Howdy, Stranger!

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

Labour STILL not odds-on for an overall majority – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited January 2023 in General
imageLabour STILL not odds-on for an overall majority – politicalbetting.com

Last night we had the worst poll for the Tories in decades and yet the betting markets have not reacted as can be seen in the chart showing movements in the general election overall majority betting market.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • First. Something odd about a poll with 11% not specified though.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,304
    edited December 2022
    I have to say that the odds reflect my views too closely to see any particular value at the moment. A Labour majority is 50:50 but largest party is pretty much nailed on which means they will form the next government. Like several on the last thread I can't say I am particularly excited or dismayed by that. It will be a dull affair where the gloss comes off early and we soldier on.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited December 2022
    Third, like the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,190
    DavidL said:

    I have to say that the odds reflect my views too closely to see any particular value at the moment. A Labour majority is 50:50 but largest party is pretty much nailed on which means they will form the next government. Like several on the last thread I can't say I am particularly excited or dismayed by that. It will be a dull affair where the gloss comes off early and we soldier on.

    Talking of odds, I'm coming back on to the draw here. No NZ reviews left. New ball not doing much. Three wickets left.

    If Pakistan do somehow lose surely Babar Azam is toast.
  • First. Something odd about a poll with 11% not specified though.

    Thanks, that’s a new one. Now Scots are “not specified”.
  • FPT: Mr. Palmer, while correspondence from HMRC always takes weeks, seemingly, to arrive, I have found them to be helpful and reasonable on the rare occasions I've had questions or to make late changes to information.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,304
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    I have to say that the odds reflect my views too closely to see any particular value at the moment. A Labour majority is 50:50 but largest party is pretty much nailed on which means they will form the next government. Like several on the last thread I can't say I am particularly excited or dismayed by that. It will be a dull affair where the gloss comes off early and we soldier on.

    Talking of odds, I'm coming back on to the draw here. No NZ reviews left. New ball not doing much. Three wickets left.

    If Pakistan do somehow lose surely Babar Azam is toast.
    Pakistan have a bit of a tail. When this partnership is broken the innings may come to an end very quickly. It is hilarious to hear the commentators saying that if NZ need 100 in 15 overs they may well go for it though. I mean, really.
  • I'm not overreacting to this poll. 2 years away, holiday period poll, we have boundary changes, and an absolutely mammoth hill for Labour to climb to get to a majority.

    Sunak does need to sort out the strikes and boats pronto, though.

    It's probably got to the stage now where a deal on the first is the least worst outcome, and he needs to send people home (with max publicity) on the latter.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,850
    No new information provided by this poll. The Tories are in the deepest deep shit. We know that. The psychological 20% barrier, doesn’t change that story.

    The thing keeping the Tories up in the betting IMO is that Labour start a very long way back. Labour have to win a lot of seats to get a majority. Corbyn left Starmer a mountain to climb.

    So there we have it. A balanced situation.

  • Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 46,765
    edited December 2022

    First. Something odd about a poll with 11% not specified though.

    Why?

    SNP 4%
    PC 1%
    N Ireland 3%
    Misc others (Indys, UKIP etc) 1%
    Rounding effect 2%
  • Visual puns are the best puns.


  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,639
    edited December 2022
    DavidL said:

    I have to say that the odds reflect my views too closely to see any particular value at the moment. A Labour majority is 50:50 but largest party is pretty much nailed on which means they will form the next government. Like several on the last thread I can't say I am particularly excited or dismayed by that. It will be a dull affair where the gloss comes off early and we soldier on.

    I think a majority is higher than 50%

    Largest party is now above 95%, I think.

    Those who expect Starmer to charge left or right in government will be disappointed, I think. To win, Labour requires centre and some right of centre voters. Why would he commit electoral suicide straight out of the box?

    I’ve always said that something like Orange Book LibDem policies would get 50-60% of the vote if party tribalism didn’t get in the way. Well, they do, but divided between the tribes.

    EDIT: all three major parties have smashed up their voting coalitions in recent years. Starmer seems to be inheriting the “quiet with honour” majority (pace Cicero)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 37,972
    Off-topic: a man trying to run 365 marathons in a year is just a couple of runs away from completing.

    Quite an amazing achievement.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/marathon_man365
  • London
    Lab 49%
    Con 20%
    Ref 10%
    LD 10%
    Grn 7%

    Rest of South
    Lab 44%
    Con 28%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%
    Ref 7%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 44%
    Con 21%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 10%
    LD 9%
    PC 4%

    North
    Lab 55%
    Con 15%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 8%
    LD 5%

    Scotland
    SNP 62%
    Lab 18%
    Grn 6%
    LD 5%
    Con 4%
    Ref 2%

    (PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,169; 28 December)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 37,972

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
  • First. Something odd about a poll with 11% not specified though.

    Thanks, that’s a new one. Now Scots are “not specified”.
    Not specified in John Rentoul's tweet last night.
  • First. Something odd about a poll with 11% not specified though.

    SNP 6%
    PC 1%
    oth 3%

    https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202212_GBN_W52_full.pdf
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,850

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,877
    edited December 2022
    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    Visual puns are the best puns.


    I'd never heard of Andrew Tate before BBC News sent me a push notification this morning telling me he was "controversial".
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 37,972
    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 2,099

    London
    Lab 49%
    Con 20%
    Ref 10%
    LD 10%
    Grn 7%

    Rest of South
    Lab 44%
    Con 28%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%
    Ref 7%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 44%
    Con 21%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 10%
    LD 9%
    PC 4%

    North
    Lab 55%
    Con 15%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 8%
    LD 5%

    Scotland
    SNP 62%
    Lab 18%
    Grn 6%
    LD 5%
    Con 4%
    Ref 2%

    (PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,169; 28 December)

    While I appreciate that Stuart will be beyond delighted at those Scottish numbers, they look pretty rogue to me.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    The fact Starmer only has a narrow lead over Sunak as preferred PM suggests a Labour majority is not certain
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win
    Said you before any election ever...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188

    London
    Lab 49%
    Con 20%
    Ref 10%
    LD 10%
    Grn 7%

    Rest of South
    Lab 44%
    Con 28%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%
    Ref 7%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 44%
    Con 21%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 10%
    LD 9%
    PC 4%

    North
    Lab 55%
    Con 15%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 8%
    LD 5%

    Scotland
    SNP 62%
    Lab 18%
    Grn 6%
    LD 5%
    Con 4%
    Ref 2%

    (PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,169; 28 December)

    RefUK on 10% in the Midlands and London
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,877
    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188

    DavidL said:

    I have to say that the odds reflect my views too closely to see any particular value at the moment. A Labour majority is 50:50 but largest party is pretty much nailed on which means they will form the next government. Like several on the last thread I can't say I am particularly excited or dismayed by that. It will be a dull affair where the gloss comes off early and we soldier on.

    I think a majority is higher than 50%

    Largest party is now above 95%, I think.

    Those who expect Starmer to charge left or right in government will be disappointed, I think. To win, Labour requires centre and some right of centre voters. Why would he commit electoral suicide straight out of the box?

    I’ve always said that something like Orange Book LibDem policies would get 50-60% of the vote if party tribalism didn’t get in the way. Well, they do, but divided between the tribes.

    EDIT: all three major parties have smashed up their voting coalitions in recent years. Starmer seems to be inheriting the “quiet with honour” majority (pace Cicero)
    Orange Book policies are too economically right for social democrats and socialists and too socially liberal and anti Brexit for social conservatives and Tories
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,639
    Driver said:

    Visual puns are the best puns.


    I'd never heard of Andrew Tate before BBC News sent me a push notification this morning telling me he was "controversial".
    Driver said:

    Visual puns are the best puns.


    I'd never heard of Andrew Tate before BBC News sent me a push notification this morning telling me he was "controversial".
    He’s apparently a dipshit who hasn’t risen to the levels of Yaxley-Lennon in the magnitude of his shitty “political” behaviour. Though he seems to have zoomed past on the crimes committed basis.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    edited December 2022
    The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

    https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,850

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,639
    HYUFD said:

    The fact Starmer only has a narrow lead over Sunak as preferred PM suggests a Labour majority is not certain

    He’s in a version of Majors situation. The party is the drag on polling numbers. Most people are fairly neutral on Sunak himself.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 37,972
    Even more off-topic, a big mover on HS2:

    "Today, we are celebrating the world's longest box slide 🎉. The 12,600-tonne, Marston Box bridge slid a record, 165 metres into position over the M42"

    https://mobile.twitter.com/HS2ltd/status/1608471904003805188

    Things like this make me love civil engineering.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,666
    HYUFD said:

    The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 64% aged 45 to 64

    https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

    PB demographic?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    edited December 2022
    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Chart looks somewhat dodgy given the Conservatives won 39 to 49 year olds in 2019 and Trump won 40 to 50s in 2016.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

    In France of course Le Pen did better with under 30s than over 60s in May
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited December 2022
    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    My column: https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/a0c1c1b2-eda9-48b6-890a-2bac5ee6a9ac




    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":

    In summary:
    • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to:
    • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views
    • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever


    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759052301135873
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,589
    Morning all :)

    I'm far from convinced by this latest poll - one could argue the Conservatives last polled in the high teens in May 2019 and won an election majority six months later. Back then, you had the Brexit party in the mid 20s so add the two together and you got pretty close to what the Conservatives got in December 2019.

    This time Reform is on 8% so the "centre right" is on 27% which is parlous indeed.

    I'd also be wanting to look at the data and especially the numbers in England because that's where the election will be won or lost. Is Labour tearing chunks out of the previous Conservative vote? The headline numbers say an 18% swing but the changes on the last PP poll are mainly the Greens going up three points into third place.

    It doesn't look good for the Conservatives and it's perhaps a sign of the party's plight some of their most ardent supporters on here are frantically searching for reasons to stay loyal.

    Sunak, as Major, will hobble on and hope, pace Micawber, something will turn up. Falling inflation may help a little to be fair but we forget how strong the economy was in 1997 and how much good it did the ruling party.

    I'll be looking at the locals in May for some indication of how the tide is flowing. The Conservatives had a bad night at the equivalent round in 2019 but Labour also lost seats. Given a lot of the seats up are in rural and suburban England, it will be indicative of the fortunes of all parties.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 37,972
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    And I agree. But I'm unconvinced Labour with a mahoosive majority would do much better: there would be change, but it would be very ill-considered change.

    I'm happy for there to be a Labour government (and think there should be a GE soon), but I don't want any party to have a stonking 100+ majority. I just don't think such governments are very good. Then again, I'm not a fan of small majorities either.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,382
    HYUFD said:

    The fact Starmer only has a narrow lead over Sunak as preferred PM suggests a Labour majority is not certain

    HYUFD said:

    The fact Starmer only has a narrow lead over Sunak as preferred PM suggests a Labour majority is not certain

    Rishi is about the only asset the Tories have. He is personable and relatable despite being the son-in-law of a billionaire. May do quite well against Starmer during the election campaign itself. He will have nothing to lose and may spring a surprise as Labour play safe.

    The danger is that, in the meantime, he will be painted as "weak" by Labour in the way that John Major was. That woud be terminal to his chances. Therefore I suspect he will hold out in the face of the strikes. Better to trade some short-term unpopularity in order to gain a reputation for toughness and "doing the right thing" for the country. This might also explain Raab's continued presence in government.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188

    HYUFD said:

    The fact Starmer only has a narrow lead over Sunak as preferred PM suggests a Labour majority is not certain

    He’s in a version of Majors situation. The party is the drag on polling numbers. Most people are fairly neutral on Sunak himself.
    Though Blair was far more popular in 1997 than Starmer is now too
  • HYUFD said:

    The fact Starmer only has a narrow lead over Sunak as preferred PM suggests a Labour majority is not certain

    It's not certain, but the gap between Sunak's ratings and those of his party is unusually large right now.

    Now, Rishi could drag the Conservative ratings up. Ukraine turns out nice, the economy surprises on the upside, quiet competence secures wins on boats and unions. Or a black swan (France declares war on the UK and Rishi triumphs, that sort of thing). It's not impossible.

    But it's more likely to go the other way. Partly because, absent black swans, the reputation of PMs always declines over time. It has to, because their job involves saying no to people. (Which is why Boris was so unsuitable as PM.) But there's also the Warren Buffet aphorism about what happens to the reputation of a brilliant manager who takes over a failing company.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,427
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    Yes. If they win again despite everything, it means our democracy isn't fit for purpose. Although one upside is it might usher in electoral reform.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    edited December 2022

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    My column: https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/a0c1c1b2-eda9-48b6-890a-2bac5ee6a9ac




    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":

    In summary:
    • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to:
    • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views
    • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever


    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759052301135873
    Yet given the Conservatives won 39 to 49s in 2019 but Labour won over 60% of under 30s that chart is very dubious.

    In France too more under 30s voted for Le Pen and her far right culture wars over Macron in May than over 60s.

    Looks like FT had an article and didn't check all the data to ensure it matched. Not all of it does
  • eekeek Posts: 24,470

    I'm not overreacting to this poll. 2 years away, holiday period poll, we have boundary changes, and an absolutely mammoth hill for Labour to climb to get to a majority.

    Sunak does need to sort out the strikes and boats pronto, though.

    It's probably got to the stage now where a deal on the first is the least worst outcome, and he needs to send people home (with max publicity) on the latter.

    Boundary changes are a two edged sword here. Now in theory they move 10 or so seats into safer Tory terriority.

    However they also remove any first incumbency benefit from most seats so there is a significant downside as well.

    And many people are going to see their local Tory MP and ask what exactly has he/she actually done for us...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,850
    edited December 2022

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    And I agree. But I'm unconvinced Labour with a mahoosive majority would do much better: there would be change, but it would be very ill-considered change.

    I'm happy for there to be a Labour government (and think there should be a GE soon), but I don't want any party to have a stonking 100+ majority. I just don't think such governments are very good. Then again, I'm not a fan of small majorities either.
    A large Labour majority is highly unlikely. I don’t think you need to worry about that, even though it’s in Tory interests to start sowing concerns.

    The real risk for us and the country is the Tories sneaking back in. There needs to a real focus to stop that.

    I’m sure the Tories would love to talk about anything other than the current mess and move the focus elsewhere.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,639
    edited December 2022

    HYUFD said:

    The fact Starmer only has a narrow lead over Sunak as preferred PM suggests a Labour majority is not certain

    It's not certain, but the gap between Sunak's ratings and those of his party is unusually large right now.

    Now, Rishi could drag the Conservative ratings up. Ukraine turns out nice, the economy surprises on the upside, quiet competence secures wins on boats and unions. Or a black swan (France declares war on the UK and Rishi triumphs, that sort of thing). It's not impossible.

    But it's more likely to go the other way. Partly because, absent black swans, the reputation of PMs always declines over time. It has to, because their job involves saying no to people. (Which is why Boris was so unsuitable as PM.) But there's also the Warren Buffet aphorism about what happens to the reputation of a brilliant manager who takes over a failing company.
    Even if inflation collapses early next year - which I think is certain if Xi doesn’t shit on the world - I don’t think we will see a Conservative recovery.

    Even adding in a Russian collapse in Ukraine leading to a withdrawal to 1991 borders etc

    Zeitgeist and all that.
  • Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,589
    HYUFD said:

    The fact Starmer only has a narrow lead over Sunak as preferred PM suggests a Labour majority is not certain

    No it doesn't. How much of a lead did Tony Blair have over John Major in such polling prior to 1997?

    A more current example would be in New Zealand where the centre-right National Party leads Labour by six points but National leader Chris Luxon trails Jacinda Ardern by nine points in the preferred Prime Minister polling.
  • HYUFD said:

    The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

    https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

    "Policy options for raising more from top incomes

    Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
    income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
    suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
    taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,850
    kinabalu said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    Yes. If they win again despite everything, it means our democracy isn't fit for purpose. Although one upside is it might usher in electoral reform.
    How? The Tories would be back in. The only electoral reform they are interested in will strengthen their position under FPTP.

    We could easily be in for five more years of this chaos.
  • Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    My column: https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/a0c1c1b2-eda9-48b6-890a-2bac5ee6a9ac




    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":

    In summary:
    • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to:
    • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views
    • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever


    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759052301135873
    I suspect in reality it's correlated with wealth-accumulation and asset growth, as opposed to age.

    It's just that in the past (last 70-80 years or so) the two have always followed each other so it looks like age.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,470
    edited December 2022

    HYUFD said:

    The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

    https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

    "Policy options for raising more from top incomes

    Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
    income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
    suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
    taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
    If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
  • Cicero said:

    London
    Lab 49%
    Con 20%
    Ref 10%
    LD 10%
    Grn 7%

    Rest of South
    Lab 44%
    Con 28%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%
    Ref 7%

    Midlands and Wales
    Lab 44%
    Con 21%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 10%
    LD 9%
    PC 4%

    North
    Lab 55%
    Con 15%
    Grn 10%
    Ref 8%
    LD 5%

    Scotland
    SNP 62%
    Lab 18%
    Grn 6%
    LD 5%
    Con 4%
    Ref 2%

    (PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,169; 28 December)

    While I appreciate that Stuart will be beyond delighted at those Scottish numbers, they look pretty rogue to me.
    I’m not “delighted” at all. I made no comment whatsoever. I wasn’t born yesterday. So, typical PB straw man.

    The last think either Nicola S or Keir S need is for the general impression to become cemented that their respective parties are guaranteed to win by landslides in their respective countries. They need to keep the troops on their toes. And get the bloody voters out.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,589

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    Labour won a massive majority in 1997 but seemed stunned by the scale and size of it. Perhaps mentally Blair was preparing for a 30-50 seat majority but the scale of the triumph was well beyond that.

    In truth, he had a mandate and a majority to be as radical as Attlee in 1945 and Thatcher in 1983 but he hadn't won on a radical agenda - indeed, he'd won on the agenda of maintaining most of the Thatcher/Major reforms and his majority was built on an electorate who didn't want radical change but wanted Government simply done better and without the constant stench of scandal.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,666
    edited December 2022
    eek said:

    I'm not overreacting to this poll. 2 years away, holiday period poll, we have boundary changes, and an absolutely mammoth hill for Labour to climb to get to a majority.

    Sunak does need to sort out the strikes and boats pronto, though.

    It's probably got to the stage now where a deal on the first is the least worst outcome, and he needs to send people home (with max publicity) on the latter.

    Boundary changes are a two edged sword here. Now in theory they move 10 or so seats into safer Tory terriority.

    However they also remove any first incumbency benefit from most seats so there is a significant downside as well.

    And many people are going to see their local Tory MP and ask what exactly has he/she actually done for us...
    Worth noting also that as the swing to Labour increases, the benefits of the boundary changes to the Tories declines. Efficiency of vote comes into play.
    Subsample polling (I know), seems to suggest Labour are advancing where they need to.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 37,972

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    You mean instead of the Guardian and the New Statesman. ;)

    New Labour had loads of vested interests, and its own share of unforced scandals. Remember how Mandelson had to resign twice?
  • Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    So, is Anas Sarwar’s gang getting your vote next time Alan?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,666
    If this from the Resolution Foundation is to be believed it isn't getting any better any time soon.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/dec/30/groundhog-year-uk-disposable-incomes-to-fall-by-38-in-2023
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    kinabalu said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    Yes. If they win again despite everything, it means our democracy isn't fit for purpose. Although one upside is it might usher in electoral reform.
    If people vote the wrong way, our democracy isn't fit for purpose?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    And I agree. But I'm unconvinced Labour with a mahoosive majority would do much better: there would be change, but it would be very ill-considered change.

    I'm happy for there to be a Labour government (and think there should be a GE soon), but I don't want any party to have a stonking 100+ majority. I just don't think such governments are very good. Then again, I'm not a fan of small majorities either.
    A large Labour majority is highly unlikely. I don’t think you need to worry about that, even though it’s in Tory interests to start sowing concerns.

    The real risk for us and the country is the Tories sneaking back in. There needs to a real focus to stop that.

    I’m sure the Tories would love to talk about anything other than the current mess and move the focus elsewhere.
    The best way to "stop the Tories sneaking back in is for Sir Keir to actually give us some positive reasons to vote for him...
  • eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

    https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

    "Policy options for raising more from top incomes

    Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
    income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
    suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
    taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
    If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
    It is too high.

    I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    edited December 2022
    dixiedean said:

    If this from the Resolution Foundation is to be believed it isn't getting any better any time soon.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/dec/30/groundhog-year-uk-disposable-incomes-to-fall-by-38-in-2023

    That's Torsten Bell's thing, isn't it?
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,379
    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
    Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

    Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,666
    Driver said:

    dixiedean said:

    If this from the Resolution Foundation is to be believed it isn't getting any better any time soon.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/dec/30/groundhog-year-uk-disposable-incomes-to-fall-by-38-in-2023

    That's Torsten Bell's thing, isn't it?
    Indeed it is.
    But it doesn't mean it is wrong.
    If it is anywhere near correct, there is precious little scope for a government revival.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,850
    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    And I agree. But I'm unconvinced Labour with a mahoosive majority would do much better: there would be change, but it would be very ill-considered change.

    I'm happy for there to be a Labour government (and think there should be a GE soon), but I don't want any party to have a stonking 100+ majority. I just don't think such governments are very good. Then again, I'm not a fan of small majorities either.
    A large Labour majority is highly unlikely. I don’t think you need to worry about that, even though it’s in Tory interests to start sowing concerns.

    The real risk for us and the country is the Tories sneaking back in. There needs to a real focus to stop that.

    I’m sure the Tories would love to talk about anything other than the current mess and move the focus elsewhere.
    The best way to "stop the Tories sneaking back in is for Sir Keir to actually give us some positive reasons to vote for him...
    That old chestnut. The last gasp. Trying to get the opposition to show their entire hand 18 months out. They said this of Cameron and Blair.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,666

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

    https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

    "Policy options for raising more from top incomes

    Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
    income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
    suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
    taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
    If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
    It is too high.

    I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
    The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    edited December 2022
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    The fact Starmer only has a narrow lead over Sunak as preferred PM suggests a Labour majority is not certain

    No it doesn't. How much of a lead did Tony Blair have over John Major in such polling prior to 1997?

    A more current example would be in New Zealand where the centre-right National Party leads Labour by six points but National leader Chris Luxon trails Jacinda Ardern by nine points in the preferred Prime Minister polling.
    Gallup had Blair leading Major 41% to 25% as preferred PM pre the 1997 election

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/05/16/milibands-rating-lessons-history

    The NZ election has not happened yet
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,850

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

    https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

    "Policy options for raising more from top incomes

    Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
    income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
    suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
    taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
    If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
    It is too high.

    I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
    You must hate George Osborne.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Jonathan said:

    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    And I agree. But I'm unconvinced Labour with a mahoosive majority would do much better: there would be change, but it would be very ill-considered change.

    I'm happy for there to be a Labour government (and think there should be a GE soon), but I don't want any party to have a stonking 100+ majority. I just don't think such governments are very good. Then again, I'm not a fan of small majorities either.
    A large Labour majority is highly unlikely. I don’t think you need to worry about that, even though it’s in Tory interests to start sowing concerns.

    The real risk for us and the country is the Tories sneaking back in. There needs to a real focus to stop that.

    I’m sure the Tories would love to talk about anything other than the current mess and move the focus elsewhere.
    The best way to "stop the Tories sneaking back in is for Sir Keir to actually give us some positive reasons to vote for him...
    That old chestnut. The last gasp. Trying to get the opposition to show their entire hand 18 months out. They said this of Cameron and Blair.
    This far out, Blair had positive reasons to vote for him.

    Anyway, what's wrong with showing your hand? Do you think the public might not like the policies?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,519
    Jonathan said:

    No new information provided by this poll. The Tories are in the deepest deep shit. We know that. The psychological 20% barrier, doesn’t change that story.

    The thing keeping the Tories up in the betting IMO is that Labour start a very long way back. Labour have to win a lot of seats to get a majority. Corbyn left Starmer a mountain to climb.

    That doesn't matter in the slightest if they are far enough ahead. People will vote in 2024/5 on what they see before them, not on how they voted five years before, even if they were old enough to do so.

    What is holding Labour back is that their leader is an uncharismatic dud with no political courage, judgement or vision and no answers at all to the many problems the country faces. He's been incredibly lucky this autumn, and that may be enough, but if the Conservatives get their act together - a remote, but not impossible, prospect - he's in trouble.
  • Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    So, is Anas Sarwar’s gang getting your vote next time Alan?
    No, between LD and Mhairi Black. Notable that Douglas Alexander isn't contesting his old seat but wants the easier option of East Lothian.
  • Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    My column: https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/a0c1c1b2-eda9-48b6-890a-2bac5ee6a9ac




    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":

    In summary:
    • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to:
    • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views
    • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever


    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759052301135873
    I suspect in reality it's correlated with wealth-accumulation and asset growth, as opposed to age.

    It's just that in the past (last 70-80 years or so) the two have always followed each other so it looks like age.
    That's quite a bit of the answer, but if we take home ownership as a proxy for accumulating wealth, it's not a complete answer.



    Older people may not approve of woke. But previous older people didn't approve of the Swinging Sixties.

    But, as we saw in 2016, if you tell voters you simply disapprove of them, they're unlikely to vote for you.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,666
    edited December 2022
    Fishing said:

    Jonathan said:

    No new information provided by this poll. The Tories are in the deepest deep shit. We know that. The psychological 20% barrier, doesn’t change that story.

    The thing keeping the Tories up in the betting IMO is that Labour start a very long way back. Labour have to win a lot of seats to get a majority. Corbyn left Starmer a mountain to climb.

    That doesn't matter in the slightest if they are far enough ahead. People will vote in 2024/5 on what they see before them, not on how they voted five years before, even if they were old enough to do so.

    What is holding Labour back is that their leader is an uncharismatic dud with no political courage, judgement or vision and no answers at all to the many problems the country faces. He's been incredibly lucky this autumn, and that may be enough, but if the Conservatives get their act together - a remote, but not impossible, prospect - he's in trouble.
    The problem with that analysis is that the reason Labour has no answers, is no good ones are available.
    Which rather precludes the Tories from finding them either.
  • dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 64% aged 45 to 64

    https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

    PB demographic?
    Well, I fit all the criteria except for high (or any) earnings.
  • WRT to aging into Tory voters, I should be a prime candidate.

    Good paying job, home ownership, live in London in a posh area.

    But I’m not. The Tories offer me nothing but failure and disappointment. They call me an idiot and condescend me because I don’t care about the culture wars.

    The Tories face extinction if they can’t win over people my age. And all the signs are that they are going backwards.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,470

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

    https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

    "Policy options for raising more from top incomes

    Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
    income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
    suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
    taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
    If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
    It is too high.

    I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
    You are hit by the taper which is why most people play games to keep their income below £100,000 by throwing more into the pension pot.

    I suspect if HMRC did a proper survey there would be a significant reduction in people earning between £100,000 and £130,000 compared to the below and above that figure.
  • dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    Jonathan said:

    No new information provided by this poll. The Tories are in the deepest deep shit. We know that. The psychological 20% barrier, doesn’t change that story.

    The thing keeping the Tories up in the betting IMO is that Labour start a very long way back. Labour have to win a lot of seats to get a majority. Corbyn left Starmer a mountain to climb.

    That doesn't matter in the slightest if they are far enough ahead. People will vote in 2024/5 on what they see before them, not on how they voted five years before, even if they were old enough to do so.

    What is holding Labour back is that their leader is an uncharismatic dud with no political courage, judgement or vision and no answers at all to the many problems the country faces. He's been incredibly lucky this autumn, and that may be enough, but if the Conservatives get their act together - a remote, but not impossible, prospect - he's in trouble.
    The problem with that analysis is that the reason Labour has no answers, is no good ones are available.
    Which rather precludes the Tories from finding them either.
    After 13 years people will say the Tories have had enough chances. Time to change.

    Cameron didn’t have any answers between 2005 and 2010, he just wasn’t Gordon Brown
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,357
    So much of recent economic history — rises in house prices, the age of tech “unicorns”, the coming of cryptocurrencies & yes, Brexit — occurred in a world drugged up on cheap money.
    Now we’re coming off the drug we’re starting to see what a big deal it was https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-was-grown-on-the-magic-money-tree-fxgmw26gj
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188

    WRT to aging into Tory voters, I should be a prime candidate.

    Good paying job, home ownership, live in London in a posh area.

    But I’m not. The Tories offer me nothing but failure and disappointment. They call me an idiot and condescend me because I don’t care about the culture wars.

    The Tories face extinction if they can’t win over people my age. And all the signs are that they are going backwards.

    You may have been the most likely typical Tory voter in 1997 when the Tories still won ABs and did best in the wealthiest parts of West London like Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea and Surrey while losing over 65s to Blair.


    Now however the Conservatives do best with C2s, in Lincolnshire or Essex
    not Surrey and West London and with over 65s
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,722

    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
    Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

    Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

    OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

    Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

  • HYUFD said:

    WRT to aging into Tory voters, I should be a prime candidate.

    Good paying job, home ownership, live in London in a posh area.

    But I’m not. The Tories offer me nothing but failure and disappointment. They call me an idiot and condescend me because I don’t care about the culture wars.

    The Tories face extinction if they can’t win over people my age. And all the signs are that they are going backwards.

    You may have been the most likely typical Tory voter in 1997 when the Tories still won ABs and did best in the wealthiest parts of West London like Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea and Surrey while losing over 65s to Blair.


    Now however the Conservatives do best with C2s, in Lincolnshire or Essex
    not Surrey and West London and with over 65s
    This arrogance is why you will lose. You don’t want our votes, we will vote Labour then
  • Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    My column: https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/a0c1c1b2-eda9-48b6-890a-2bac5ee6a9ac




    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":

    In summary:
    • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to:
    • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views
    • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever


    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759052301135873
    I suspect in reality it's correlated with wealth-accumulation and asset growth, as opposed to age.

    It's just that in the past (last 70-80 years or so) the two have always followed each other so it looks like age.
    That's quite a bit of the answer, but if we take home ownership as a proxy for accumulating wealth, it's not a complete answer.



    Older people may not approve of woke. But previous older people didn't approve of the Swinging Sixties.

    But, as we saw in 2016, if you tell voters you simply disapprove of them, they're unlikely to vote for you.

    My own view, often posted here, is that voters do not shift their views to the right, so much as the zeitgeist shifts left to incorporate the previously radical views of ageing voters. So those who fought for gay rights or equal pay for women or the end of capital punishment in the 60s and 70s were accommodated by the establishment. In particular, Conservatives did not seek to reverse those once-radical gains.

    So it may be that Culture Wars, and talk of restricting abortions, and embracing the sometimes misogynistic American alt-right, so these gains do seem to be threatened, is counter-productive. Same with opposing freedom of movement.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,722
    Scott_xP said:

    So much of recent economic history — rises in house prices, the age of tech “unicorns”, the coming of cryptocurrencies & yes, Brexit — occurred in a world drugged up on cheap money.
    Now we’re coming off the drug we’re starting to see what a big deal it was https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-was-grown-on-the-magic-money-tree-fxgmw26gj

    Interest rates ought to have risen long ago.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    edited December 2022

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

    In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

    Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

    My column: https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/a0c1c1b2-eda9-48b6-890a-2bac5ee6a9ac




    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":

    In summary:
    • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to:
    • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views
    • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever


    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759052301135873
    I suspect in reality it's correlated with wealth-accumulation and asset growth, as opposed to age.

    It's just that in the past (last 70-80 years or so) the two have always followed each other so it looks like age.
    That's quite a bit of the answer, but if we take home ownership as a proxy for accumulating wealth, it's not a complete answer.



    Older people may not approve of woke. But previous older people didn't approve of the Swinging Sixties.

    But, as we saw in 2016, if you tell voters you simply disapprove of them, they're unlikely to vote for you.

    Yet the Conservatives support gay marriage, legal abortion and have actually increased non EU immigration since Brexit. The only culture war this Tory government is fighting in any sense is on trans but even then most women agree with them on that and that a medical diagnosis should be needed to change sex.

    So I would suggest home ownership is still the main factor, given in 2019 the Tories still won most 39 to 49 year olds and most 40 to 50s are home owners, at least with a mortgage, even if under 40s now aren't and still generally rent
  • Sean_F said:

    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
    Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

    Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

    OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

    Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

    Can you cite evidence for these claims?

    I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.

    Which young people support a dictatorship?!? Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,357
    Net Approval Ratings After 1,000 Days:

    Starmer: +0.5%
    Corbyn: -19.4%
    Miliband: -27.6%
    Johnson: -29.8%
    May: -34.2% https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1608779146632781826/photo/1
  • Scott_xP said:

    Net Approval Ratings After 1,000 Days:

    Starmer: +0.5%
    Corbyn: -19.4%
    Miliband: -27.6%
    Johnson: -29.8%
    May: -34.2% https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1608779146632781826/photo/1

    “Keir Starmer is just like every other Labour leader”
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    Jonathan said:

    No new information provided by this poll. The Tories are in the deepest deep shit. We know that. The psychological 20% barrier, doesn’t change that story.

    The thing keeping the Tories up in the betting IMO is that Labour start a very long way back. Labour have to win a lot of seats to get a majority. Corbyn left Starmer a mountain to climb.

    That doesn't matter in the slightest if they are far enough ahead. People will vote in 2024/5 on what they see before them, not on how they voted five years before, even if they were old enough to do so.

    What is holding Labour back is that their leader is an uncharismatic dud with no political courage, judgement or vision and no answers at all to the many problems the country faces. He's been incredibly lucky this autumn, and that may be enough, but if the Conservatives get their act together - a remote, but not impossible, prospect - he's in trouble.
    The problem with that analysis is that the reason Labour has no answers, is no good ones are available.
    Which rather precludes the Tories from finding them either.
    After 13 years people will say the Tories have had enough chances. Time to change.

    Cameron didn’t have any answers between 2005 and 2010, he just wasn’t Gordon Brown
    He also didn't win a majority first time out.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,379
    Sean_F said:

    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
    Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

    Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

    OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

    Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

    Only because democracy has worked for their generation!

    This comment from btl sums my views on how well our democracy has economically benefited the young

    'The article argues that is was a cohort effect (the GFC) rather than a period effect (the declining quality of the Tories) that caused the shift in the UK. I think this let's the Tories off the hook far too easily.

    Different cohorts experienced the Story decline differently. Boomers got tax cuts, triple locked pensions, inflated assets, and an end to those pesky foreigners. Millenials got expensive education, zero real wage growth, unaffordable, housing, and the loss of their cosmopolitan identity. This was not the random result of an exogenous recession but an orchestrated programme of intergenerational expropriation.

    There are plenty of conservative young Britons but the only conservative party is busy robbing them blind.'
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,722

    Sean_F said:

    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
    Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

    Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

    OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

    Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

    Can you cite evidence for these claims?

    I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.

    Which young people support a dictatorship?!?
    Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
    There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.

    One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.
  • Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    And I agree. But I'm unconvinced Labour with a mahoosive majority would do much better: there would be change, but it would be very ill-considered change.

    I'm happy for there to be a Labour government (and think there should be a GE soon), but I don't want any party to have a stonking 100+ majority. I just don't think such governments are very good. Then again, I'm not a fan of small majorities either.
    A large Labour majority is highly unlikely. I don’t think you need to worry about that, even though it’s in Tory interests to start sowing concerns.

    The real risk for us and the country is the Tories sneaking back in. There needs to a real focus to stop that.

    I’m sure the Tories would love to talk about anything other than the current mess and move the focus elsewhere.
    The best way to "stop the Tories sneaking back in is for Sir Keir to actually give us some positive reasons to vote for him...
    That old chestnut. The last gasp. Trying to get the opposition to show their entire hand 18 months out. They said this of Cameron and Blair.
    This far out, Blair had positive reasons to vote for him.

    Anyway, what's wrong with showing your hand? Do you think the public might not like the policies?
    The fear is that any Labour policies the public does like will immediately be pinched by that nice Mr Sunak. Good for the country, perhaps, but less good for Starmer's chance of reaching Number 10. Look how the Boris won 2019 promising all the popular bits of 2017 Corbynism.
  • CorrectHorseBattery3CorrectHorseBattery3 Posts: 2,757
    edited December 2022
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
    Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

    Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

    OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

    Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

    Can you cite evidence for these claims?

    I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.

    Which young people support a dictatorship?!?
    Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
    There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.

    One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.
    Let’s see the poll then.

    Seems like a few nut jobs are making you form an opinion about all young people.

    If you want to play this game, all older voters are morons because they voted for Brexit
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    edited December 2022

    HYUFD said:

    WRT to aging into Tory voters, I should be a prime candidate.

    Good paying job, home ownership, live in London in a posh area.

    But I’m not. The Tories offer me nothing but failure and disappointment. They call me an idiot and condescend me because I don’t care about the culture wars.

    The Tories face extinction if they can’t win over people my age. And all the signs are that they are going backwards.

    You may have been the most likely typical Tory voter in 1997 when the Tories still won ABs and did best in the wealthiest parts of West London like Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea and Surrey while losing over 65s to Blair.


    Now however the Conservatives do best with C2s, in Lincolnshire or Essex
    not Surrey and West London and with over 65s
    This arrogance is why you will lose. You don’t want our votes, we will vote Labour then
    It is not arrogance, just changing demographics.

    In 1997 the typical Conservative voter left was upper middle class, wealthy and a high earner and lived in West London or the South East.

    Now the typical Conservative voter left is skilled working class, retired, a home owner and lives in Essex or Kent or the Midlands.

    Albeit Sunak might make it a little more like 1997 than Boris or Truss would in terms of voter coalition but the trend is the same
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,722

    Sean_F said:

    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
    Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

    Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

    OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

    Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

    Only because democracy has worked for their generation!

    This comment from btl sums my views on how well our democracy has economically benefited the young

    'The article argues that is was a cohort effect (the GFC) rather than a period effect (the declining quality of the Tories) that caused the shift in the UK. I think this let's the Tories off the hook far too easily.

    Different cohorts experienced the Story decline differently. Boomers got tax cuts, triple locked pensions, inflated assets, and an end to those pesky foreigners. Millenials got expensive education, zero real wage growth, unaffordable, housing, and the loss of their cosmopolitan identity. This was not the random result of an exogenous recession but an orchestrated programme of intergenerational expropriation.

    There are plenty of conservative young Britons
    but the only conservative party is busy robbing them blind.'
    Democracy beats the alternatives.

  • Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    And I agree. But I'm unconvinced Labour with a mahoosive majority would do much better: there would be change, but it would be very ill-considered change.

    I'm happy for there to be a Labour government (and think there should be a GE soon), but I don't want any party to have a stonking 100+ majority. I just don't think such governments are very good. Then again, I'm not a fan of small majorities either.
    A large Labour majority is highly unlikely. I don’t think you need to worry about that, even though it’s in Tory interests to start sowing concerns.

    The real risk for us and the country is the Tories sneaking back in. There needs to a real focus to stop that.

    I’m sure the Tories would love to talk about anything other than the current mess and move the focus elsewhere.
    The best way to "stop the Tories sneaking back in is for Sir Keir to actually give us some positive reasons to vote for him...
    That old chestnut. The last gasp. Trying to get the opposition to show their entire hand 18 months out. They said this of Cameron and Blair.
    This far out, Blair had positive reasons to vote for him.

    Anyway, what's wrong with showing your hand? Do you think the public might not like the policies?
    The fear is that any Labour policies the public does like will immediately be pinched by that nice Mr Sunak. Good for the country, perhaps, but less good for Starmer's chance of reaching Number 10. Look how the Boris won 2019 promising all the popular bits of 2017 Corbynism.
    Yes often denied on here but Johnson basically ran on 2017 Labour
  • Phil said:

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
    Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

    Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

    I don't think the remaining PB Tories understand the damage they are doing with culture wars. Attacking the young, the "woke", the public sector heroes like Teachers & Nurses etc etc. You want to make conservatism look like old angry stupid cnuts and then expect the best educated best informed generation to swing across to support them?

    The right have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. May work short term for people who were already a bit insular / dumb / prejudiced. But long term is absolutely sinking them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    edited December 2022
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlNpPoTWIAAWRpX?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Edit: how do I embed an image then?

    Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
    Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

    Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

    OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

    Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

    Can you cite evidence for these claims?

    I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.

    Which young people support a dictatorship?!?
    Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
    There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.

    One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.
    Le Pen also did better against Macron with under 30s than over 65s in May.

    Meloni did well with the young in Italy too.

    The young are more likely to go hard left than the old but also more likely to go far right too
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    Driver said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
    I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

    If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
    If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

    If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
    And I agree. But I'm unconvinced Labour with a mahoosive majority would do much better: there would be change, but it would be very ill-considered change.

    I'm happy for there to be a Labour government (and think there should be a GE soon), but I don't want any party to have a stonking 100+ majority. I just don't think such governments are very good. Then again, I'm not a fan of small majorities either.
    A large Labour majority is highly unlikely. I don’t think you need to worry about that, even though it’s in Tory interests to start sowing concerns.

    The real risk for us and the country is the Tories sneaking back in. There needs to a real focus to stop that.

    I’m sure the Tories would love to talk about anything other than the current mess and move the focus elsewhere.
    The best way to "stop the Tories sneaking back in is for Sir Keir to actually give us some positive reasons to vote for him...
    That old chestnut. The last gasp. Trying to get the opposition to show their entire hand 18 months out. They said this of Cameron and Blair.
    This far out, Blair had positive reasons to vote for him.

    Anyway, what's wrong with showing your hand? Do you think the public might not like the policies?
    The fear is that any Labour policies the public does like will immediately be pinched by that nice Mr Sunak. .
    So what?

    A Labour policy adopted by a Tory government is a win for Labour, not a loss, and easy to sell as such if they have political nous.
  • Baxter’s latest prediction published:

    Lab 422 seats (+219)
    Con 134 seats (-231)
    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    LD 16 seats (+5)

    Labour majority of 194

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

    I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

    Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up. ;)
    No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
    So, is Anas Sarwar’s gang getting your vote next time Alan?
    No, between LD and Mhairi Black. Notable that Douglas Alexander isn't contesting his old seat but wants the easier option of East Lothian.
    I dislike the SNP, but that's dislike rather than despise. And Mhairi Black has been a valuable addition to the British polity. I'd vote for her.
  • Back to the header, If the Conservatives do badly enough, Labour get a majority by default; there are only so many seats the Lib Dems, SNP et al can mop up.

    I reckon the breakpoint is about 225 Conservatives. If NOM and Labour majority are equally likely, that points to that being their expected score.

    If the real economy for 2023 matches the OBR's expectations, that seems optimistic.
This discussion has been closed.