Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Tories are becoming a byword for ungovernable – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,310
    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Greetings from halfway across the Red Sea where there is undue excitement about dolphins




    Is there some porpoise to that post?
    It’s quite evidently porpoiseless.
    Cetacean needed
    They seem to be having a whale of a time.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,192
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Greetings from halfway across the Red Sea where there is undue excitement about dolphins




    Is there some porpoise to that post?
    On the subject of boats this is the sea survival course my son is going on this week

    And they are volunteers

    https://youtu.be/8X7Q0WLYNDk
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,127

    IanB2 said:

    The other advantage of May 2024 is the point I made yesterday - the locals are likely to be truly terrible for the tarnished Tories, given the high base they are defending, and that will put a political shadow over the rest of the year. Taking the GE early at least avoids that, and the local defeats will get lost in the other news (and probably not be as bad on GE day, anyway, since some of the protest vote will come home).

    It's very valid reasoning, but the GE is the gift of the PM.

    if he goes in May 2024 and loses, he'll go down as the footnote in history and be remembered like Lord Home (who? to most in the street). Hang on till October or November and he at least manages nearly two years.

    Now, to you, I or him, that matters, though to the man on the street, fifty years from now, they'll still go 'Who?' when asked about Sunak.
    There are, of course, good arguments for all the likely dates (Spring 24, Autumn 24, January 25.)

    You could just as easily argue that, if he thinks he can secure defeat with honour in May, whereas hanging on until the last possible moment will allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where there's a cataclysmic defeat, he might as well just go for it.

    There's no point in hanging on by your fingertips for the extra few months if the result is to break John Major's and the Duke of Wellington's records for electoral obliteration.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,971
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    There really is no difference. EU citizens are not British citizens. They choose to work here, as do citizens of other nations. If they are British citizens fine, if not then I can see no reason, other than cynical political advantage, to offer them a vote and why just EU citizens. Why not citizens of other nations.
    Currently Commonwealth citizens can vote including those from Rwanda and Mozambique, if resident for a few weeks. I don't see why extending the vote to other permanent residents is worse.
    Begs the question why should commonwealth citizens be given that right then ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,437
    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Well, I am. I don't think non-citizens should have the vote. If they have settled status and want to vote they should take out naturalisation.

    The Commonwealth is a legacy arrangement and frankly an anachronism. Ireland of course is a special case.

    I'm also not sold on votes for 16 year olds. If we say they're not of sufficient capacity to drive or marry why should they be deemed ready to vote?
    I don’t think you can justify giving Irish citizens the vote but not other EU citizens. It’s clearly discriminatory.
    Maltese and Cypriots can vote too, as Commonwealth.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,192

    The irony of the Tory right’s dislike of Sunak is that he is much more one of them than Johnson is. He is genuinely socially conservative, genuinely in favour of the Rwanda deportations and genuinely pro-Brexit in a way their hero never was or will be. Suella Braverman is in his cabinet because he agrees with her. But they’re all too thick to see it.

    I'm not.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,183
    Anyhow, the Sunday Rawnsley is here:

    Sir Keir has credible grounds for saying he will become prime minister, but his MPs struggle to sound genuinely confident that Labour will secure a parliamentary majority. The explanation is the national mood and the electoral maths.

    There’s a nightmare that stalks the Conservative party. It is that Sir Keir and Sir Ed strike a deal in which the Lib Dems cooperate with Labour in return for a referendum on proportional representation.

    The Labour leader has been unambiguous on one crucial question. He has categorically ruled out any kind of deal with the SNP under any circumstances. He’s learned the lesson from 2015 when his predecessor Ed Miliband was too slow to realise that equivocation would be costly.

    Neither Sir Keir nor Sir Ed are keen to get entangled in talk about a hung parliament, but both have kept the door open to a post-election deal.

    Would Sir Keir issue an invitation to dance anyway? If he finds himself short of a majority or with a small one, there are several ways he could go. One option would be to try to emulate the Wilson model. Harold Wilson won the 1964 election, but with an unworkable majority of just four, which he judged too precarious to sustain a Labour government over a full term. So he established his authority at Number 10, burnished his personal popularity and then went back to the country in 1966 with the slogan “You know Labour government works”. His reward was a much heftier majority of 98 seats. He repeated this two-bites approach, though with less success, in 1974 by forming a minority government after the February election of that year and then going back to the country in October to seek a majority.

    Absent the use of a time machine, we can’t know exactly what the numbers will look like or how the atmosphere will feel after the next election. So no one can be certain, including Sir Keir himself, what he will do if he comes up short. This we do know. Whenever he’s asked to name the past Labour leader that he most admires, his answer is always Wilson.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,437
    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    There really is no difference. EU citizens are not British citizens. They choose to work here, as do citizens of other nations. If they are British citizens fine, if not then I can see no reason, other than cynical political advantage, to offer them a vote and why just EU citizens. Why not citizens of other nations.
    Currently Commonwealth citizens can vote including those from Rwanda and Mozambique, if resident for a few weeks. I don't see why extending the vote to other permanent residents is worse.
    Begs the question why should commonwealth citizens be given that right then ?
    I think it reasonable if permanent residents, once again because of our history.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,170
    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    There really is no difference. EU citizens are not British citizens. They choose to work here, as do citizens of other nations. If they are British citizens fine, if not then I can see no reason, other than cynical political advantage, to offer them a vote and why just EU citizens. Why not citizens of other nations.
    Currently Commonwealth citizens can vote including those from Rwanda and Mozambique, if resident for a few weeks. I don't see why extending the vote to other permanent residents is worse.
    Begs the question why should commonwealth citizens be given that right then ?
    Reparations for the Empire.

    A small gesture but acceptable.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,574
    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    I'd say changes like that should ideally be done from a point of consensus, and if not then at a minimum with consideration.

    Personally I find it strange that someone who has lived here for 10 years, working, paying taxes and owns a house here doesn't get a vote whereas an expat UK citizen absent for 10 years and no ties beyond the passport does have a vote.

    On age, not really bothered either way. I think if we treated 16 year olds as adults generally, which I think we did say pre 2000, then they should have the vote. Nowadays it seems the age of adulthood in society has increased a bit, so on that basis the status quo wins, but its arbitrary either way.

    If I was Labour and looking to do similar my first steps would be free passports and having voting split across Friday/Saturday to give more time and opportunity for employees, of all ages, to vote.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,348
    Not as deep blue as the Red Sea but it’s a pleasant early morning at chateau TimS before I get in the car back to Geneva airport.


  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,138
    Jonathan said:

    Twelve hours without water here in West Sussex. Twice in three years. Southern water needs to go.

    Appalling leftie whining. We All Know that the private water companies are marvellous, and their profits (which mean donations to the Conservative party) are far more important than actually supplying you water or not covering your beaches in shit.

    How dare you!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,099

    The irony of the Tory right’s dislike of Sunak is that he is much more one of them than Johnson is. He is genuinely socially conservative, genuinely in favour of the Rwanda deportations and genuinely pro-Brexit in a way their hero never was or will be. Suella Braverman is in his cabinet because he agrees with her. But they’re all too thick to see it.

    I think it’s that they’re unable to process the idea that their favoured policies are both unpopular and ineffective, so it must necessarily be the fault of whomever is in charge.

    Would apply even to mega bluffer Boris, had he stayed as PM, but being out of power lends him a spurious attraction.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 948
    Jonathan said:

    Turnout in elections is worryingly low. That’s the problem to solve. It’s not good for the country that people do not engage. Cliques are rewarded. I’m interested in ideas that get more people out to vote.

    Maybe the best thing would be some parties worth voting for. The current lot are useless, the other lot are shaping up to be worse - why exactly should you vote?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,348
    pigeon said:

    IanB2 said:

    The other advantage of May 2024 is the point I made yesterday - the locals are likely to be truly terrible for the tarnished Tories, given the high base they are defending, and that will put a political shadow over the rest of the year. Taking the GE early at least avoids that, and the local defeats will get lost in the other news (and probably not be as bad on GE day, anyway, since some of the protest vote will come home).

    It's very valid reasoning, but the GE is the gift of the PM.

    if he goes in May 2024 and loses, he'll go down as the footnote in history and be remembered like Lord Home (who? to most in the street). Hang on till October or November and he at least manages nearly two years.

    Now, to you, I or him, that matters, though to the man on the street, fifty years from now, they'll still go 'Who?' when asked about Sunak.
    There are, of course, good arguments for all the likely dates (Spring 24, Autumn 24, January 25.)

    You could just as easily argue that, if he thinks he can secure defeat with honour in May, whereas hanging on until the last possible moment will allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where there's a cataclysmic defeat, he might as well just go for it.

    There's no point in hanging on by your fingertips for the extra few months if the result is to break John Major's and the Duke of Wellington's records for electoral obliteration.
    I suppose one mitigation against the idea of doing May to avoid a local elections meltdown is that this doesn’t help the narrative a couple of years into a Labour term.

    If the Tories bomb in May locals they’ll then have two lots of council elections to look forward to in the early years of a Starmer govt where they will almost inevitably make big gains. Whereas if they hold the GE on locals day the comparator results mid-term won’t be anywhere near as bad, so less visible progress.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,099
    Revealed: almost 1,000 rapes in prisons in England and Wales since 2010
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/13/revealed-almost-1000-rapes-in-prisons-in-england-and-wales-since-2010
    Nearly 1,000 rapes were reported to have taken place in prisons since 2010, exclusive data obtained by the Observer from police forces in England and Wales can reveal.

    A further 2,336 sexual assaults were reported to police in the same period, and experts warned that the true figure for both crimes may be far higher because not all attacks would be reported...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    theProle said:

    Jonathan said:

    Turnout in elections is worryingly low. That’s the problem to solve. It’s not good for the country that people do not engage. Cliques are rewarded. I’m interested in ideas that get more people out to vote.

    Maybe the best thing would be some parties worth voting for. The current lot are useless, the other lot are shaping up to be worse - why exactly should you vote?
    Democracy is not show business its about civic duty. If you don't vote you have no right to complain and the politicians have no incentive to do a good job.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,301

    Keep calm, disciplined and focused, and deliver for the base - couple it with a sensible long-term plan that resonates in layman's terms and delivers jam.

    That's the only hope.

    Which bit of the base? There are currently two main wings of the Conservative party, both wanting broadly the same thing - roughly Thatcherite pomp, global Britain, smaller state and lower taxes.

    The distinction is between those (Truss/JRM etc, currently dispossessed) who want those fundamentals now, whatever the consequences and the current government (Sunak/Hunt etc, currently in charge) who want them when the time is ripe and think that time isn't now.

    It's very hard to come up with a plan that pleases both fundamentalists and realists, especially when personal ambition is involved. See the agonies May went through.

    The other problem the Conservatives have is that, even if those two bases unite, it's not enough unless things are going very well or the opposition are truly scary. And anyone Conservative-minded but to the left of, say, Tom Tugendhat, has wandered off.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,919
    edited May 2023
    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,574
    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    There really is no difference. EU citizens are not British citizens. They choose to work here, as do citizens of other nations. If they are British citizens fine, if not then I can see no reason, other than cynical political advantage, to offer them a vote and why just EU citizens. Why not citizens of other nations.
    No-one is suggesting just EU citizens....it is just the Brexit media portraying it as such in an attempt to rehash Brexit, as their government has no scooby on anything.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,437
    IanB2 said:

    Anyhow, the Sunday Rawnsley is here:

    Sir Keir has credible grounds for saying he will become prime minister, but his MPs struggle to sound genuinely confident that Labour will secure a parliamentary majority. The explanation is the national mood and the electoral maths.

    There’s a nightmare that stalks the Conservative party. It is that Sir Keir and Sir Ed strike a deal in which the Lib Dems cooperate with Labour in return for a referendum on proportional representation.

    The Labour leader has been unambiguous on one crucial question. He has categorically ruled out any kind of deal with the SNP under any circumstances. He’s learned the lesson from 2015 when his predecessor Ed Miliband was too slow to realise that equivocation would be costly.

    Neither Sir Keir nor Sir Ed are keen to get entangled in talk about a hung parliament, but both have kept the door open to a post-election deal.

    Would Sir Keir issue an invitation to dance anyway? If he finds himself short of a majority or with a small one, there are several ways he could go. One option would be to try to emulate the Wilson model. Harold Wilson won the 1964 election, but with an unworkable majority of just four, which he judged too precarious to sustain a Labour government over a full term. So he established his authority at Number 10, burnished his personal popularity and then went back to the country in 1966 with the slogan “You know Labour government works”. His reward was a much heftier majority of 98 seats. He repeated this two-bites approach, though with less success, in 1974 by forming a minority government after the February election of that year and then going back to the country in October to seek a majority.

    Absent the use of a time machine, we can’t know exactly what the numbers will look like or how the atmosphere will feel after the next election. So no one can be certain, including Sir Keir himself, what he will do if he comes up short. This we do know. Whenever he’s asked to name the past Labour leader that he most admires, his answer is always Wilson.

    Yes, I think that is the most likely outcome if Lab fall short of a majority by a modest amount. Minority government then a repeat GE after a year or so, if polling looks good.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,274
    TimS said:

    Not as deep blue as the Red Sea but it’s a pleasant early morning at chateau TimS before I get in the car back to Geneva airport.


    That fence needs fixing.

    See to it before you leave, Tim.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,183
    TimS said:

    pigeon said:

    IanB2 said:

    The other advantage of May 2024 is the point I made yesterday - the locals are likely to be truly terrible for the tarnished Tories, given the high base they are defending, and that will put a political shadow over the rest of the year. Taking the GE early at least avoids that, and the local defeats will get lost in the other news (and probably not be as bad on GE day, anyway, since some of the protest vote will come home).

    It's very valid reasoning, but the GE is the gift of the PM.

    if he goes in May 2024 and loses, he'll go down as the footnote in history and be remembered like Lord Home (who? to most in the street). Hang on till October or November and he at least manages nearly two years.

    Now, to you, I or him, that matters, though to the man on the street, fifty years from now, they'll still go 'Who?' when asked about Sunak.
    There are, of course, good arguments for all the likely dates (Spring 24, Autumn 24, January 25.)

    You could just as easily argue that, if he thinks he can secure defeat with honour in May, whereas hanging on until the last possible moment will allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where there's a cataclysmic defeat, he might as well just go for it.

    There's no point in hanging on by your fingertips for the extra few months if the result is to break John Major's and the Duke of Wellington's records for electoral obliteration.
    I suppose one mitigation against the idea of doing May to avoid a local elections meltdown is that this doesn’t help the narrative a couple of years into a Labour term.

    If the Tories bomb in May locals they’ll then have two lots of council elections to look forward to in the early years of a Starmer govt where they will almost inevitably make big gains. Whereas if they hold the GE on locals day the comparator results mid-term won’t be anywhere near as bad, so less visible progress.
    But that's assuming the Labour term will run for five years (and also that the Tories don't bomb in opposition by making idiotic leadership and policy choices). It could easily be a return to the four-year cycle of GEs that used to be the norm; or indeed as Rawnsley says, if Labour falls short they might be looking to go early and try for a bigger win.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,192
    edited May 2023

    Jonathan said:

    Twelve hours without water here in West Sussex. Twice in three years. Southern water needs to go.

    Appalling leftie whining. We All Know that the private water companies are marvellous, and their profits (which mean donations to the Conservative party) are far more important than actually supplying you water or not covering your beaches in shit.

    How dare you!
    The water companies are shocking and need comprehensive change

    Wales water is non profit making but to nationalise the industry would cost billions

    Much stronger and unlimited fines are necessary
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,919
    edited May 2023
    Jonathan said:

    Turnout in elections is worryingly low. That’s the problem to solve. It’s not good for the country that people do not engage. Cliques are rewarded. I’m interested in ideas that get more people out to vote.

    In local elections turnout has never got over 50% in my lifetime. In general elections turnout has never fallen below 50% in my lifetime and was a healthy 67% in 2019 and 72% in the 2016 EU referendum and 84% in the 2014 Scottish referendum. Voters turn out when they think it matters, we need more localism to get local elections turnout up
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,971

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    There really is no difference. EU citizens are not British citizens. They choose to work here, as do citizens of other nations. If they are British citizens fine, if not then I can see no reason, other than cynical political advantage, to offer them a vote and why just EU citizens. Why not citizens of other nations.
    Currently Commonwealth citizens can vote including those from Rwanda and Mozambique, if resident for a few weeks. I don't see why extending the vote to other permanent residents is worse.
    Begs the question why should commonwealth citizens be given that right then ?
    Reparations for the Empire.

    A small gesture but acceptable.
    You’re ace 👍
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,192
    Jonathan Reynolds on Sky distancing himself from extending votes to EU citizens
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Twelve hours without water here in West Sussex. Twice in three years. Southern water needs to go.

    Appalling leftie whining. We All Know that the private water companies are marvellous, and their profits (which mean donations to the Conservative party) are far more important than actually supplying you water or not covering your beaches in shit.

    How dare you!
    The water companies are shocking and need comprehensive change

    Wales water is non profit making but to nationalise the industry would cost billions

    Much stronger and unlimited fines are necessary
    No, we need to nationalise. It's got beyond fines. Trust is gone.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    A cheering post from Alastair on my way to a wet South of France. It all makes perfect sense and if accurate Heathener a shoo-in for POTY.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,340
    The Tories should be 100% conservative and lose the election if that's what voters want, rather than trying to be slightly other-party-like so to speak.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,948
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    There really is no difference. EU citizens are not British citizens. They choose to work here, as do citizens of other nations. If they are British citizens fine, if not then I can see no reason, other than cynical political advantage, to offer them a vote and why just EU citizens. Why not citizens of other nations.
    Currently Commonwealth citizens can vote including those from Rwanda and Mozambique, if resident for a few weeks. I don't see why extending the vote to other permanent residents is worse.
    You deal with that anomaly by abolishing it, not extending it. If the treatment of Commonwealth citizens were reciprocal then there might be a case for keeping it, but it isn't.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,301
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Anyhow, the Sunday Rawnsley is here:

    Sir Keir has credible grounds for saying he will become prime minister, but his MPs struggle to sound genuinely confident that Labour will secure a parliamentary majority. The explanation is the national mood and the electoral maths.

    There’s a nightmare that stalks the Conservative party. It is that Sir Keir and Sir Ed strike a deal in which the Lib Dems cooperate with Labour in return for a referendum on proportional representation.

    The Labour leader has been unambiguous on one crucial question. He has categorically ruled out any kind of deal with the SNP under any circumstances. He’s learned the lesson from 2015 when his predecessor Ed Miliband was too slow to realise that equivocation would be costly.

    Neither Sir Keir nor Sir Ed are keen to get entangled in talk about a hung parliament, but both have kept the door open to a post-election deal.

    Would Sir Keir issue an invitation to dance anyway? If he finds himself short of a majority or with a small one, there are several ways he could go. One option would be to try to emulate the Wilson model. Harold Wilson won the 1964 election, but with an unworkable majority of just four, which he judged too precarious to sustain a Labour government over a full term. So he established his authority at Number 10, burnished his personal popularity and then went back to the country in 1966 with the slogan “You know Labour government works”. His reward was a much heftier majority of 98 seats. He repeated this two-bites approach, though with less success, in 1974 by forming a minority government after the February election of that year and then going back to the country in October to seek a majority.

    Absent the use of a time machine, we can’t know exactly what the numbers will look like or how the atmosphere will feel after the next election. So no one can be certain, including Sir Keir himself, what he will do if he comes up short. This we do know. Whenever he’s asked to name the past Labour leader that he most admires, his answer is always Wilson.

    Yes, I think that is the most likely outcome if Lab fall short of a majority by a modest amount. Minority government then a repeat GE after a year or so, if polling looks good.
    The challenge there is to find ways of visibly improving things- or at least convincing the public that the country is on a better track- in 18 months or so.

    I suspect the British situation isn't as hopeless as many fear; just not being governed by idiots and restoring belief in competence will unlock meaningful progress, but it won't be quick.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,192
    edited May 2023
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Twelve hours without water here in West Sussex. Twice in three years. Southern water needs to go.

    Appalling leftie whining. We All Know that the private water companies are marvellous, and their profits (which mean donations to the Conservative party) are far more important than actually supplying you water or not covering your beaches in shit.

    How dare you!
    The water companies are shocking and need comprehensive change

    Wales water is non profit making but to nationalise the industry would cost billions

    Much stronger and unlimited fines are necessary
    No, we need to nationalise. It's got beyond fines. Trust is gone.
    Between 15 and 90 billion according to Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/02/water-renationalised-without-compensation-activists-shareholders-england?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Anyhow, the Sunday Rawnsley is here:

    Sir Keir has credible grounds for saying he will become prime minister, but his MPs struggle to sound genuinely confident that Labour will secure a parliamentary majority. The explanation is the national mood and the electoral maths.

    There’s a nightmare that stalks the Conservative party. It is that Sir Keir and Sir Ed strike a deal in which the Lib Dems cooperate with Labour in return for a referendum on proportional representation.

    The Labour leader has been unambiguous on one crucial question. He has categorically ruled out any kind of deal with the SNP under any circumstances. He’s learned the lesson from 2015 when his predecessor Ed Miliband was too slow to realise that equivocation would be costly.

    Neither Sir Keir nor Sir Ed are keen to get entangled in talk about a hung parliament, but both have kept the door open to a post-election deal.

    Would Sir Keir issue an invitation to dance anyway? If he finds himself short of a majority or with a small one, there are several ways he could go. One option would be to try to emulate the Wilson model. Harold Wilson won the 1964 election, but with an unworkable majority of just four, which he judged too precarious to sustain a Labour government over a full term. So he established his authority at Number 10, burnished his personal popularity and then went back to the country in 1966 with the slogan “You know Labour government works”. His reward was a much heftier majority of 98 seats. He repeated this two-bites approach, though with less success, in 1974 by forming a minority government after the February election of that year and then going back to the country in October to seek a majority.

    Absent the use of a time machine, we can’t know exactly what the numbers will look like or how the atmosphere will feel after the next election. So no one can be certain, including Sir Keir himself, what he will do if he comes up short. This we do know. Whenever he’s asked to name the past Labour leader that he most admires, his answer is always Wilson.

    Yes, I think that is the most likely outcome if Lab fall short of a majority by a modest amount. Minority government then a repeat GE after a year or so, if polling looks good.
    The challenge there is to find ways of visibly improving things- or at least convincing the public that the country is on a better track- in 18 months or so.

    I suspect the British situation isn't as hopeless as many fear; just not being governed by idiots and restoring belief in competence will unlock meaningful progress, but it won't be quick.
    It will take about 10 years of discipline to recover from this mess. We can do it, but if anything, my hunch is that the situation is worse than in looks.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Twelve hours without water here in West Sussex. Twice in three years. Southern water needs to go.

    Appalling leftie whining. We All Know that the private water companies are marvellous, and their profits (which mean donations to the Conservative party) are far more important than actually supplying you water or not covering your beaches in shit.

    How dare you!
    The water companies are shocking and need comprehensive change

    Wales water is non profit making but to nationalise the industry would cost billions

    Much stronger and unlimited fines are necessary
    No, we need to nationalise. It's got beyond fines. Trust is gone.
    Between 15 and 90 billion according to Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/02/water-renationalised-without-compensation-activists-shareholders-england?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
    Right now there are care homes around here that have not had water for 12 hours. Do you know what that means?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,138
    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    There is a monumental difference between the 1991 scenario you cite and today: Major was competent. Major led a government which was making the country better. Major was delivering.

    What you and the other obsessives will not face up to is the reality that you have broken this country. the public can see it. Even your hard right can see it. But loyalists? No.

    To pull off a Major 92 you need to actually be competent.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,301

    Jonathan Reynolds on Sky distancing himself from extending votes to EU citizens

    That's the other thing- how seriously should we take a kite-flying article mentioning Labour and the EU in The Telegraph?

    It's not by Boris, so it probably isn't completely made up, but even still, there's a history here.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,514
    edited May 2023
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Anyhow, the Sunday Rawnsley is here:

    Sir Keir has credible grounds for saying he will become prime minister, but his MPs struggle to sound genuinely confident that Labour will secure a parliamentary majority. The explanation is the national mood and the electoral maths.

    There’s a nightmare that stalks the Conservative party. It is that Sir Keir and Sir Ed strike a deal in which the Lib Dems cooperate with Labour in return for a referendum on proportional representation.

    The Labour leader has been unambiguous on one crucial question. He has categorically ruled out any kind of deal with the SNP under any circumstances. He’s learned the lesson from 2015 when his predecessor Ed Miliband was too slow to realise that equivocation would be costly.

    Neither Sir Keir nor Sir Ed are keen to get entangled in talk about a hung parliament, but both have kept the door open to a post-election deal.

    Would Sir Keir issue an invitation to dance anyway? If he finds himself short of a majority or with a small one, there are several ways he could go. One option would be to try to emulate the Wilson model. Harold Wilson won the 1964 election, but with an unworkable majority of just four, which he judged too precarious to sustain a Labour government over a full term. So he established his authority at Number 10, burnished his personal popularity and then went back to the country in 1966 with the slogan “You know Labour government works”. His reward was a much heftier majority of 98 seats. He repeated this two-bites approach, though with less success, in 1974 by forming a minority government after the February election of that year and then going back to the country in October to seek a majority.

    Absent the use of a time machine, we can’t know exactly what the numbers will look like or how the atmosphere will feel after the next election. So no one can be certain, including Sir Keir himself, what he will do if he comes up short. This we do know. Whenever he’s asked to name the past Labour leader that he most admires, his answer is always Wilson.

    Yes, I think that is the most likely outcome if Lab fall short of a majority by a modest amount. Minority government then a repeat GE after a year or so, if polling looks good.
    The other factor is - the relative sizes of the majority in the UK but also in England, given thatr Westminster is the de facto English Parliament as well. But that comes under the rubric of "exactly what the numbers will look like".

    PS: It's entirely possible that SKS ends up with a convincing UK majority but a minority in England; the reverse for the Tories is harder to achieve in UK, because of SNP and PC, but easier in England. Any 'one but not the other' is difficult to operate, for obvious reasons.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,138
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    Your list missed out
    *there is no money to pay for basic public services
    *but corrupt Tory spivs pocket billions of our money
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,192
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Twelve hours without water here in West Sussex. Twice in three years. Southern water needs to go.

    Appalling leftie whining. We All Know that the private water companies are marvellous, and their profits (which mean donations to the Conservative party) are far more important than actually supplying you water or not covering your beaches in shit.

    How dare you!
    The water companies are shocking and need comprehensive change

    Wales water is non profit making but to nationalise the industry would cost billions

    Much stronger and unlimited fines are necessary
    No, we need to nationalise. It's got beyond fines. Trust is gone.
    Between 15 and 90 billion according to Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/02/water-renationalised-without-compensation-activists-shareholders-england?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
    Right now there are care homes around here that have not had water for 12 hours. Do you know what that means?
    It is unacceptable and I do not excuse it at all

    And on the day my son in laws father dies in a nursing home your comment is unnecessary
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,192

    Jonathan Reynolds on Sky distancing himself from extending votes to EU citizens

    That's the other thing- how seriously should we take a kite-flying article mentioning Labour and the EU in The Telegraph?

    It's not by Boris, so it probably isn't completely made up, but even still, there's a history here.
    He said it was part of their review into policy along many other proposals
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,514
    edited May 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    There is a monumental difference between the 1991 scenario you cite and today: Major was competent. Major led a government which was making the country better. Major was delivering.

    What you and the other obsessives will not face up to is the reality that you have broken this country. the public can see it. Even your hard right can see it. But loyalists? No.

    To pull off a Major 92 you need to actually be competent.
    Also - 1992 was pre-devolution. A big difference. SKS is effectively trying to win two elections at once at Westminster - UK and England. So are the Tories.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,956
    Do we have an ETA for the Turkish result? And do they have accurate exit polls?
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 929
    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories should be 100% conservative and lose the election if that's what voters want, rather than trying to be slightly other-party-like so to speak.

    That is a reasonable approach in a proportional representation system. In FPTP the parties must do the internal compromising, coalitioning and triangulation themselves before the election, because the system will not offer the voters an alternative centre-right-ish party to vote for if the Tories decide to veer hard to the right (and vice-versa for Labour).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,574
    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories should be 100% conservative and lose the election if that's what voters want, rather than trying to be slightly other-party-like so to speak.

    100% conservative does not exist, your desired flavour of it will be quite different to other conservatives.

    And if we are talking conservative rather than right wing, the conservative choice here is one Keir Starmer.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,183
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Anyhow, the Sunday Rawnsley is here:

    Sir Keir has credible grounds for saying he will become prime minister, but his MPs struggle to sound genuinely confident that Labour will secure a parliamentary majority. The explanation is the national mood and the electoral maths.

    There’s a nightmare that stalks the Conservative party. It is that Sir Keir and Sir Ed strike a deal in which the Lib Dems cooperate with Labour in return for a referendum on proportional representation.

    The Labour leader has been unambiguous on one crucial question. He has categorically ruled out any kind of deal with the SNP under any circumstances. He’s learned the lesson from 2015 when his predecessor Ed Miliband was too slow to realise that equivocation would be costly.

    Neither Sir Keir nor Sir Ed are keen to get entangled in talk about a hung parliament, but both have kept the door open to a post-election deal.

    Would Sir Keir issue an invitation to dance anyway? If he finds himself short of a majority or with a small one, there are several ways he could go. One option would be to try to emulate the Wilson model. Harold Wilson won the 1964 election, but with an unworkable majority of just four, which he judged too precarious to sustain a Labour government over a full term. So he established his authority at Number 10, burnished his personal popularity and then went back to the country in 1966 with the slogan “You know Labour government works”. His reward was a much heftier majority of 98 seats. He repeated this two-bites approach, though with less success, in 1974 by forming a minority government after the February election of that year and then going back to the country in October to seek a majority.

    Absent the use of a time machine, we can’t know exactly what the numbers will look like or how the atmosphere will feel after the next election. So no one can be certain, including Sir Keir himself, what he will do if he comes up short. This we do know. Whenever he’s asked to name the past Labour leader that he most admires, his answer is always Wilson.

    Yes, I think that is the most likely outcome if Lab fall short of a majority by a modest amount. Minority government then a repeat GE after a year or so, if polling looks good.
    The expectation of which would put pressure on the Tories not to go off on a flight of fancy under some nutty leader, perhaps?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,138
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Twelve hours without water here in West Sussex. Twice in three years. Southern water needs to go.

    Appalling leftie whining. We All Know that the private water companies are marvellous, and their profits (which mean donations to the Conservative party) are far more important than actually supplying you water or not covering your beaches in shit.

    How dare you!
    The water companies are shocking and need comprehensive change

    Wales water is non profit making but to nationalise the industry would cost billions

    Much stronger and unlimited fines are necessary
    No, we need to nationalise. It's got beyond fines. Trust is gone.
    It is a regulated industry. No need to renationalise - simply regulate them properly. You will not dump shit on our beaches. You will not fail to replace old pipes. If you do bad things we will fine you to death.

    What it will do is make the private companies look unappealing. No more will they be able to under-invest and make vast profits / donate money to the Tory party. So others will step into contention and eventually replace them - and the replacement can be a StateCo. But why hand public money over to buy spiv water companies?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited May 2023

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Twelve hours without water here in West Sussex. Twice in three years. Southern water needs to go.

    Appalling leftie whining. We All Know that the private water companies are marvellous, and their profits (which mean donations to the Conservative party) are far more important than actually supplying you water or not covering your beaches in shit.

    How dare you!
    The water companies are shocking and need comprehensive change

    Wales water is non profit making but to nationalise the industry would cost billions

    Much stronger and unlimited fines are necessary
    No, we need to nationalise. It's got beyond fines. Trust is gone.
    Between 15 and 90 billion according to Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/02/water-renationalised-without-compensation-activists-shareholders-england?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
    Right now there are care homes around here that have not had water for 12 hours. Do you know what that means?
    It is unacceptable and I do not excuse it at all

    And on the day my son in laws father dies in a nursing home your comment is unnecessary
    I did not know that your son in laws father died in a nursing home. I am sorry for your loss. My father died in a nursing home in January.

    What is unnecessary is that right here, right now someone is going through all that without water.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,301

    Jonathan Reynolds on Sky distancing himself from extending votes to EU citizens

    That's the other thing- how seriously should we take a kite-flying article mentioning Labour and the EU in The Telegraph?

    It's not by Boris, so it probably isn't completely made up, but even still, there's a history here.
    He said it was part of their review into policy along many other proposals
    That I can believe. It's an idea someone has put on a list, that may or may not happen.

    Quite a way from that to "Sir Kier Starmer will hand the vote to millions of EU citizens if Labour wins", though.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,181

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories should be 100% conservative and lose the election if that's what voters want, rather than trying to be slightly other-party-like so to speak.

    100% conservative does not exist, your desired flavour of it will be quite different to other conservatives.

    And if we are talking conservative rather than right wing, the conservative choice here is one Keir Starmer.
    How can you tell?

    Even Sir Keir’s fans on here admit that they have no idea how he’ll govern, which they think is fantastically cunning of him
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,574

    Do we have an ETA for the Turkish result? And do they have accurate exit polls?

    Apparently, the Christmas party is in line for another very disappointing election. Turkeys just won't vote for them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,067
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Well, I am. I don't think non-citizens should have the vote. If they have settled status and want to vote they should take out naturalisation.

    The Commonwealth is a legacy arrangement and frankly an anachronism. Ireland of course is a special case.

    I'm also not sold on votes for 16 year olds. If we say they're not of sufficient capacity to drive or marry why should they be deemed ready to vote?
    So, if they pass their driving license at 17 they should be able to vote then?
    What about marry?
    Also, people can marry at 16 with the approval of their parents. Will the same stipulation apply to voting?
    Incidentally, this comment is incorrect. The minimum legal age of marriage in England and Wales is 18.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/legal-age-of-marriage-in-england-and-wales-rises-to-18#:~:text=The age of 18 is,forced marriage in our society.

    If we are to lower the voting age, surely we should reverse that law?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,067

    Do we have an ETA for the Turkish result? And do they have accurate exit polls?

    Apparently, the Christmas party is in line for another very disappointing election. Turkeys just won't vote for them.
    Surely they're at least in line for a stuffing?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,574

    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories should be 100% conservative and lose the election if that's what voters want, rather than trying to be slightly other-party-like so to speak.

    100% conservative does not exist, your desired flavour of it will be quite different to other conservatives.

    And if we are talking conservative rather than right wing, the conservative choice here is one Keir Starmer.
    How can you tell?

    Even Sir Keir’s fans on here admit that they have no idea how he’ll govern, which they think is fantastically cunning of him
    Because I know how "un-conservative" the current lot are. They repeatedly denigrate our laws, judges, institutions, doctors, teachers, and more for a cheap headline in a vain attempt to shore up their poll ratings whilst they play musical chairs battling for control of a bunch of toddler MPs.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Twelve hours without water here in West Sussex. Twice in three years. Southern water needs to go.

    Appalling leftie whining. We All Know that the private water companies are marvellous, and their profits (which mean donations to the Conservative party) are far more important than actually supplying you water or not covering your beaches in shit.

    How dare you!
    The water companies are shocking and need comprehensive change

    Wales water is non profit making but to nationalise the industry would cost billions

    Much stronger and unlimited fines are necessary
    No, we need to nationalise. It's got beyond fines. Trust is gone.
    It is a regulated industry. No need to renationalise - simply regulate them properly. You will not dump shit on our beaches. You will not fail to replace old pipes. If you do bad things we will fine you to death.

    What it will do is make the private companies look unappealing. No more will they be able to under-invest and make vast profits / donate money to the Tory party. So others will step into contention and eventually replace them - and the replacement can be a StateCo. But why hand public money over to buy spiv water companies?
    I am not sure I trust a regulaTORY system that sees folks like Sharp overseeing the BBC.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,956
    edited May 2023
    I think having adulthood legally phased in by certain things being possible at different ages is no bad thing.

    Voting should be at the older end, however, as that affects the whole country, not just oneself.

    If Starmer does introduce a PR referendum without it being in his manifesto that would be a green light for any other party to do likewise with electoral reform. It would not be a wise precedent to set.

    Edited extra bit: now I think of it, there was the STV referendum. That was unique, having been something nobody wanted. I wasn't a fan of that either.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,118
     
    ydoethur said:

    Do we have an ETA for the Turkish result? And do they have accurate exit polls?

    Apparently, the Christmas party is in line for another very disappointing election. Turkeys just won't vote for them.
    Surely they're at least in line for a stuffing?
    Sage comment.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,574

    I think having adulthood legally phased in by certain things being possible at different ages is no bad thing.

    Voting should be at the older end, however, as that affects the whole country, not just oneself.

    If Starmer does introduce a PR referendum without it being in his manifesto that would be a green light for any other party to do likewise with electoral reform. It would not be a wise precedent to set.

    Edited extra bit: now I think of it, there was the STV referendum. That was unique, having been something nobody wanted. I wasn't a fan of that either.

    Surely the precedent has just been set?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,138
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Twelve hours without water here in West Sussex. Twice in three years. Southern water needs to go.

    Appalling leftie whining. We All Know that the private water companies are marvellous, and their profits (which mean donations to the Conservative party) are far more important than actually supplying you water or not covering your beaches in shit.

    How dare you!
    The water companies are shocking and need comprehensive change

    Wales water is non profit making but to nationalise the industry would cost billions

    Much stronger and unlimited fines are necessary
    No, we need to nationalise. It's got beyond fines. Trust is gone.
    It is a regulated industry. No need to renationalise - simply regulate them properly. You will not dump shit on our beaches. You will not fail to replace old pipes. If you do bad things we will fine you to death.

    What it will do is make the private companies look unappealing. No more will they be able to under-invest and make vast profits / donate money to the Tory party. So others will step into contention and eventually replace them - and the replacement can be a StateCo. But why hand public money over to buy spiv water companies?
    I am not sure I trust a regulaTORY system that sees folks like Sharp overseeing the BBC.
    Would be a Labour government regulating it though.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,024
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    You must live in the England's worst shithole.

    Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,956
    Mr. Above, aye, and a bad one at that.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,976
    I think what would actually help the Tories is getting Rees-Mogg/ Pate / Dorries off the tele. The more they appear, the worse the impact on the Tory numbers I think

    Seeing most seem to present on GB news or Talk TV, that might be hard, but they’re doomed if it looks like the tories are fronted and controlled by figures like Mogg
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,138

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    You must live in the England's worst shithole.

    Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
    Not sure where you live, but going off the big swing away from the Tories in the red wall the other week it seems clear that most northerners recognise what Jonathan has listed...
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,348

    Do we have an ETA for the Turkish result? And do they have accurate exit polls?

    It’s a straight up national count so I think the results come through quite quickly.

    This is a real test of whether Turkey is still a democracy, even a hybrid one. If KK looks like winning outright in the first round then Erdogan faces a choice: fairly blatant vote rigging, or accept the result.

    If Erdogan wins round 1, well then he can continue to celebrate his “democratic mandate”. If it goes to a second round runoff then he has all the tools of the state at his disposal to ensure he wins second time around.

    If I were Erdogan I think I’d be tempted to let things be what they be. He’s up against a nice chap who is supported by a very broad coalition that will almost inevitably collapse fairly soon after any victory. I doubt KK has the steel necessary to cement power. So give it s couple of years of disillusionment and he gets to sweep back into power. This time for good.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,303
    What did last night's Opinium say?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    You must live in the England's worst shithole.

    Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
    Southerners outside the cities definitely get a raw deal and need to speak up more.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,799
    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    If they are deemed to be to "unformed" to jail for things like rape then they are too "unformed" to vote
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,809

    What did last night's Opinium say?

    Morning, Nick.

    Con 29% (+3)
    Lab 43% (-1)
    Lib Dems 11% (+1)
    Green 5% (-2)
    Reform UK 6% (-1)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,514
    edited May 2023

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    You must live in the England's worst shithole.

    Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
    Not sure where you live, but going off the big swing away from the Tories in the red wall the other week it seems clear that most northerners recognise what Jonathan has listed...
    It's quite a shock to drive through Kent, say through Maidstone and then down the Medway valley to Chatham. Hell of a contrast between the different areas.

    Edit: not speaking specifically of Maidstone and Chatham - just the contrasting wealth and poverty encountered successively on different parts of the one drive.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,546
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Well, I am. I don't think non-citizens should have the vote. If they have settled status and want to vote they should take out naturalisation.

    The Commonwealth is a legacy arrangement and frankly an anachronism. Ireland of course is a special case.

    I'm also not sold on votes for 16 year olds. If we say they're not of sufficient capacity to drive or marry why should they be deemed ready to vote?
    I fear votes for 16 year olds has too much momentum within several parties to stop, but it is a nonsense.

    Yes, we do set different age rules for
    different things and some inconsistencies remain, but bar one very contentious issue the general trend is to treat 16 year olds as kids. Christ, people act like 20 year olds are kids sometimes. Giving votes at 16 would be bizarre given our infantilising positions.

    It's just pandering.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,024

    Keep calm, disciplined and focused, and deliver for the base - couple it with a sensible long-term plan that resonates in layman's terms and delivers jam.

    That's the only hope.

    Which bit of the base? There are currently two main wings of the Conservative party, both wanting broadly the same thing - roughly Thatcherite pomp, global Britain, smaller state and lower taxes.

    The distinction is between those (Truss/JRM etc, currently dispossessed) who want those fundamentals now, whatever the consequences and the current government (Sunak/Hunt etc, currently in charge) who want them when the time is ripe and think that time isn't now.

    It's very hard to come up with a plan that pleases both fundamentalists and realists, especially when personal ambition is involved. See the agonies May went through.

    The other problem the Conservatives have is that, even if those two bases unite, it's not enough unless things are going very well or the opposition are truly scary. And anyone Conservative-minded but to the left of, say, Tom Tugendhat, has wandered off.
    There's a section of Conservatives who are happier being in opposition as that allows them to complain and make impossible demands without having to deal with the realities and actually deliver.

    The 'bonfire of laws' is a good example as those complaining want to do it for the sake of doing it with no interest on what the effects would be.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,181
    Roger said:

    A cheering post from Alastair on my way to a wet South of France. It all makes perfect sense and if accurate Heathener a shoo-in for POTY.

    At least she’s finally learnt to ejaculate a less colourful die
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,799
    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    There really is no difference. EU citizens are not British citizens. They choose to work here, as do citizens of other nations. If they are British citizens fine, if not then I can see no reason, other than cynical political advantage, to offer them a vote and why just EU citizens. Why not citizens of other nations.
    There is a very clear difference between restricting someone’s right to vote and expanding people’s right to vote.

    It’s like saying there’s no difference between 1. making speeding a criminal offence, or 2. increasing the speed limit to 80mph. You might not agree with 2, but it’s very clearly different,
    While I get why you are saying increasing the franchise is different, you miss the fact that increasing the franchise devalues the votes of everyone who can already vote by diluting it. Would you rather your vote was 1 voice of 1,000 or one voice of 2,000
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,971
    IanB2 said:

    Anyhow, the Sunday Rawnsley is here:

    Sir Keir has credible grounds for saying he will become prime minister, but his MPs struggle to sound genuinely confident that Labour will secure a parliamentary majority. The explanation is the national mood and the electoral maths.

    There’s a nightmare that stalks the Conservative party. It is that Sir Keir and Sir Ed strike a deal in which the Lib Dems cooperate with Labour in return for a referendum on proportional representation.

    The Labour leader has been unambiguous on one crucial question. He has categorically ruled out any kind of deal with the SNP under any circumstances. He’s learned the lesson from 2015 when his predecessor Ed Miliband was too slow to realise that equivocation would be costly.

    Neither Sir Keir nor Sir Ed are keen to get entangled in talk about a hung parliament, but both have kept the door open to a post-election deal.

    Would Sir Keir issue an invitation to dance anyway? If he finds himself short of a majority or with a small one, there are several ways he could go. One option would be to try to emulate the Wilson model. Harold Wilson won the 1964 election, but with an unworkable majority of just four, which he judged too precarious to sustain a Labour government over a full term. So he established his authority at Number 10, burnished his personal popularity and then went back to the country in 1966 with the slogan “You know Labour government works”. His reward was a much heftier majority of 98 seats. He repeated this two-bites approach, though with less success, in 1974 by forming a minority government after the February election of that year and then going back to the country in October to seek a majority.

    Absent the use of a time machine, we can’t know exactly what the numbers will look like or how the atmosphere will feel after the next election. So no one can be certain, including Sir Keir himself, what he will do if he comes up short. This we do know. Whenever he’s asked to name the past Labour leader that he most admires, his answer is always Wilson.

    I’d welcome a referendum on genuine PR and a chance to discuss it.

    STV with multi member seat I’d favour but not if you voted just for a party. It would have to be a candidate. Otherwise you just get party preferred candidates in order of preference to the party not the people making a choice. Like with the EU elections.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,024
    edited May 2023
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    You must live in England's worst shithole.

    Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
    Southerners outside the cities definitely get a raw deal and need to speak up more.
    Perhaps you should stop obsessing about house prices and voting for nimby politicians.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,665
    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    There really is no difference. EU citizens are not British citizens. They choose to work here, as do citizens of other nations. If they are British citizens fine, if not then I can see no reason, other than cynical political advantage, to offer them a vote and why just EU citizens. Why not citizens of other nations.
    There is a very clear difference between restricting someone’s right to vote and expanding people’s right to vote.

    It’s like saying there’s no difference between 1. making speeding a criminal offence, or 2. increasing the speed limit to 80mph. You might not agree with 2, but it’s very clearly different,
    While I get why you are saying increasing the franchise is different, you miss the fact that increasing the franchise devalues the votes of everyone who can already vote by diluting it. Would you rather your vote was 1 voice of 1,000 or one voice of 2,000
    Where you get to choose which people have no value?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,546
    edited May 2023
    TimS said:

    Do we have an ETA for the Turkish result? And do they have accurate exit polls?

    It’s a straight up national count so I think the results come through quite quickly.

    This is a real test of whether Turkey is still a democracy, even a hybrid one. If KK looks like winning outright in the first round then Erdogan faces a choice: fairly blatant vote rigging, or accept the result.

    If Erdogan wins round 1, well then he can continue to celebrate his “democratic mandate”. If it goes to a second round runoff then he has all the tools of the state at his disposal to ensure he wins second time around.

    If I were Erdogan I think I’d be tempted to let things be what they be. He’s up against a nice chap who is supported by a very broad coalition that will almost inevitably collapse fairly soon after any victory. I doubt KK has the steel necessary to cement power. So give it s couple of years of disillusionment and he gets to sweep back into power. This time for good.
    Autocrats (my auticorrect changed that to Eurocrats, which is weird) overtime lose the sense to accept brief setbacks. He's not got full control but been in power so long he may no longer be able to face even briefly being out so may consider it time for the final confrontation.

    There was that time he got a mayoral election spuriosly overturned and that blew up in his face. I believe that guy was barred from running against him.

    Any runoff gives opportunity to ramp up the interference, whether he was 1st or second.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,544
    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    There really is no difference. EU citizens are not British citizens. They choose to work here, as do citizens of other nations. If they are British citizens fine, if not then I can see no reason, other than cynical political advantage, to offer them a vote and why just EU citizens. Why not citizens of other nations.
    Currently Commonwealth citizens can vote including those from Rwanda and Mozambique, if resident for a few weeks. I don't see why extending the vote to other permanent residents is worse.
    Begs the question why should commonwealth citizens be given that right then ?
    They've always had it, it's just never been taken away. The UK as we currently know it as a sovereign state with defined borders is a 20th century invention: prior to that the relevant entity was the British Empire. The British Empire was centred on Britain but the boundaries between it and the Colonies and Dominions were a lot more blurry. A person born in, say, New Zealand or Trinidad would have "British" on their passport and if they had a house in, say, London could vote if they met the same criteria as a native Englishman.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    You must live in England's worst shithole.

    Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
    Southerners outside the cities definitely get a raw deal and need to speak up more.
    Perhaps you should stop obsessing about house prices and voting for nimby politicians.
    Sigh. The North and the South have more in common than you might think.

    Nevertheless, it was healthy that on election day the district council changed hands for the first time in 20 years. It would even healthier if we had a different flavour of MP for the first time in 100 years.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,998
    ...
    pigeon said:

    Keep calm, disciplined and focused, and deliver for the base - couple it with a sensible long-term plan that resonates in layman's terms and delivers jam.

    That's the only hope.

    IanB2 said:

    The other advantage of May 2024 is the point I made yesterday - the locals are likely to be truly terrible for the tarnished Tories, given the high base they are defending, and that will put a political shadow over the rest of the year. Taking the GE early at least avoids that, and the local defeats will get lost in the other news (and probably not be as bad on GE day, anyway, since some of the protest vote will come home).

    My case for Spring '24 is that it's just after a Budget, so that's the moment to pretend that a recovery is underway and use it as an excuse for targeted tax cuts, then go straight to the country. I'd not considered the local elections angle, but it's another tick in the column.

    In Hunt's place, which thank Christ I am not, I would favour the abolition of IHT (to get the rich olds all hard and wet,) plus a token but eye-catching penny off the basic rate. I'd then claim that Labour would hike taxes back up and wreck the glorious recovery.

    Of course, a direct cash bribe to the elderly would also help. I wonder if the Tories might find an excuse to jack up the state pension next year in excess of what's mandated by the triple lock?
    I'm not sure all that won't be seen as too transparent. Public and televised executions has to be part of the winning formula.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,971

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    You must live in the England's worst shithole.

    Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
    Not sure where you live, but going off the big swing away from the Tories in the red wall the other week it seems clear that most northerners recognise what Jonathan has listed...
    I think you summed up it all with regard to the red wall rather well in a post earlier this week

    My hope is labour don’t see the voters returning as repenting sinners. I suspect they won’t. The Corbynites would.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,948
    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    Voter ID is a procedural question and has nothing to do with voting rights.

    You might as well argue that turnout is a measure of enfranchisement rather than inclination.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,546
    Jonathan is correct that for the Tories the problem is a lot of things look or feel like shit now. Thats the vibe that is out there, some of it their fault some if it circumstance. It's very hard to overcome - people won't give credit where it's due and will cast blame where it's not.

    Contrarily elections like 2015 with a Labour message of how bad thing were didnt ring true.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,243
    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Sunak's failure is one of policy, not personality. His policies are actively worsening the cost of living crisis and flirting with a huge recession. We cannot say that he is plotting an economically responsible path, because he isn't - he's throwing money at the Bank of England to sponsor it selling off Government bonds at a loss, amongst a growing list of huge money spaffs. Coupled with his loony Corporation Tax increase, and his attacks on the oil industry during an energy crisis, what he and Hunt are doing is running the economy into the ground.

    I don't know whether a change of leadership can save the Tory Party from electoral ruin, but he and his toxic team do need to be removed from office to save the country.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,546

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    You must live in England's worst shithole.

    Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
    Southerners outside the cities definitely get a raw deal and need to speak up more.
    Perhaps you should stop obsessing about house prices and voting for nimby politicians.
    That is every party though!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,906

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    You must live in England's worst shithole.

    Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
    Southerners outside the cities definitely get a raw deal and need to speak up more.
    Perhaps you should stop obsessing about house prices and voting for nimby politicians.
    The idea homeowners outside the south aren’t interested in house prices is rather sweet.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,809
    Morning all :)

    The central theme for me remains the waste of the last decade or more. Whatever I may or may not of thought of the Thatcher/Major years, it was impossible to argue the country had been transformed and the Britain of 1997 bore hardly any relation to the Britain of 1979.

    Looking back from 2023, I'm forced to ask what the Conservatives have done for the past 13 years. Apart from what was frankly self-indulgence on the European Union, I'm struggling to think of anything.

    Looking forward, why would anyone vote Conservative next time? It's often said on here Labour have not been forthcoming about their plans for Government - the same can be said of the Conservatives and indeed the offering seems to be five more years of managed decline. Simply saying "Labour would be worse" isn't an answer - it's an excuse and seeing as Labour haven't been in Government since 2010 one an increasing number of voters will find unconvincing.

    As for Sunak's position, the local elections weren't bad enough to instigate a challenge or a VONC - had it been 2,000 seats lost it might have been different. In any case, who is the potential successor and in the absence of an obvious candidate (such as Howard replacing IDS or Sunak himself replacing Truss), would the public respond well to another round of fraternal self-indulgence (I suspect not)?

  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,799
    Jonathan said:

    theProle said:

    Jonathan said:

    Turnout in elections is worryingly low. That’s the problem to solve. It’s not good for the country that people do not engage. Cliques are rewarded. I’m interested in ideas that get more people out to vote.

    Maybe the best thing would be some parties worth voting for. The current lot are useless, the other lot are shaping up to be worse - why exactly should you vote?
    Democracy is not show business its about civic duty. If you don't vote you have no right to complain and the politicians have no incentive to do a good job.
    Most people vote currently in general elections, politicians have been failing to do a good job for the best part of half a century despite most people voting. I do not think therefore you can claim the premise that voting gives politicians an incentive to do a good job holds water.

    A voter strike whereby not a single person casts a vote in a general election may well however finally send them a message
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,906

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    Voter ID is a procedural question and has nothing to do with voting rights.

    You might as well argue that turnout is a measure of enfranchisement rather than inclination.
    Yes - what procedures can the Tories introduce to make it harder for people in non-Tory demographics to vote?

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,906
    stodge said:

    What did last night's Opinium say?

    Morning, Nick.

    Con 29% (+3)
    Lab 43% (-1)
    Lib Dems 11% (+1)
    Green 5% (-2)
    Reform UK 6% (-1)

    Reversion to the Opinium trend. The previous one did look like an outlier.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,809
    On the issue of changing the voting system, the argument for seeking wider public approval via a referendum to change the system for Westminster is a strong one.

    However, I see no similar requirement to change the system for local elections. Indeed, the system imposed by Labour for electing the London Mayor is going to be replaced without consultation by the Conservatives.

    Changing all local elections to STV might be the kind of something Davey could be suggesting in return for some limited support for a minority Labour Government - the recent local contests showed how FPTP can be as unfair to those getting most votes as it can be to those getting fewer votes. In other words, at local level, non-Conservative parties have been able to use FPTP against the Conservatives.

    The anomaly of Bracknell Forest looks as ridiculous as the anomaly of Newham and no doubt many other areas where the distribution of seats runs counter to the distribution of votes.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,024

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.

    The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...

    * Prices are still rising with double digits.
    * Taxes are higher than they've ever been

    *You cannot get a doctor's appointment.
    *You cannot signup to a dentist.
    *The hospitals are on strike

    *The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush.
    *The trains do not run.

    *You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy
    *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.

    *The greenbelt is a building site,
    *but people cannot afford a place of their own

    *The water companies pollute our rivers at will,
    * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
    You must live in the England's worst shithole.

    Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
    Not sure where you live, but going off the big swing away from the Tories in the red wall the other week it seems clear that most northerners recognise what Jonathan has listed...
    I think there's a general and genuine anger about the greed and sleaze and lies and 'one rule for us and another rule for you' mentality of the Conservatives.

    But last week the Conservatives did well in Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Walsall, Thurrock, Peterborough, Hyndburn - life isn't so bad in all the 'grim' places.

    And indeed for many millions it's never been better - full employment, pay rises, affordable housing, a better environment and now interest getting paid on savings accounts.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,058
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Well, I am. I don't think non-citizens should have the vote. If they have settled status and want to vote they should take out naturalisation.

    The Commonwealth is a legacy arrangement and frankly an anachronism. Ireland of course is a special case.

    I'm also not sold on votes for 16 year olds. If we say they're not of sufficient capacity to drive or marry why should they be deemed ready to vote?
    No representation without taxation.

    If they are taxpayers then they should have the vote.
    Why?

    Tourists pay VAT. And fuel tax. Should they have the vote?

    Small children pay tax when buying things online. Should they?
    Tax on goods. Don’t buy them if you object/ think too expensive. But you have no choice about whether or not to pay income tax.
    Sure you do: don't want to pay income tax, don't have an income.
    You'll get hammered on the wealth tax, mind...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,948
    edited May 2023

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    Voter ID is a procedural question and has nothing to do with voting rights.

    You might as well argue that turnout is a measure of enfranchisement rather than inclination.
    Yes - what procedures can the Tories introduce to make it harder for people in non-Tory demographics to vote?
    Is it not frankly outrageous that people are expected to go through the palaver of going to a polling station or filling in a postal vote? The can't-be-arsed demographic is being actively suppressed and yet we call ourselves democratic!
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,799
    FF43 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    Both are cynical and self serving, but there is a huge difference.

    One enfranchises more voters; the other disenfranchises voters. One expands democratic rights; the other restricts them.

    I’m not convinced on votes for 16 year olds personally, given most are still completely financially dependent and not yet making decisions for others, but it’s a reasonable thing to look at. Why not 17 - same age as driving.
    There really is no difference. EU citizens are not British citizens. They choose to work here, as do citizens of other nations. If they are British citizens fine, if not then I can see no reason, other than cynical political advantage, to offer them a vote and why just EU citizens. Why not citizens of other nations.
    There is a very clear difference between restricting someone’s right to vote and expanding people’s right to vote.

    It’s like saying there’s no difference between 1. making speeding a criminal offence, or 2. increasing the speed limit to 80mph. You might not agree with 2, but it’s very clearly different,
    While I get why you are saying increasing the franchise is different, you miss the fact that increasing the franchise devalues the votes of everyone who can already vote by diluting it. Would you rather your vote was 1 voice of 1,000 or one voice of 2,000
    Where you get to choose which people have no value?
    Where did I say that? I was just contesting the idea that extending the franchise is cost free in terms of other voters. I did not ask for a restriction of the franchise from where it currently stands and if I were to the first target would be ex pats frankly.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,546
    edited May 2023
    stodge said:

    On the issue of changing the voting system, the argument for seeking wider public approval via a referendum to change the system for Westminster is a strong one.

    However, I see no similar requirement to change the system for local elections. Indeed, the system imposed by Labour for electing the London Mayor is going to be replaced without consultation by the Conservatives.

    Changing all local elections to STV might be the kind of something Davey could be suggesting in return for some limited support for a minority Labour Government - the recent local contests showed how FPTP can be as unfair to those getting most votes as it can be to those getting fewer votes. In other words, at local level, non-Conservative parties have been able to use FPTP against the Conservatives.

    The anomaly of Bracknell Forest looks as ridiculous as the anomaly of Newham and no doubt many other areas where the distribution of seats runs counter to the distribution of votes.

    The Tories have already recently changed PCC and mayoral voting (not just going to but have) and it was not even a manifesto commitment I believe - I think they claim it was because there was a line about supporting FPTP, but nothing specific. There can be no complaints about changing the system at sub national level.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,809

    stodge said:

    What did last night's Opinium say?

    Morning, Nick.

    Con 29% (+3)
    Lab 43% (-1)
    Lib Dems 11% (+1)
    Green 5% (-2)
    Reform UK 6% (-1)

    Reversion to the Opinium trend. The previous one did look like an outlier.

    I imagine tomorrow's Redfield & Wilton will show the LDs down four to six points from the 16% share in the last poll. No doubt that will attract all the usual tired old comments - IF that vote heads to the Conservatives it will be interesting, if it goes (as I suspect) to Labour, less so.

    There are outlier polls - indeed, many of them are conceivably. If you think 41-29-16 was wrong then I suspect 51-24-10 from Omnisis is also a bit off as well. The outlier is often followed by a reversion to trend in the next poll - I think we are currently at Labour at 45% or just above, Conservatives at 30% or just below and Liberal Democrats at 10% or just above. Putting a plus or minus of two points on those numbers seems to reflect where we may be - I wouldn't take the local election NEV too seriously given local elections (and especially this round) have a bigger share of vote for Independent/Residents candidates.
This discussion has been closed.