s seen this:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-rishi-sunaks-mais-lecture-2022
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    Driver said:

    Shameful, and renders their kneeling at kick-off risible.
    We must stand up against discrimination...if the authorities allow it.

    (I actually am not that critical of the players themselves, major sporting events are restrictive on messaging even ones we like, but it does somewhat show that you shouldn't try to promote things if you are going to be able to be brought in line so easily).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Cookie said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Even better, left Fifa and set up their own equivalent.

    I do however have some sympathy for Fifa on the particular issue of armbands. If my position is to keep politics out, I don't change my position just because I happen to agree with the issuein question (i.e. not persecuting gay people). And that position isn't dependent on Harry Kane wearing an armband or not.
    Would their own equivalent be called the European Championships perhaps? Large chunks of the world are behind us on gay rights. Should England have been allowed to host in 1966 when homosexuality was still illegal here? It is sadly unrealistic to expect every nation to change at an identical pace.

    World sporting events drive standards up, yes slowly and over time, but they significantly influence the young globally even in oppressed countries.

    I think the footballers have got it about right, wanting to talk about it and push it as far as they can without sporting sanction.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,222
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    1992 shows it is possible. At that time the Tories had a leader who was broadly liked and thought competent who took over after a long period in power. He was opposed by Neil Kinnock who could give a great speech but who did not inspire economic competence. Even a recession (and Sunak is having to cope with this too) did not persuade people that the Tories were a part of the problem or that Labour had any meaningful answers.

    SKS has nothing like Kinnock's oratory skills but he does come across as a safer pair of hands. Hunt strikes me as a much smarter and smoother operator than Norman Lamont was. Reeves I remain unsure of.

    Is it likely? Hell no.

    Major won in 1992 mainly to keep Kinnock out, despite over 10 years of Tory government. As soon as Labour
    had a more plausible leader in Blair then Major lost heavily in 1997.

    Starmer does not attract the sane negativity amongst swing voters Kinnock did and certainly much less than Corbyn did
    Which is why I think it is extremely unlikely. But, not impossible.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    Cookie said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Even better, left Fifa and set up their own equivalent.

    I do however have some sympathy for Fifa on the particular issue of armbands. If my position is to keep politics out, I don't change my position just because I happen to agree with the issuein question (i.e. not persecuting gay people). And that position isn't dependent on Harry Kane wearing an armband or not.
    If wearing an armband gets a booking, so should kneeling at kick-off.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,756
    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    They could at least send Ramsdale on with a minute to go and give him the errant armband, just to see what happens.

    The best option would have been not to go.
  • kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    Its not the money, its the yellow card they will get and thus banned after two games.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    The FA are happy to pay a fine. Not happy to have Kane on a yellow with the risk of a red here or a suspension later in the tournament.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,022
    IMO it is farfetched to suggest that the Tories can win this back for 2024 - Boris would have had to have gone a year early for that to be possible. Instead he clung on in office defecating on his reputation.

    I'd say it will be about moving towards more practical measures and booking which benefits can be booked, and leaving a few bombs on the next Govt's lap eg taxation of electric cars.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,705
    Lol only an hour ago I heard how they'd all be proud to wear the armband.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,842
    DavidL said:

    1992 shows it is possible. A.

    This is nothing like 1987-1992 though. The opinion polls are completely different:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1992_United_Kingdom_general_election#1992

    Time for y'all to pay attention to the polls. There is NO comeback from here for the tories. Forget it. Reset your minds.

    The REAL question is just how much of a shellacking they are going to get. Just how big a majority will Labour get? That's the only remaining question at the next election.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    The FA are happy to pay a fine. Not happy to have Kane on a yellow with the risk of a red here or a suspension later in the tournament.

    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    Its not the money, its the yellow card they will get and thus banned after two games.
    Yes, an effective threat. I wonder what guidance the referees have been given about yellows for 'excessive' celebrations.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,657
    It's possible, I think, that the Conservatives could be the largest party.

    But I think the overwhelmingly likelihood is that Labour will be, with a small but credible chance of an outright majority worth having.

    They should consider how a coalition might work, though, and what they'd be willing to negotiate with the Lib Dems.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    The FA are happy to pay a fine. Not happy to have Kane on a yellow with the risk of a red here or a suspension later in the tournament.

    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    Its not the money, its the yellow card they will get and thus banned after two games.
    Yes, an effective threat. I wonder what guidance the referees have been given about yellows for 'excessive' celebrations.
    Excessive? Quick snog?
  • Driver said:

    Cookie said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Even better, left Fifa and set up their own equivalent.

    I do however have some sympathy for Fifa on the particular issue of armbands. If my position is to keep politics out, I don't change my position just because I happen to agree with the issuein question (i.e. not persecuting gay people). And that position isn't dependent on Harry Kane wearing an armband or not.
    If wearing an armband gets a booking, so should kneeling at kick-off.
    Presumably kneeling is before kick-off, or the start of the match would be rather undignified. When does the referee's power to award yellow cards begin and end?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609

    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    Its not the money, its the yellow card they will get and thus banned after two games.
    If all 11 players (+ subs) were banned and England couldn't field a team it would make a fitting mockery of this World Cup.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    The FA are happy to pay a fine. Not happy to have Kane on a yellow with the risk of a red here or a suspension later in the tournament.

    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    Its not the money, its the yellow card they will get and thus banned after two games.
    Yes, an effective threat. I wonder what guidance the referees have been given about yellows for 'excessive' celebrations.
    Excessive? Quick snog?
    Players already get booked for taking off their shirts or leaping into the crowd, it would be pretty easy to give direction for 'political' celebrations to likewise face sanction.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,321

    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    Its not the money, its the yellow card they will get and thus banned after two games.
    If all 11 players (+ subs) were banned and England couldn't field a team it would make a fitting mockery of this World Cup.
    At what point do yellow cards get waived?

    Is there an opportunity to do this in the 3rd group game, for example, if (praise be) England are already through?
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,642

    Off topic, just looking at Gridwatch this morning - we are running a coal-fired unit so that we can export the power to France.

    Doesn't sound too green to me.

    Whilst it might look like that - it looks like we've been running the coal power station to about 0.5GW for a portion of a day fairly regularly since the start of November - I am assuming that there is an element of 'checking it works regularly' comfortably in advance of the 5 days when we will actually need it properly at full tilt
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,268
    edited November 21
    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Trouble is, if we should boycott Qatar, should we not also refuse to play Iran for killing girls and gay people? Meanwhile, Formula 1 and (some) golfers are happy to sportswash those cuddly Saudis who, in shock news that will surprise no-one, have resumed executions at record pace.

    Saudi Arabia has executed 12 people in 10 days for drug offences after a two-year hiatus, according to a human rights organisation.

    The spate of executions - most of which are beheadings with a sword - is part of a wider trend that suggests the country is on track for a record year of executions despite Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman previously vowing to reduce the use of such punishments.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/20/saudi-arabia-beheads-people-sword-new-wave-executions/ (£££)

    ETA and just where are we buying our non-Russian gas?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,222
    So what would make a 1992 possible?

    Firstly, the economy would have to perform much better than the OBR have forecast. That is certainly possible.
    Secondly, SKS would either have to tar his reputation somewhat or go under the proverbial bus. Much less likely.
    Thirdly, the government would need to reach better deals with the EU and France in respect of the channel. Possible and very much in hand.

    The difference to me seems to come down to SKS being far more electable than Kinnock ever was. Unless that changes the Tories are toast.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,768
    edited November 21
    Given previous stances on things like wearing the poppy on the shirt being deemed as a political act, plus FIFA corruption towards anybody who pays them, this was always going to be the outcome.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,684

    Driver said:

    Cookie said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Even better, left Fifa and set up their own equivalent.

    I do however have some sympathy for Fifa on the particular issue of armbands. If my position is to keep politics out, I don't change my position just because I happen to agree with the issuein question (i.e. not persecuting gay people). And that position isn't dependent on Harry Kane wearing an armband or not.
    If wearing an armband gets a booking, so should kneeling at kick-off.
    Presumably kneeling is before kick-off, or the start of the match would be rather undignified. When does the referee's power to award yellow cards begin and end?
    It certainly ends well after the match has finished. Plenty of stories of players being sent off in the car park!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    Driver said:

    Cookie said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Even better, left Fifa and set up their own equivalent.

    I do however have some sympathy for Fifa on the particular issue of armbands. If my position is to keep politics out, I don't change my position just because I happen to agree with the issuein question (i.e. not persecuting gay people). And that position isn't dependent on Harry Kane wearing an armband or not.
    If wearing an armband gets a booking, so should kneeling at kick-off.
    Presumably kneeling is before kick-off, or the start of the match would be rather undignified. When does the referee's power to award yellow cards begin and end?
    The referee has the authority to take disciplinary action from entering the field of play for the pre-match inspection until leaving the field of play after the match ends (including kicks from the penalty mark).

    If, before entering the field of play at the start of the match, a player or team official commits a sending-off offence, the referee has the authority to prevent the player or team official taking part in the match (see Law 3.6); the referee will report any other misconduct.


    https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    Driver said:

    Cookie said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Even better, left Fifa and set up their own equivalent.

    I do however have some sympathy for Fifa on the particular issue of armbands. If my position is to keep politics out, I don't change my position just because I happen to agree with the issuein question (i.e. not persecuting gay people). And that position isn't dependent on Harry Kane wearing an armband or not.
    If wearing an armband gets a booking, so should kneeling at kick-off.
    How would that work?
    Tough if you need to tie your laces.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,467
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    1992 shows it is possible. At that time the Tories had a leader who was broadly liked and thought competent who took over after a long period in power. He was opposed by Neil Kinnock who could give a great speech but who did not inspire economic competence. Even a recession (and Sunak is having to cope with this too) did not persuade people that the Tories were a part of the problem or that Labour had any meaningful answers.

    SKS has nothing like Kinnock's oratory skills but he does come across as a safer pair of hands. Hunt strikes me as a much smarter and smoother operator than Norman Lamont was. Reeves I remain unsure of.

    Is it likely? Hell no.

    Major won in 1992 mainly to keep Kinnock out, despite over 10 years of Tory government. As soon as Labour
    had a more plausible leader in Blair then Major lost heavily in 1997.

    Starmer does not attract the sane negativity amongst swing voters Kinnock did and certainly much less than Corbyn did
    Which is why I think it is extremely unlikely. But, not impossible.
    How unlikely? 10% chance, or 1%? Where would you put it?

    I'm of the view that the Tories are well-past the electoral event horizon now, and heading for a crushing defeat, so I'd put the odds of the situation being turned around as very long. 1%, perhaps.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609
    edited November 21

    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    Its not the money, its the yellow card they will get and thus banned after two games.
    If all 11 players (+ subs) were banned and England couldn't field a team it would make a fitting mockery of this World Cup.
    At what point do yellow cards get waived?

    Is there an opportunity to do this in the 3rd group game, for example, if (praise be) England are already through?
    They'd still risk being sent off for a second bookable offence during the game.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,842
    DavidL said:

    So what would make a 1992 possible?

    .

    Nothing because this is nothing like 1992.

    Stop making a false comparison please. It's misleading.

    The truth is that this is psepholoically like 1997 but economically FAR WORSE.

    Conservatives on here need to prepare for the Dark Night of the Soul.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917

    Driver said:

    Cookie said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Even better, left Fifa and set up their own equivalent.

    I do however have some sympathy for Fifa on the particular issue of armbands. If my position is to keep politics out, I don't change my position just because I happen to agree with the issuein question (i.e. not persecuting gay people). And that position isn't dependent on Harry Kane wearing an armband or not.
    If wearing an armband gets a booking, so should kneeling at kick-off.
    Presumably kneeling is before kick-off, or the start of the match would be rather undignified. When does the referee's power to award yellow cards begin and end?
    Think it is from pre match inspection to ref and the players having left the pitch after the final whistle.
  • Heathener said:

    The Conservatives tried the desperate last throw of the dice in January 1997 with their Demon Eyes campaign against Tony Blair. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/election2001/images/0,9350,449562,00.html

    @MikeSmithson is reluctant to accept that Labour will win an outright victory next time because he is pinned to the precedent of swing. But these are unprecedented times. We have been through experiences last felt during the second world war and the economic situation is dire.

    But if you really want to fixate on the swing precedent then you should take as your pendulum starting point 2017 NOT 2019. The last General Election was an anomaly, focused on Brexit and against an unelectable Labour leader.

    My thesis is that we begin the next General Election from the 2017 hung parliament. The swing to Labour required to secure them an overall majority is small.

    The polls are not lying.They will win it resoundingly.

    It's a very plausible scenario (two years to go, lots can happen etc), but you're right, some people are assuming previous norms apply to future elections; however we're living through chaos and chaos upsets those norms. Like you, I'm betting accordingly.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609
    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    So what would make a 1992 possible?

    .

    Nothing because this is nothing like 1992.

    Stop making a false comparison please. It's misleading.

    The truth is that this is psepholoically like 1997 but economically FAR WORSE.

    Conservatives on here need to prepare for the Dark Night of the Soul.
    Eternal damnation, hopefully.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,321

    kle4 said:

    Does the FA not have money, why cannot they take and then pay a fine? The players could chip in if it caused budgetary issues.

    Its not the money, its the yellow card they will get and thus banned after two games.
    If all 11 players (+ subs) were banned and England couldn't field a team it would make a fitting mockery of this World Cup.
    At what point do yellow cards get waived?

    Is there an opportunity to do this in the 3rd group game, for example, if (praise be) England are already through?
    They'd still rick being sent off for a second bookable offence during the game.
    Well, sure, that's why it has to be a game we don't have to win. Just stay on your feet.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,811
    The counterfactual, could Con have won had Sunak been elected leader in September?

    No Trusster-disaster, but it would have left Sunak the bearer of any fiscal bad news that would have happened anyway, and that fiscal bad news would have been pointed more directly back to his stint as CoTE.

    The Tory position may have been better, but not that much better.
  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 183

    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    Really all the modern countries should have just boycotted the tournament.

    I wonder what would have happened if the ref (Brazilian) refused to book players for wearing the armband?
    Trouble is, if we should boycott Qatar, should we not also refuse to play Iran for killing girls and gay people? Meanwhile, Formula 1 and (some) golfers are happy to sportswash those cuddly Saudis who, in shock news that will surprise no-one, have resumed executions at record pace.

    Saudi Arabia has executed 12 people in 10 days for drug offences after a two-year hiatus, according to a human rights organisation.

    The spate of executions - most of which are beheadings with a sword - is part of a wider trend that suggests the country is on track for a record year of executions despite Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman previously vowing to reduce the use of such punishments.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/20/saudi-arabia-beheads-people-sword-new-wave-executions/ (£££)
    That tangentially shows how Rwanda for channel crossers is doomed to failure. If people carry on taking drugs under threat of decapitation, they will continue crossing the channel under the much remoter threat of deporation. Deterrence don't deter.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    No wonder SNP trying to run a mile from this. Their claim the NHS/founding principles are under threat from the Tories has been a key argument for independence. Now it emerges their own NHS chiefs are discussing a "two-tier system where the people who can afford to" would pay…..

    NHS Scotland bosses meeting minutes also suggest rift between them and SNP ministers, mentioning a "disconnect from the pressure that [regional NHS] boards are feeling and the message from SG [Scottish Government] that everything is still a priority and to be done within budget"


    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1594622093416620033

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,303
    kinabalu said:

    Can I pls register an official complaint at the constant use of the phrase "boring competent government"? It's getting said so much - by people of all political shades - that the words "boring" and "competent" are starting to get fused as if they belong together. Implication being competence in government is inherently boring and therefore the sort of shambolic chicanery we had under Johnson, or the surreal nonsense of Truss, was in some way thrilling and set the pulse racing. Certainly speaking for myself this is not true. I can't tell you how bored I got of Boris Johnson's antics, and the Trussterfuck had me almost catatonic with despair. It really was hard to stay interested in what was going on. If Sunak - and after him Starmer with his nice big Lab majority - really can do competent government which serves the country well I'll be animated and - yes - amused by this. It'll be a right laugh.

    Another side effect of Boris Johnson - politics becoming seen as a branch of the entertainment industry.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,519

    No wonder SNP trying to run a mile from this. Their claim the NHS/founding principles are under threat from the Tories has been a key argument for independence. Now it emerges their own NHS chiefs are discussing a "two-tier system where the people who can afford to" would pay…..

    NHS Scotland bosses meeting minutes also suggest rift between them and SNP ministers, mentioning a "disconnect from the pressure that [regional NHS] boards are feeling and the message from SG [Scottish Government] that everything is still a priority and to be done within budget"


    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1594622093416620033

    Glad people in the NHS are talking about this. No politician would dare. Reality is though that we can not afford for everything to be free to everyone. There are more people (people living longer) and far more types of treatment than when the NHS was created. This is only going to get worse. A new way has to be found.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867
    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    So what would make a 1992 possible?

    .

    Nothing because this is nothing like 1992.

    Stop making a false comparison please. It's misleading.

    The truth is that this is psepholoically like 1997 but economically FAR WORSE.

    Conservatives on here need to prepare for the Dark Night of the Soul.
    Unlike 1997 though there will be no golden economic legacy for Starmer and Reeves so the economy will then be their problem
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981

    Nigelb said:

    FPT, and on topic, Nick posted this piece by Alastair.

    Good Meeks piece uncharacteristically suggesting sensible Leaver strategy:

    https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/the-nightwatchman-e5345c4bf51f

    That is one of his best articles.

    And I'd have said it's not uncharacteristic of him to offer his opponents good advice.
    It is very good, but it doesn’t look like he’s seen this:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-rishi-sunaks-mais-lecture-2022
    ...I know there has been a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the British economy in recent years. But that cloud is lifting: the form of Brexit is clear...

    Ahem.
  • A female Argentinian television reporter was robbed live on air while reporting in Qatar on the World Cup, with money and documents stolen from her handbag.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11451833/Female-TV-reporter-robbed-live-air-Qatar-World-Cup.html
  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 183
    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    So what would make a 1992 possible?

    .

    Nothing because this is nothing like 1992.

    Stop making a false comparison please. It's misleading.

    The truth is that this is psepholoically like 1997 but economically FAR WORSE.

    Conservatives on here need to prepare for the Dark Night of the Soul.
    The mid to late 90s didn't feel politically much like this. Blair was straining at the leash for the final 2 years with Major looking more and more helpless and hopeless and patently hanging on in the hope of something turning up. Starmer and Sunak by contrast look virtually interchangeable. Tories will lose, sure, but because of 2023, not 1997. You condemn false comparisons, but not broadly enough.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,022
    Sandpit said:

    Because of course they do. Cowards.
    It's been interesting listening to all this.

    We may all find FIFA self-serving and tasteless (fair enough), but the FIFA boss has a point on the hypocrisy of Western moral posturing, as if the West has always been morally superior. It hasn't.

    In Ukraine the moral position the West has taken is good, and on various questions the West is (in our view) genuinely better than eg Arab countries.

    On other questions we are perhaps not - eg attitudes to the elderly. And no, I'm not talking about the anti-pensioner prejudice which stalks PB, I'm more talking about what the atomisation of our society has done to the extended family, and what therefore happens to older people.

    Listening to the context ignorant self-righteous declarations on Press Reviews yesterday, and from public figures, is embarrassing.

    Declarations of the importance of international law, and how other countries must conform to our values, don't really stack up when we have recent history of invading other countries almost on a whim, imperial history, and certain countries failure to sign relevant UN convention to hold themselves to the same standard.

    Still in many ways better, but pretending that we are whiter than white and can condemn others quite so sanctimoniously is risible.

    IMO.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219
    PB took a lot of interest in September’s Swedish general election (although weirdly ignored the subsequent Danish one). Thought you might like a little update.

    The new centre-right minority government is struggling, as I predicted. The Liberals and the C&S party the Sweden Democrats are already ripping out each other’s throats. The Liberals in particular are in full panic mode, having fallen below threshold.

    Anyhoo, now the polls look worrying for the government. There was zilch honeymoon. Latest numbers (September GE in brackets):

    Min centre-right govt coalition: 29% (nc)
    Moderates 20% (+1)
    Christian Democrats 5% (nc)
    Liberals 4% (-1)

    Anti-immigration C&S party:
    Sweden Democrats 18% (-3)

    Centre-left opposition: 52% (+3)
    Social Democrats 33% (+3)
    Left Party 8% (+1)
    Centre Party 6% (-1)
    Greens 5% (nc)

    The big risk is that the Liberals walk off in a huff. I’d say that is a 50:50 risk within the first 12 months of the new government.

    That the Turks are immensely enjoying gaslighting the Swedes and Finns over NATO membership is not helping.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Lennon said:

    Off topic, just looking at Gridwatch this morning - we are running a coal-fired unit so that we can export the power to France.

    Doesn't sound too green to me.

    Whilst it might look like that - it looks like we've been running the coal power station to about 0.5GW for a portion of a day fairly regularly since the start of November - I am assuming that there is an element of 'checking it works regularly' comfortably in advance of the 5 days when we will actually need it properly at full tilt
    Also possibly as much about grid stabilisation when reacting to transient energy demands as one of capacity.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,930
    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    1992 shows it is possible. A.

    This is nothing like 1987-1992 though. The opinion polls are completely different:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1992_United_Kingdom_general_election#1992

    Time for y'all to pay attention to the polls. There is NO comeback from here for the tories. Forget it. Reset your minds.

    The REAL question is just how much of a shellacking they are going to get. Just how big a majority will Labour get? That's the only remaining question at the next election.
    Weren't Labour close to 60% in the polls several times in about 1995? And the Tories at about 24%.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    A few of these articles popping up.
    Definitely a groundswell of sorts among Democrats to suggest that Biden think about not running. And ditto his VP.

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/joe-biden-age-birthday-wow-hes-old.html
    ...So what now? You have about a year to just coast—wearing cozy shirts in “candid” nighttime photos, acting as the affectionate grandpa to a party that is enjoying a shocking absence of internal turmoil, making foreign policy decisions of the sort that you can claim unequivocal credit for. But then you need to decide, like Nancy Pelosi just did, whether it is finally time to hand things over to your party’s youth movement, i.e. people who are only in their 50s..

    If Biden Runs Again, He Should Pick a New VP
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/kamala-harris-joe-biden-new-vp-2024.html
Sign In or Register to comment.