The important factor is differential turnout. The drop in SNP seats in 2017 was due to disillusioned independence supporters staying at home, rather than switching to unionist parties. The same could happen at the next GE, not just to the SNP but to the Tories. Is anyone comparing likelihood to vote in current polls compared to past polls?
That's simply incorrect.
In 2017 the SNP lost 476,867 votes whilst the Tories gained 323,852 votes from the 2015 GE.
Put it another way, currently less than half of 2019 Conservative voters will vote the same way next time. I think there will be some reversion of Reform Party supporters and Don't Knows but not nearly enough, unless anything else changes.
And add critical other point. There's no churn in these tables. No-one is moving to the Conservatives to make up their losses.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995. 31 councils, compared to 8.
Yes, but since many local elections are in thirds, you can’t make direct comparisons like that. Some of the councils they retain are due to the batches of councillors elected by the relatively good Tory results of 2020 - the ones they’ll be defending next year!
There’s also the geography - while the Tories did reasonably well in parts of the Midlands, their results in the southern Home Counties were pretty bad by any historical standard.
I was in my original home town of Sevenoaks yesterday, and happened to notice from the Town Council noticeboard that fifteen of the sixteen town councillors just elected are LibDems, with just one remaining Tory. OK, it’s just a town council, but when I was growing up there anyone but the Tories would struggle to get anyone elected to anything.
1995 is a like for like comparison, since it was the same round as this year. Mostly, all out eletions in the District Councils.
Back in 1995, the Conservatives finished 11% behind Labour in Hertsmere. This time, they were 9% ahead (but still lost overall control).
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995. 31 councils, compared to 8.
Yes, but since many local elections are in thirds, you can’t make direct comparisons like that. Some of the councils they retain are due to the batches of councillors elected by the relatively good Tory results of 2020 - the ones they’ll be defending next year!
There’s also the geography - while the Tories did reasonably well in parts of the Midlands, their results in the southern Home Counties were pretty bad by any historical standard.
I was in my original home town of Sevenoaks yesterday, and happened to notice from the Town Council noticeboard that fifteen of the sixteen town councillors just elected are LibDems, with just one remaining Tory. OK, it’s just a town council, but when I was growing up there anyone but the Tories would struggle to get anyone elected to anything.
1995 is a like for like comparison, since it was the same round as this year. Mostly, all out eletions in the District Councils.
Back in 1995, the Conservatives finished 11% behind Labour in Hertsmere. This time, they were 9% ahead (but still lost overall control).
In the 1995 local elections Major's Tories got 25% NEV. In the 2023 local elections Sunak's Tories got 26% NEV fractionally better but not much more. The main thing that won them slightly more councils was that Starmer did worse than Blair. New Labour got 47% in the 1995 locals NEV while Starmer Labour got only 35% NEV in the 2023 locals with LDs and Independents and Greens making up the balance
"Water companies are struggling to hold their finances in order as interest rates rise on the huge debts they have taken on to pay dividends, according to a leading economist.
Dieter Helm, a professor of economic policy at the University of Oxford and an adviser to governments, said there were worrying signs from water companies about their financial stability as the economic crisis pushes up interest rates.
At privatisation in 1989, the nine English water companies were debt free. Between 1991 and 2019 they took on £52bn of debt, according to analysis. By last year debt had risen to £56.2bn, with Ofwat warning of concerns about the financial resilience of the sector."
Borrowing money to pay dividends seems utterly reckless.
The trouble is that if they go bust the problem is on us. What do you do about public goods being owned by private monopolies?
It is a reasonable centrist political position that while capitalism is great, delivering the invisible hand's fancy cakes and woolly hats and foreign holidays with aplomb, every activity where the taxpayer is the bailout of last resort because of its infrastructure nature should be owned and regulated by the tax payer.
Basically this prevailed until fairly recently (though not perhaps with banks) but has been so abandoned that ineffective regulation of the private sector is now a major industry. (Rail, water and so on).
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
Hard to believe Labour will get anywhere near 20-25 in Scotland. People hate Labour almost as much as the Tories.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995.
I think everyone is just exasperated.
People find the current government venal, embarrassing and shit, and suspect Starmer's government will be the same - but it's a necessary change nonetheless.
We generally expect government to be a bit crap. We are disappointed about it but can live with it, as governing is hard and our problems are legion.
But at a certain point public perception can just snap in frustration about how crap things seem. We've reached that point.
So even though we also don't like the overly gloomy, efforts to tell us actually things are great or in safe hands just makes us get mad or scoff.
Sunak seems to be trying the Macmillan approach - next year inflation will be halved, waiting lists will be less catastrophic, there will have been some successes in intercepting smalll boats, and he'll be saying "You've never (or not for years) had it so good, why would you change now?" It worked for Macmillan as I recall. But although it's probably the best plan available, it's unlikely to overcome the "Oh, we're tried of you" sense which now seems very general.
Except for those of us whose memories extend back more than a decade, it's a deeply unconvincing line - and the young aren't going to vote for him in any great numbers either.
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The anti-Tory vote will be well organised.
The bigger problem for Rishi is actually getting the Tory vote to show up.
If both happen, he's in real trouble.
Until the locals I was not convinced your first sentence was correct, but after those results I do think you are right. The LDs were polling really quite low but had spectacular results in their areas. Since then several polls have shown a slight increase in their ratings and a slight lowering of Labour. I have chosen (whether correct or not) to believe that is a reflection of tactical voting rather than a change in support for these parties. If it continues and nothing else changes I think it could be a slaughter with Labour taking their targets and the LDs taking theirs. It could be the LDs do spectacularly well. @HYUFD has already pointed out the situation in Henley and you only have to look at Gove's Surrey Heath seat to look at what the LDs did there. It is a seat I am very familiar with from the past and which used to have 100% Tory Council control. The issue for the LDs will be resources. They could also do with getting that national poll rating up more. That needs by elections and a greater awareness of tactical voting.
In contrast to 1997 the Tories now do better with the skilled working class but worse with the upper middle class. That was shown in the local elections where the Tories lost control of every council in Surrey, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire except Reigate and Broxbourne but held Dudley, Harlow, Dartford, Basildon and Walsall all of which voted for Blair in 1997.
So I expect the Tories to lose seats like Henley, Wantage and Esher and Walton and Surrey SW potentially to the LDs which Major held but hold some seats like Harlow, Basildon and Dudley which Blair won
"Water companies are struggling to hold their finances in order as interest rates rise on the huge debts they have taken on to pay dividends, according to a leading economist.
Dieter Helm, a professor of economic policy at the University of Oxford and an adviser to governments, said there were worrying signs from water companies about their financial stability as the economic crisis pushes up interest rates.
At privatisation in 1989, the nine English water companies were debt free. Between 1991 and 2019 they took on £52bn of debt, according to analysis. By last year debt had risen to £56.2bn, with Ofwat warning of concerns about the financial resilience of the sector."
Borrowing money to pay dividends seems utterly reckless.
The trouble is that if they go bust the problem is on us. What do you do about public goods being owned by private monopolies?
You nationalise them and take on the debt but wipe out the equity interest.
But from an investment point of view the water companies are just a guaranteed flow of income coming from water bills. Yes, yes, there is this pesky and occasionally embarrassing drainage problem but essentially their value is what it would cost to get that income flow from an alternative source. When interest rates were 0.1% their value was sky high because it would have taken a hell of a lot of gilts to generate that income. Now, it is somewhat less but still positive. It takes real incompetence to make a mess of a business like that.
But that assumes people are trying to run a business rather than cream off a nice earner whilst they can.
It's a good model for the recipients ; extract huge profits for shareholders, while another arm of the commercial oligarchy, the billionare-owned tabloid press, for decades solely blames immigration or population pressures for the state of facilities ; and thus helping ensure a continual lack of proper accountability or scrutiny, or the proper commercial regulation that other European countries have.
Trebles all around.
Just to add, that if the tabloids do finally stop acting solely as diverters on issues like water and other privatised utilities, the Conservatives are even deeper trouble.
The public anger on these issues is reaching the kind of critical level where even the tabloids usually sniff the wind, and in this case will probably quietly change direction from the solely "population pressure" stories. This also happened in various issues around 1995, and paved the way for New Labour to get in.
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The SNP aren't in as much trouble as is generally assumed. The Blue Woad Brigade has, after all, nowhere else to go. Labour will be doing very well to pick up a dozen seats.
Tactical voting might move the dial a bit more, though OTOH it doesn't do to overestimate the enthusiasm for an incoming Labour administration. I might begin to believe that the majority is on if Labour offers an appealing alternative vision of its own, rather than relying on being "Not Tories" and doing as little as possible to upset the minted codger vote. There have been a few encouraging noises about confronting the Nimbies this week, but whether this translates into workable policy remains to be seen.
No, they are in trouble and they do have somewhere else to go. I recommend reading some of the excellent threads on Wings over Scotland* and then dipping below the line there for as long as you can thole. Campbell is a good writer, witty and with a finely developed sense of the absurd but his readers are the sort of people whom we used to call cybernats and they now hate the SNP with a passion.
My expectation is that the SNP will lose roughly half of their Westminster seats at the next election, mainly to Labour. It may well give Labour a majority.
I don't see them going to Labour David, that is out of frying pan into the fire. More likely to not vote or go to any other independence party. Personally it would be good to see them hammered and for us to be shafted by Labour to waken up the idiots who still think they are anything other than London sockpuppets. Westminster is not important for Scotland, it needs people with backbone in Holyrood and Labour shafting us would stiffen some of the spineless.
This will make me vote Tory at the next election if Jeremy Hunt kicks out Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew won’t quit Royal Lodge unless Charles can make him agree
The King has no power to turf Andrew out of Royal lodge, his home for the past 20 years, so the decision may come down to the chancellor of the exchequer
Prince Andrew has no intention of leaving his home at Royal Lodge, Windsor, and believes that the King has no power to turf him out, a close associate of the duke has said.
The Duke of York, who has lived at the 30-room mansion for 20 years, is reportedly under pressure from Buckingham Palace to move to Frogmore Cottage, a smaller residence on the Windsor estate previously inhabited by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
The associate, who is in regular contact with the duke, said that Andrew believed he was secure in the property because his name is on the lease with the Crown Estate and not the royal family’s.
“The lease is in the duke’s name so no one can take that away from him,” the source told The Times. “It has never been suggested that it could be taken away from him. It’s a long lease with 80 to 90 years left on it.
“This is a lease between him and the Crown Estate. That’s not a matter for the King. It’s a matter for the chancellor of the exchequer. The only way you could get him to move out would be through an arrangement — he would have to agree.”
The Crown Estate describes itself as a public body sitting outside government. Its board is appointed by the King on the recommendation of the prime minister from candidates vetted by a selection board that includes the Treasury.
Andrew’s associate said that there was “no foundation” to reports this week that the duke could be pressured into leaving by actions such as cutting off his electricity supply.
The source said that the King was unlikely to exert pressure on Andrew because it would not make him a “very popular person within the family”. They added: “There are other members of the family who would not want to see a member kicked out.”
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The anti-Tory vote will be well organised.
The bigger problem for Rishi is actually getting the Tory vote to show up.
If both happen, he's in real trouble.
Until the locals I was not convinced your first sentence was correct, but after those results I do think you are right. The LDs were polling really quite low but had spectacular results in their areas. Since then several polls have shown a slight increase in their ratings and a slight lowering of Labour. I have chosen (whether correct or not) to believe that is a reflection of tactical voting rather than a change in support for these parties. If it continues and nothing else changes I think it could be a slaughter with Labour taking their targets and the LDs taking theirs. It could be the LDs do spectacularly well. @HYUFD has already pointed out the situation in Henley and you only have to look at Gove's Surrey Heath seat to look at what the LDs did there. It is a seat I am very familiar with from the past and which used to have 100% Tory Council control. The issue for the LDs will be resources. They could also do with getting that national poll rating up more. That needs by elections and a greater awareness of tactical voting.
In contrast to 1997 the Tories now do better with the skilled working class but worse with the upper middle class. That was shown in the local elections where the Tories lost control of every council in Surrey, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire except Reigate and Broxbourne but held Dudley, Harlow, Dartford, Basildon and Walsall all of which voted for Blair in 1997.
So I expect the Tories to lose seats like Henley, Wantage and Esher and Walton and Surrey SW potentially to the LDs which Major held but hold some seats like Harlow, Basildon and Dudley which Blair won
Housing affordability.
Waitrose belt Conservatives have managed to hit the sweet spot of upsetting both those who cannot afford to live there and also those who are terrified of losing their housing equity gains.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995.
I think everyone is just exasperated.
People find the current government venal, embarrassing and shit, and suspect Starmer's government will be the same - but it's a necessary change nonetheless.
One thing that Blair was offering from 1995 onwards was both clear competency (from the labour front bench as a whole) and optimism (Blair and the D:Reams theme tune).
Starmer doesn't offer that - he offers competency which (being blunt) neither Bozo nor Truss did but Sunak also offers that.
So people voting labour are not doing it for a brighter future at the moment they are doing it in the hope that things won't get worse (as they have done for many over the past 13 years).
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The SNP aren't in as much trouble as is generally assumed. The Blue Woad Brigade has, after all, nowhere else to go. Labour will be doing very well to pick up a dozen seats.
Tactical voting might move the dial a bit more, though OTOH it doesn't do to overestimate the enthusiasm for an incoming Labour administration. I might begin to believe that the majority is on if Labour offers an appealing alternative vision of its own, rather than relying on being "Not Tories" and doing as little as possible to upset the minted codger vote. There have been a few encouraging noises about confronting the Nimbies this week, but whether this translates into workable policy remains to be seen.
No, they are in trouble and they do have somewhere else to go. I recommend reading some of the excellent threads on Wings over Scotland* and then dipping below the line there for as long as you can thole. Campbell is a good writer, witty and with a finely developed sense of the absurd but his readers are the sort of people whom we used to call cybernats and they now hate the SNP with a passion.
My expectation is that the SNP will lose roughly half of their Westminster seats at the next election, mainly to Labour. It may well give Labour a majority.
I don't see them going to Labour David, that is out of frying pan into the fire. More likely to not vote or go to any other independence party. Personally it would be good to see them hammered and for us to be shafted by Labour to waken up the idiots who still think they are anything other than London sockpuppets. Westminster is not important for Scotland, it needs people with backbone in Holyrood and Labour shafting us would stiffen some of the spineless.
I think that is how Labour get to 20 or so seats. If the independence vote splits or doesn't turn up Labour sneaks through the middle. Much the same way they did in many Labour seats in 2019 - had Farage stood down there would be no Ed Miburn or Yvette Cooper in Parliament.
I'd be interested to learn about the side effect profile. What about libido, energy levels etc? I can't believe such an effective drug would be without them. This all sounds too good to be true.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995.
I think everyone is just exasperated.
People find the current government venal, embarrassing and shit, and suspect Starmer's government will be the same - but it's a necessary change nonetheless.
One thing that Blair was offering from 1995 onwards was both clear competency (from the labour front bench as a whole) and optimism (Blair and the D:Reams theme tune).
Starmer doesn't offer that - he offers competency which (being blunt) neither Bozo nor Truss did but Sunak also offers that.
So people voting labour are not doing it for a brighter future at the moment they are doing it in the hope that things won't get worse (as they have done for many over the past 13 years).
Your point about the front bench (or rather "the people with their face in the media") is a good one.
That also plays to Labour.
The 2019 fruit loops are still very much the voice of the 2024 Conservative party, whereas an exhumed Corbyn propped in front of a camera doesn't speak for Starmer's team.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995.
I think everyone is just exasperated.
People find the current government venal, embarrassing and shit, and suspect Starmer's government will be the same - but it's a necessary change nonetheless.
One thing that Blair was offering from 1995 onwards was both clear competency (from the labour front bench as a whole) and optimism (Blair and the D:Reams theme tune).
Starmer doesn't offer that - he offers competency which (being blunt) neither Bozo nor Truss did but Sunak also offers that.
So people voting labour are not doing it for a brighter future at the moment they are doing it in the hope that things won't get worse (as they have done for many over the past 13 years).
Your point about the front bench (or rather "the people with their face in the media") is a good one.
That also plays to Labour.
The 2019 fruit loops are still very much the voice of the 2024 Conservative party, whereas an exhumed Corbyn propped in front of a camera doesn't speak for Starmer's team.
And he has a pretty unfrightening front bench too. Not exciting, but not fruit loops. Reeves, Reynolds, Streeting, Nandy, Cooper etc. All eminently presentable.
It may be in Starmer’s interests to make the next election as boring as possible. Encourage those Ref-leading and disillusioned red wall Tories to have a nice nap and sit it out this time, or book a cruise from Southampton for election week.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995. 31 councils, compared to 8.
Yes, but since many local elections are in thirds, you can’t make direct comparisons like that. Some of the councils they retain are due to the batches of councillors elected by the relatively good Tory results of 2020 - the ones they’ll be defending next year!
There’s also the geography - while the Tories did reasonably well in parts of the Midlands, their results in the southern Home Counties were pretty bad by any historical standard.
I was in my original home town of Sevenoaks yesterday, and happened to notice from the Town Council noticeboard that fifteen of the sixteen town councillors just elected are LibDems, with just one remaining Tory. OK, it’s just a town council, but when I was growing up there anyone but the Tories would struggle to get anyone elected to anything.
Places like Sevenoaks are turning away from the Tories because they are desirable commuter locations and most people who work for a living are stopping voting Conservative. The further from the train station the more rural villages full of retirees remains true blue.
Put it another way, currently less than half of 2019 Conservative voters will vote the same way next time. I think there will be some reversion of Reform Party supporters and Don't Knows but not nearly enough, unless anything else changes.
And add critical other point. There's no churn in these tables. No-one is moving to the Conservatives to make up their losses.
Furthermore, I see this data as wholly excellent news for Starmer. The Conservatives have lost about half their previous election votes. Meanwhile Labour is holding onto most of its votes, has added a good chunk of Conservative voters, while the Lib Dems are showing willingness to vote Labour where it counts.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995.
I think everyone is just exasperated.
People find the current government venal, embarrassing and shit, and suspect Starmer's government will be the same - but it's a necessary change nonetheless.
One thing that Blair was offering from 1995 onwards was both clear competency (from the labour front bench as a whole) and optimism (Blair and the D:Reams theme tune).
Starmer doesn't offer that - he offers competency which (being blunt) neither Bozo nor Truss did but Sunak also offers that.
So people voting labour are not doing it for a brighter future at the moment they are doing it in the hope that things won't get worse (as they have done for many over the past 13 years).
Your point about the front bench (or rather "the people with their face in the media") is a good one.
That also plays to Labour.
The 2019 fruit loops are still very much the voice of the 2024 Conservative party, whereas an exhumed Corbyn propped in front of a camera doesn't speak for Starmer's team.
And he has a pretty unfrightening front bench too. Not exciting, but not fruit loops. Reeves, Reynolds, Streeting, Nandy, Cooper etc. All eminently presentable.
It may be in Starmer’s interests to make the next election as boring as possible. Encourage those Ref-leading and disillusioned red wall Tories to have a nice nap and sit it out this time, or book a cruise from Southampton for election week.
I think there may be one fruit loop within your list, even if they are presentable....but in general yes.
What is going to be the impact of the Greens? They did very well in the locals.
This has the potential of splitting the anti conservative vote - effectively the opposite of Reform.
Tactical messaging will be important.
Like Reform I think they’ll melt away come GE time, but unlike Ref I think the vast majority will go back to Lab and Lib Dem. The green vote in locals makes a lot of sense for people opposed to development or unhappy about sewage.
Football: unexpected that with a couple of games to go, out of the 5 big European leagues the Bundesliga is the only one where the race is still live (though PSG could just about lose still). Usually Bayern are the most predictable winners. Reasonable chance they will drop points in the last 2 games, but I'd want a bit more than the 5/2 available on Dortmund to win the league.
"Water companies are struggling to hold their finances in order as interest rates rise on the huge debts they have taken on to pay dividends, according to a leading economist.
Dieter Helm, a professor of economic policy at the University of Oxford and an adviser to governments, said there were worrying signs from water companies about their financial stability as the economic crisis pushes up interest rates.
At privatisation in 1989, the nine English water companies were debt free. Between 1991 and 2019 they took on £52bn of debt, according to analysis. By last year debt had risen to £56.2bn, with Ofwat warning of concerns about the financial resilience of the sector."
Borrowing money to pay dividends seems utterly reckless.
Water privatisation was obviously moronic.
Should come as little surprise that it has led to moronic acts.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995. 31 councils, compared to 8.
Yes, but since many local elections are in thirds, you can’t make direct comparisons like that. Some of the councils they retain are due to the batches of councillors elected by the relatively good Tory results of 2020 - the ones they’ll be defending next year!
There’s also the geography - while the Tories did reasonably well in parts of the Midlands, their results in the southern Home Counties were pretty bad by any historical standard.
I was in my original home town of Sevenoaks yesterday, and happened to notice from the Town Council noticeboard that fifteen of the sixteen town councillors just elected are LibDems, with just one remaining Tory. OK, it’s just a town council, but when I was growing up there anyone but the Tories would struggle to get anyone elected to anything.
Places like Sevenoaks are turning away from the Tories because they are desirable commuter locations and most people who work for a living are stopping voting Conservative. The further from the train station the more rural villages full of retirees remains true blue.
Round here those the wards with money are voting Green having given up on the other 3 options.
Which for 1 of the wards makes zero sense as to solve the problem they are protesting about they need the Northern Relief bypass built and that requires money and support from Ben Houchen.
Put it another way, currently less than half of 2019 Conservative voters will vote the same way next time. I think there will be some reversion of Reform Party supporters and Don't Knows but not nearly enough, unless anything else changes.
And add critical other point. There's no churn in these tables. No-one is moving to the Conservatives to make up their losses.
Furthermore, I see this data as wholly excellent news for Starmer. The Conservatives have lost about half their previous election votes. Meanwhile Labour is holding onto most of its votes, has added a good chunk of Conservative voters, while the Lib Dems are showing willingness to vote Labour where it counts.
Yeah, not really sure why we should be expecting much different.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995.
I think everyone is just exasperated.
People find the current government venal, embarrassing and shit, and suspect Starmer's government will be the same - but it's a necessary change nonetheless.
One thing that Blair was offering from 1995 onwards was both clear competency (from the labour front bench as a whole) and optimism (Blair and the D:Reams theme tune).
Starmer doesn't offer that - he offers competency which (being blunt) neither Bozo nor Truss did but Sunak also offers that.
So people voting labour are not doing it for a brighter future at the moment they are doing it in the hope that things won't get worse (as they have done for many over the past 13 years).
The main criticism of Starmer, the one I share, is that he does not appear to be radical enough in fixing obvious problems. No-one who thinks that is likely to choose the Conservatives in preference
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995. 31 councils, compared to 8.
Yes, but since many local elections are in thirds, you can’t make direct comparisons like that. Some of the councils they retain are due to the batches of councillors elected by the relatively good Tory results of 2020 - the ones they’ll be defending next year!
There’s also the geography - while the Tories did reasonably well in parts of the Midlands, their results in the southern Home Counties were pretty bad by any historical standard.
I was in my original home town of Sevenoaks yesterday, and happened to notice from the Town Council noticeboard that fifteen of the sixteen town councillors just elected are LibDems, with just one remaining Tory. OK, it’s just a town council, but when I was growing up there anyone but the Tories would struggle to get anyone elected to anything.
Places like Sevenoaks are turning away from the Tories because they are desirable commuter locations and most people who work for a living are stopping voting Conservative. The further from the train station the more rural villages full of retirees remains true blue.
Indeed, every council seat in Sevenoaks itself went LD on 4th May. The Tories only held the council, unlike neighbouring Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells which they have lost control of, by holding villages like Cowden and Hever and Chevening and Westerham and Crockham Hill
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
Hard to believe Labour will get anywhere near 20-25 in Scotland. People hate Labour almost as much as the Tories.
It doesn't take too much to get to that number though. Lots of close Labour SNP marginals.
I think you could have a disappointing result for Labour down south but still see those 20 seats change hands. By then, the SNP will have been in power for 17 years, and I don't see much scope for them to change the current narrative. Hull 802 might be launched ahead of the GE...
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The anti-Tory vote will be well organised.
The bigger problem for Rishi is actually getting the Tory vote to show up.
If both happen, he's in real trouble.
Until the locals I was not convinced your first sentence was correct, but after those results I do think you are right. The LDs were polling really quite low but had spectacular results in their areas. Since then several polls have shown a slight increase in their ratings and a slight lowering of Labour. I have chosen (whether correct or not) to believe that is a reflection of tactical voting rather than a change in support for these parties. If it continues and nothing else changes I think it could be a slaughter with Labour taking their targets and the LDs taking theirs. It could be the LDs do spectacularly well. @HYUFD has already pointed out the situation in Henley and you only have to look at Gove's Surrey Heath seat to look at what the LDs did there. It is a seat I am very familiar with from the past and which used to have 100% Tory Council control. The issue for the LDs will be resources. They could also do with getting that national poll rating up more. That needs by elections and a greater awareness of tactical voting.
In contrast to 1997 the Tories now do better with the skilled working class but worse with the upper middle class. That was shown in the local elections where the Tories lost control of every council in Surrey, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire except Reigate and Broxbourne but held Dudley, Harlow, Dartford, Basildon and Walsall all of which voted for Blair in 1997.
So I expect the Tories to lose seats like Henley, Wantage and Esher and Walton and Surrey SW potentially to the LDs which Major held but hold some seats like Harlow, Basildon and Dudley which Blair won
Housing affordability.
Waitrose belt Conservatives have managed to hit the sweet spot of upsetting both those who cannot afford to live there and also those who are terrified of losing their housing equity gains.
More a NIMBY revolt, these voters are going LD not Labour and opposition to Brexit while in strong Leave areas the Tory vote held up better
The Yorkshire Post @yorkshirepost Tees Freeport latest: Government 'has not given permission' for National Audit Office investigation
Which tells me everything Private Eye says is true and it's way worse than that because you could have coped with that level of known corruption.
And that if Rishi is hoping for the Teesside Red Wall seats to remain blue next time round he is likely to be unlucky.
Private Eye are excellent on this sort of thing.
They've also been superb on water indusrty and rail graft for over 30 years now, although no one, including either New Labour or Tory front benches, has really been listening.
This will make me vote Tory at the next election if Jeremy Hunt kicks out Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew won’t quit Royal Lodge unless Charles can make him agree
The King has no power to turf Andrew out of Royal lodge, his home for the past 20 years, so the decision may come down to the chancellor of the exchequer
Prince Andrew has no intention of leaving his home at Royal Lodge, Windsor, and believes that the King has no power to turf him out, a close associate of the duke has said.
The Duke of York, who has lived at the 30-room mansion for 20 years, is reportedly under pressure from Buckingham Palace to move to Frogmore Cottage, a smaller residence on the Windsor estate previously inhabited by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
The associate, who is in regular contact with the duke, said that Andrew believed he was secure in the property because his name is on the lease with the Crown Estate and not the royal family’s.
“The lease is in the duke’s name so no one can take that away from him,” the source told The Times. “It has never been suggested that it could be taken away from him. It’s a long lease with 80 to 90 years left on it.
“This is a lease between him and the Crown Estate. That’s not a matter for the King. It’s a matter for the chancellor of the exchequer. The only way you could get him to move out would be through an arrangement — he would have to agree.”
The Crown Estate describes itself as a public body sitting outside government. Its board is appointed by the King on the recommendation of the prime minister from candidates vetted by a selection board that includes the Treasury.
Andrew’s associate said that there was “no foundation” to reports this week that the duke could be pressured into leaving by actions such as cutting off his electricity supply.
The source said that the King was unlikely to exert pressure on Andrew because it would not make him a “very popular person within the family”. They added: “There are other members of the family who would not want to see a member kicked out.”
Why? It is the government who will decide if Andrew stays or not then, so the King can blame Hunt if Andrew stays when he wanted to remove him or blame Hunt if Andrew complains saying it was not his choice.
Andrew will presumably be joining the LDs delivering Focus leaflets and bar charts in Surrey SW to get rid of the Chancellor at the next election if Hunt does kick him out?
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995. 31 councils, compared to 8.
Yes, but since many local elections are in thirds, you can’t make direct comparisons like that. Some of the councils they retain are due to the batches of councillors elected by the relatively good Tory results of 2020 - the ones they’ll be defending next year!
There’s also the geography - while the Tories did reasonably well in parts of the Midlands, their results in the southern Home Counties were pretty bad by any historical standard.
I was in my original home town of Sevenoaks yesterday, and happened to notice from the Town Council noticeboard that fifteen of the sixteen town councillors just elected are LibDems, with just one remaining Tory. OK, it’s just a town council, but when I was growing up there anyone but the Tories would struggle to get anyone elected to anything.
Places like Sevenoaks are turning away from the Tories because they are desirable commuter locations and most people who work for a living are stopping voting Conservative. The further from the train station the more rural villages full of retirees remains true blue.
Indeed, every council seat in Sevenoaks itself went LD on 4th May. The Tories only held the council, unlike neighbouring Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells which they have lost control of, by holding villages like Cowden and Hever and Chevening and Westerham and Crockham Hill
I'd say they held the district because of Swanley, one of the grimmest towns in the SE, which used to be the only blob of red in the district is still going blue.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995.
I think everyone is just exasperated.
People find the current government venal, embarrassing and shit, and suspect Starmer's government will be the same - but it's a necessary change nonetheless.
One thing that Blair was offering from 1995 onwards was both clear competency (from the labour front bench as a whole) and optimism (Blair and the D:Reams theme tune).
Starmer doesn't offer that - he offers competency which (being blunt) neither Bozo nor Truss did but Sunak also offers that.
So people voting labour are not doing it for a brighter future at the moment they are doing it in the hope that things won't get worse (as they have done for many over the past 13 years).
Your point about the front bench (or rather "the people with their face in the media") is a good one.
That also plays to Labour.
The 2019 fruit loops are still very much the voice of the 2024 Conservative party, whereas an exhumed Corbyn propped in front of a camera doesn't speak for Starmer's team.
And he has a pretty unfrightening front bench too. Not exciting, but not fruit loops. Reeves, Reynolds, Streeting, Nandy, Cooper etc. All eminently presentable.
It may be in Starmer’s interests to make the next election as boring as possible. Encourage those Ref-leading and disillusioned red wall Tories to have a nice nap and sit it out this time, or book a cruise from Southampton for election week.
Streeting is the interesting one for me. Politically he has always struck me as a loon. But on the specifics of the NHS, whether it is because he knows the right things to say or because he actually believes what he is saying, he does seem to 'get' what the issues are. He understands that the current model just doesn't work in so many areas and that radical change is needed.
Whether that is still the case after the election is another matter but he is at least recognising the fundemental problems in the current system.
"My guess is that a significant proportion of those GE2019 Tories not expressing a voting intention will in fact end up with Sunak’s party. I also think a fair slab of the 10% currently saying Reform will do the same."
On his blog, I think Meeks does a good job of explaining why don't knows and Reform voters will either save the Tories or at least prevent Starmer from getting a majority. In respect to don't knows:
"And what of don’t knows? It’s absolutely true that a high percentage of 2019 Conservative voters are currently saying that they don’t know who they’re going to vote for. By itself this group comprises something like 10% of the electorate. That’s a big group. And it’s absolutely true that many people who say “don’t know” ultimately plump for their previous choice. So this looks more promising for the Conservatives, right?
Well. Pollsters have long sought to take this effect into account in their surveys. Some of them have now gone well beyond accounting for “shy Tories” and now seek to attribute likely future decisions by the genuinely unsure on the basis of their past behaviour. Opinium in particular have pioneered this method."
As for Reform:
"Reform is currently polling about 5%. There’s an assumption that most of this will revert to the Conservatives come the general election. This seems doubtful. Under its previous name of the Brexit party, it took 2% of the vote in 2019. But it only stood in 275 seats, so this percentage needs to be at least doubled to establish the benchmark against it should be judged (arguably more than doubled given that it stood largely in Labour-held seats which were not necessarily its most fertile territory). If it makes good on its promise to stand in every seat this time, I expect it to take something quite close to 5% of the vote nationally. It’s not as though Rishi Sunak holds a particular appeal for prospective Reform voters. Many of them regard him as a closet Remainer."
I think this is also supported by some recent R&W polling which suggests that only a quarter of Reform voters would vote Tory if there was no Reform candidate in their constituency, with 15% voting Labour and around half not bothering to vote at all.
Point is, we can't assume just all 2019 Tory DKs and Reform voters will swing back to the Tories at the election, and I think a lot of them just won't bother voting at all (like many 1992 Tory voters didn't in the 97 election).
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The anti-Tory vote will be well organised.
The bigger problem for Rishi is actually getting the Tory vote to show up.
If both happen, he's in real trouble.
Until the locals I was not convinced your first sentence was correct, but after those results I do think you are right. The LDs were polling really quite low but had spectacular results in their areas. Since then several polls have shown a slight increase in their ratings and a slight lowering of Labour. I have chosen (whether correct or not) to believe that is a reflection of tactical voting rather than a change in support for these parties. If it continues and nothing else changes I think it could be a slaughter with Labour taking their targets and the LDs taking theirs. It could be the LDs do spectacularly well. @HYUFD has already pointed out the situation in Henley and you only have to look at Gove's Surrey Heath seat to look at what the LDs did there. It is a seat I am very familiar with from the past and which used to have 100% Tory Council control. The issue for the LDs will be resources. They could also do with getting that national poll rating up more. That needs by elections and a greater awareness of tactical voting.
In contrast to 1997 the Tories now do better with the skilled working class but worse with the upper middle class. That was shown in the local elections where the Tories lost control of every council in Surrey, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire except Reigate and Broxbourne but held Dudley, Harlow, Dartford, Basildon and Walsall all of which voted for Blair in 1997.
So I expect the Tories to lose seats like Henley, Wantage and Esher and Walton and Surrey SW potentially to the LDs which Major held but hold some seats like Harlow, Basildon and Dudley which Blair won
Housing affordability.
Waitrose belt Conservatives have managed to hit the sweet spot of upsetting both those who cannot afford to live there and also those who are terrified of losing their housing equity gains.
More a NIMBY revolt, these voters are going LD not Labour and opposition to Brexit while in strong Leave areas the Tory vote held up better
You've managed to upset both the young who cannot afford housing and the nimby voters.
There's no moderate position on housing in the waitrose belt - you need to make a decision one way or the other accepting that you will upset one group but hoping to get votes from the other.
Thanks for the article. There are two distinct angles. What is good for the country, and what are the betting implications.
For the country there is one priority only - a non Tory government. Tories will be back. but they need a time to work out from what real principles they seek to run the country. We have no idea at the moment. Moment by moment pragmatism cannot take you through 13 years and three+ major critical events in UK and world.
The Tories cannot run the country with fewer than about 315 seats, 50 fewer than 2019. The polling is on track at least for that.
IMHO betting wise, most of the 55% of voters currently lost won't return this time, though most will return later.
Reform will do less well than polling. (Who are they? No-one has heard of them). 'Stay at home' will do well with usually Tory voters, as will the LDs.
The better the Tories do, the sooner they will be back. A Lab/LD/SNP government would not be pretty. Tories can't win in 2024, but they could 24 months later.
Labour cannot but disappoint anyway. There's no cash, and none of our problems need less than a decade to fix.
I don't see any way the Tories can turn their party around in 24 months. All the more if they have managed to prevent Labour securing a majority. They really do need to lose big time for any meaningful change to happen.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995. 31 councils, compared to 8.
Yes, but since many local elections are in thirds, you can’t make direct comparisons like that. Some of the councils they retain are due to the batches of councillors elected by the relatively good Tory results of 2020 - the ones they’ll be defending next year!
There’s also the geography - while the Tories did reasonably well in parts of the Midlands, their results in the southern Home Counties were pretty bad by any historical standard.
I was in my original home town of Sevenoaks yesterday, and happened to notice from the Town Council noticeboard that fifteen of the sixteen town councillors just elected are LibDems, with just one remaining Tory. OK, it’s just a town council, but when I was growing up there anyone but the Tories would struggle to get anyone elected to anything.
Places like Sevenoaks are turning away from the Tories because they are desirable commuter locations and most people who work for a living are stopping voting Conservative. The further from the train station the more rural villages full of retirees remains true blue.
Indeed, every council seat in Sevenoaks itself went LD on 4th May. The Tories only held the council, unlike neighbouring Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells which they have lost control of, by holding villages like Cowden and Hever and Chevening and Westerham and Crockham Hill
I'd say they held the district because of Swanley, one of the grimmest towns in the SE, which used to be the only blob of red in the district is still going blue.
True similar in Essex where the Tories have lost Uttlesford and Brentwood and the LDs have won Epping and Theydon Bois but the Tories held Harlow and Basildon and Braintree. See too Hertfordshire where the Tories lost posh Dacorum and Three Rivers and St Albans but held Broxbourne.
The strongest Tory vote now is in white working class or pensioner filled areas with 60%+ Leave votes in 2016, posh upper middle class areas however are vulnerable to the LDs in the home counties and Labour in London even if they stayed Tory in 1997
The important factor is differential turnout. The drop in SNP seats in 2017 was due to disillusioned independence supporters staying at home, rather than switching to unionist parties. The same could happen at the next GE, not just to the SNP but to the Tories. Is anyone comparing likelihood to vote in current polls compared to past polls?
That's simply incorrect.
In 2017 the SNP lost 476,867 votes whilst the Tories gained 323,852 votes from the 2015 GE.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995. 31 councils, compared to 8.
Yes, but since many local elections are in thirds, you can’t make direct comparisons like that. Some of the councils they retain are due to the batches of councillors elected by the relatively good Tory results of 2020 - the ones they’ll be defending next year!
There’s also the geography - while the Tories did reasonably well in parts of the Midlands, their results in the southern Home Counties were pretty bad by any historical standard.
I was in my original home town of Sevenoaks yesterday, and happened to notice from the Town Council noticeboard that fifteen of the sixteen town councillors just elected are LibDems, with just one remaining Tory. OK, it’s just a town council, but when I was growing up there anyone but the Tories would struggle to get anyone elected to anything.
Places like Sevenoaks are turning away from the Tories because they are desirable commuter locations and most people who work for a living are stopping voting Conservative. The further from the train station the more rural villages full of retirees remains true blue.
Indeed, every council seat in Sevenoaks itself went LD on 4th May. The Tories only held the council, unlike neighbouring Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells which they have lost control of, by holding villages like Cowden and Hever and Chevening and Westerham and Crockham Hill
I'd say they held the district because of Swanley, one of the grimmest towns in the SE, which used to be the only blob of red in the district is still going blue.
True similar in Essex where the Tories have lost Uttlesford and Brentwood and the LDs have won Epping and Theydon Bois but the Tories held Harlow and Basildon and Braintree. See too Hertfordshire where the Tories lost posh Dacorum and Three Rivers and St Albans but held Broxbourne.
The strongest Tory vote now is in white working class areas with big Leave votes in 2016, posh upper middle class areas however are vulnerable to the LDs in the home counties and Labour in London even if they stayed Tory in 1997
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995. 31 councils, compared to 8.
Yes, but since many local elections are in thirds, you can’t make direct comparisons like that. Some of the councils they retain are due to the batches of councillors elected by the relatively good Tory results of 2020 - the ones they’ll be defending next year!
There’s also the geography - while the Tories did reasonably well in parts of the Midlands, their results in the southern Home Counties were pretty bad by any historical standard.
I was in my original home town of Sevenoaks yesterday, and happened to notice from the Town Council noticeboard that fifteen of the sixteen town councillors just elected are LibDems, with just one remaining Tory. OK, it’s just a town council, but when I was growing up there anyone but the Tories would struggle to get anyone elected to anything.
Places like Sevenoaks are turning away from the Tories because they are desirable commuter locations and most people who work for a living are stopping voting Conservative. The further from the train station the more rural villages full of retirees remains true blue.
Indeed, every council seat in Sevenoaks itself went LD on 4th May. The Tories only held the council, unlike neighbouring Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells which they have lost control of, by holding villages like Cowden and Hever and Chevening and Westerham and Crockham Hill
I'd say they held the district because of Swanley, one of the grimmest towns in the SE, which used to be the only blob of red in the district is still going blue.
True similar in Essex where the Tories have lost Uttlesford and Brentwood and the LDs have won Epping and Theydon Bois but the Tories held Harlow and Basildon and Braintree. See too Hertfordshire where the Tories lost posh Dacorum and Three Rivers and St Albans but held Broxbourne.
The strongest Tory vote now is in white working class areas with big Leave votes in 2016, posh upper middle class areas however are vulnerable to the LDs in the home counties and Labour in London even if they stayed Tory in 1997
My relatives in Gloucestershire, of an elderly Land Rover-and-wellies tendency, are livid at the Tories.
Younger urban relatives I have are also livid.
I suppose the Tories must still have support somewhere, though,
The midlands, the suburbs, the red walls, the coasts, and the deep countryside.
Thanks for the article. There are two distinct angles. What is good for the country, and what are the betting implications.
For the country there is one priority only - a non Tory government. Tories will be back. but they need a time to work out from what real principles they seek to run the country. We have no idea at the moment. Moment by moment pragmatism cannot take you through 13 years and three+ major critical events in UK and world.
The Tories cannot run the country with fewer than about 315 seats, 50 fewer than 2019. The polling is on track at least for that.
IMHO betting wise, most of the 55% of voters currently lost won't return this time, though most will return later.
Reform will do less well than polling. (Who are they? No-one has heard of them). 'Stay at home' will do well with usually Tory voters, as will the LDs.
The better the Tories do, the sooner they will be back. A Lab/LD/SNP government would not be pretty. Tories can't win in 2024, but they could 24 months later.
Labour cannot but disappoint anyway. There's no cash, and none of our problems need less than a decade to fix.
On your last point, the Tories in charge in 2026 would need to convince people they can fix those intractable problems (which Labour will claim the Conservatives created in the first place) better than the then government can.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995.
I think everyone is just exasperated.
People find the current government venal, embarrassing and shit, and suspect Starmer's government will be the same - but it's a necessary change nonetheless.
One thing that Blair was offering from 1995 onwards was both clear competency (from the labour front bench as a whole) and optimism (Blair and the D:Reams theme tune).
Starmer doesn't offer that - he offers competency which (being blunt) neither Bozo nor Truss did but Sunak also offers that.
So people voting labour are not doing it for a brighter future at the moment they are doing it in the hope that things won't get worse (as they have done for many over the past 13 years).
Your point about the front bench (or rather "the people with their face in the media") is a good one.
That also plays to Labour.
The 2019 fruit loops are still very much the voice of the 2024 Conservative party, whereas an exhumed Corbyn propped in front of a camera doesn't speak for Starmer's team.
And he has a pretty unfrightening front bench too. Not exciting, but not fruit loops. Reeves, Reynolds, Streeting, Nandy, Cooper etc. All eminently presentable.
It may be in Starmer’s interests to make the next election as boring as possible. Encourage those Ref-leading and disillusioned red wall Tories to have a nice nap and sit it out this time, or book a cruise from Southampton for election week.
Streeting is the interesting one for me. Politically he has always struck me as a loon. But on the specifics of the NHS, whether it is because he knows the right things to say or because he actually believes what he is saying, he does seem to 'get' what the issues are. He understands that the current model just doesn't work in so many areas and that radical change is needed.
Whether that is still the case after the election is another matter but he is at least recognising the fundemental problems in the current system.
I agree Streeting is interesting. He's the front-bencher who I see as the hardest-line purge-the-left figure, and the probable source whenever a journalist quotes a "senior Labour source" as saying something contemptuous about Corbyn. He's also naturally combative, in the style that Ed Balls used to have, and he's probably more philsophically whatever-works Blairite than most of us.
As such he's not my sort of politician at all, but I respect that he actually wants to grapple with problems and do something about them.
Put it another way, currently less than half of 2019 Conservative voters will vote the same way next time. I think there will be some reversion of Reform Party supporters and Don't Knows but not nearly enough, unless anything else changes.
And add critical other point. There's no churn in these tables. No-one is moving to the Conservatives to make up their losses.
This is the most deadly issue. Voters have made up their minds on at least one point: The Tories must go.
Sir Kier may not have sealed to deal but the risk for him is not that they will go back to the Tories, but that the voters follow though on a Cleggasm style surge to Sir Edward and this time they actually make it to the ballot box. The prosperous middle class of Sevenoaks and Camberley are clearly flirting with the idea now.
Isn't it rather counter-intuitive to suggest a gold standard pollster who make their living out of accurately predicting election results would not have taken account of this gigantic elephant?
It seems pretty clear that whatever they try the stink that is Brexit will hang around the Tory Party's neck for years to come and however many times they change their leader or wash themselves it wont go away
Yes it's interesting. Brexit was meant to destroy the Tories and after a brief interlude when it boosted them it looks like it will.
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The SNP aren't in as much trouble as is generally assumed. The Blue Woad Brigade has, after all, nowhere else to go. Labour will be doing very well to pick up a dozen seats.
Tactical voting might move the dial a bit more, though OTOH it doesn't do to overestimate the enthusiasm for an incoming Labour administration. I might begin to believe that the majority is on if Labour offers an appealing alternative vision of its own, rather than relying on being "Not Tories" and doing as little as possible to upset the minted codger vote. There have been a few encouraging noises about confronting the Nimbies this week, but whether this translates into workable policy remains to be seen.
No, they are in trouble and they do have somewhere else to go. I recommend reading some of the excellent threads on Wings over Scotland* and then dipping below the line there for as long as you can thole. Campbell is a good writer, witty and with a finely developed sense of the absurd but his readers are the sort of people whom we used to call cybernats and they now hate the SNP with a passion.
My expectation is that the SNP will lose roughly half of their Westminster seats at the next election, mainly to Labour. It may well give Labour a majority.
I don't see them going to Labour David, that is out of frying pan into the fire. More likely to not vote or go to any other independence party. Personally it would be good to see them hammered and for us to be shafted by Labour to waken up the idiots who still think they are anything other than London sockpuppets. Westminster is not important for Scotland, it needs people with backbone in Holyrood and Labour shafting us would stiffen some of the spineless.
I think that is how Labour get to 20 or so seats. If the independence vote splits or doesn't turn up Labour sneaks through the middle. Much the same way they did in many Labour seats in 2019 - had Farage stood down there would be no Ed Miburn or Yvette Cooper in Parliament.
As far as Malcolm is concerned, there is absolutely no difference between a Labour government and a Tory government in Westminster. In fact, Labour might well be worse. But there a lot of soft Yes left of centre voters who would not agree with this at all and want the Tories gone. If Humsa can't give these voters a good reason to vote for the SNP, a lot of them will vote SLAB at the election. And as you point out, a lot of the hardcore independent voters will probably either vote for Alba or (more likely) not bother showing up at all. I suspect the reason why the SNPs current line on Labour is so confused is because they need to simultaneously appeal to both these groups. Hence why Labour are apparently as bad as the Tories, but despite this they would block a minority Tory government but not a Labour one.
Thanks for the article. There are two distinct angles. What is good for the country, and what are the betting implications.
For the country there is one priority only - a non Tory government. Tories will be back. but they need a time to work out from what real principles they seek to run the country. We have no idea at the moment. Moment by moment pragmatism cannot take you through 13 years and three+ major critical events in UK and world.
The Tories cannot run the country with fewer than about 315 seats, 50 fewer than 2019. The polling is on track at least for that.
IMHO betting wise, most of the 55% of voters currently lost won't return this time, though most will return later.
Reform will do less well than polling. (Who are they? No-one has heard of them). 'Stay at home' will do well with usually Tory voters, as will the LDs.
The better the Tories do, the sooner they will be back. A Lab/LD/SNP government would not be pretty. Tories can't win in 2024, but they could 24 months later.
Labour cannot but disappoint anyway. There's no cash, and none of our problems need less than a decade to fix.
I don't see any way the Tories can turn their party around in 24 months. All the more if they have managed to prevent Labour securing a majority. They really do need to lose big time for any meaningful change to happen.
Fair points. Like many people there is what I want to happen, and what I think will happen. I want: a Labour government needing LD backing in some form; and I want this to last 10 years or more. I want the Tories to decide who they are and what they are for. I want a Lab/LD government to join EFTA/EEA as the only solution that can work (as it has been since 2016).
The mind boggles at what we shall actually get. But one possibility is that a very complicated non-Tory alliance will both do badly, fall early, and leave the Tories as the only other possible government before they have had time to recover ideologically.
Off topic: have the privilege of sitting in the Royal Box at Wembley tomorrow for the Non-League cup finals. As former Director and current shareholder of Ascot United I was delighted to get the invite. Ascot play Newport Pagnell in the FA Vase and are odds on favourite, based on winning their league with over 100 points - but NP are the holders and Ascot players might just be affected by the occasion - worth a look if you’re an avid punter on non-league soccer.
Put it another way, currently less than half of 2019 Conservative voters will vote the same way next time. I think there will be some reversion of Reform Party supporters and Don't Knows but not nearly enough, unless anything else changes.
And add critical other point. There's no churn in these tables. No-one is moving to the Conservatives to make up their losses.
This is the most deadly issue. Voters have made up their minds on at least one point: The Tories must go.
Sir Kier may not have sealed to deal but the risk for him is not that they will go back to the Tories, but that the voters follow though on a Cleggasm style surge to Sir Edward and this time they actually make it to the ballot box. The prosperous middle class of Sevenoaks and Camberley are clearly flirting with the idea now.
A Labour majority might be prevented by the LDs doing too well, you mean? Are there enough Con seats that are both LD and Labour targets for this to be a realistic possibility?
Thanks for the article. There are two distinct angles. What is good for the country, and what are the betting implications.
For the country there is one priority only - a non Tory government. Tories will be back. but they need a time to work out from what real principles they seek to run the country. We have no idea at the moment. Moment by moment pragmatism cannot take you through 13 years and three+ major critical events in UK and world.
The Tories cannot run the country with fewer than about 315 seats, 50 fewer than 2019. The polling is on track at least for that.
IMHO betting wise, most of the 55% of voters currently lost won't return this time, though most will return later.
Reform will do less well than polling. (Who are they? No-one has heard of them). 'Stay at home' will do well with usually Tory voters, as will the LDs.
The better the Tories do, the sooner they will be back. A Lab/LD/SNP government would not be pretty. Tories can't win in 2024, but they could 24 months later.
Labour cannot but disappoint anyway. There's no cash, and none of our problems need less than a decade to fix.
On your last point, the Tories in charge in 2026 would need to convince people they can fix those intractable problems (which Labour will claim the Conservatives created in the first place) better than the then government can.
Not necessarily. Only two parties can lead a UK government. If (and only if) the centre left one collapsed in a heap then the other one wins. They don't have to run faster than the bear of the voters' political opinions, they have to run faster than a collapsing government.
A government where Labour win 260 seats and would be complicated and messy.
On the water, borrowing to pay dividends when you're a monopoly provider should have been completely illegal
Indeed. But the prevailing view was that any regulation of this, or prevention of the private equity involvement and approach, which this is, was bad, and New Labour was also fully complicit in this, as we saw in the artlcle below.
Ofwat is also still basically toothless compared to any comparable regulator in any neighbouring, or major European country. We need to get out of this very strange , and uniquely and inflexibly ultra-laissex faire approach to all these kind of issues, before they get worse. It's also what happens when "the market" is lazily and undifferentiatedly described as inherently wise by both governing parties for than 30 years, and then the popular press meanwhile bats away almost every issue with this god of wisdom to immigration.
One is the extent to which opposition voters are in a Get Them Out mood. If the recent locals are any guide, LLG are highly GTO, and events like the NatCon conference are only going to strengthen that feeling.
The other is who will turn up on the day. It seems pretty likely that left-inclined voters will cross minefields to vote (no Suella, that's not a suggestion) whereas a lot of conservative-inclined voters will be washing their hair that day. Again, matches what we saw earlier this month. But jolly hard for pollsters to pick up, because people tend to exaggerate their likelihood to vote.
I'm expecting the key swings, as in '97, to be sofa to Labour and Conservative to sofa.
There's less of a get them out mood than in the mid 90's, though. You can see that by comparing this May's results with the results in the same local government cycle, May 1995. The Conservatives won 30% of the seats contested this time, compared to 17% in 1995.
I think everyone is just exasperated.
People find the current government venal, embarrassing and shit, and suspect Starmer's government will be the same - but it's a necessary change nonetheless.
One thing that Blair was offering from 1995 onwards was both clear competency (from the labour front bench as a whole) and optimism (Blair and the D:Reams theme tune).
Starmer doesn't offer that - he offers competency which (being blunt) neither Bozo nor Truss did but Sunak also offers that.
So people voting labour are not doing it for a brighter future at the moment they are doing it in the hope that things won't get worse (as they have done for many over the past 13 years).
Your point about the front bench (or rather "the people with their face in the media") is a good one.
That also plays to Labour.
The 2019 fruit loops are still very much the voice of the 2024 Conservative party, whereas an exhumed Corbyn propped in front of a camera doesn't speak for Starmer's team.
And he has a pretty unfrightening front bench too. Not exciting, but not fruit loops. Reeves, Reynolds, Streeting, Nandy, Cooper etc. All eminently presentable.
It may be in Starmer’s interests to make the next election as boring as possible. Encourage those Ref-leading and disillusioned red wall Tories to have a nice nap and sit it out this time, or book a cruise from Southampton for election week.
Streeting is the interesting one for me. Politically he has always struck me as a loon. But on the specifics of the NHS, whether it is because he knows the right things to say or because he actually believes what he is saying, he does seem to 'get' what the issues are. He understands that the current model just doesn't work in so many areas and that radical change is needed.
Whether that is still the case after the election is another matter but he is at least recognising the fundemental problems in the current system.
I agree Streeting is interesting. He's the front-bencher who I see as the hardest-line purge-the-left figure, and the probable source whenever a journalist quotes a "senior Labour source" as saying something contemptuous about Corbyn. He's also naturally combative, in the style that Ed Balls used to have, and he's probably more philsophically whatever-works Blairite than most of us.
As such he's not my sort of politician at all, but I respect that he actually wants to grapple with problems and do something about them.
We’re going to be at the same wedding in a few weeks time so I’ll collar him after a few drinks and ask about his philosophy.
Put it another way, currently less than half of 2019 Conservative voters will vote the same way next time. I think there will be some reversion of Reform Party supporters and Don't Knows but not nearly enough, unless anything else changes.
And add critical other point. There's no churn in these tables. No-one is moving to the Conservatives to make up their losses.
This is the most deadly issue. Voters have made up their minds on at least one point: The Tories must go.
Sir Kier may not have sealed to deal but the risk for him is not that they will go back to the Tories, but that the voters follow though on a Cleggasm style surge to Sir Edward and this time they actually make it to the ballot box. The prosperous middle class of Sevenoaks and Camberley are clearly flirting with the idea now.
I don't think that is a risk for Labour - there are few seats that a Labour / Lib Dem or 3 way marginals where no clear anti-tory candidate isn't obvious.
The worry for the Tory party is that both sides switch anti-tory at the same time at which point it's very possible that the Lib Dems collect 30-40 seats leaving the Tories at 130-160 seats.
On the water, borrowing to pay dividends when you're a monopoly provider should have been completely illegal
Indeed. But the prevailing view was that any regulation of this was bad, and New Labour was also complicit in this, as we saw in the artlcle below.
Ofwat is also still basically toothless compared to any comparable regulator in any neighbouring, or major European countries. We need to get out of this very strange , and uniquely and inflexibly , ultra-laissex faire approach to all these kind of issues, before they get worse. It also what happens when "the market" is lazily and undifferentiatedly described as inherently wise for 30 years.
There was quite a convincing debunking of the sewage story on Twitter this morning. By a Tory supporting brexiteer, but nobody has yet debunked the debunking so he may well have a point. One of those threads that contradicts my deeply held beliefs and changes my mind. Any experts out there able to tell me if he’s missing something?
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The SNP aren't in as much trouble as is generally assumed. The Blue Woad Brigade has, after all, nowhere else to go. Labour will be doing very well to pick up a dozen seats.
Tactical voting might move the dial a bit more, though OTOH it doesn't do to overestimate the enthusiasm for an incoming Labour administration. I might begin to believe that the majority is on if Labour offers an appealing alternative vision of its own, rather than relying on being "Not Tories" and doing as little as possible to upset the minted codger vote. There have been a few encouraging noises about confronting the Nimbies this week, but whether this translates into workable policy remains to be seen.
No, they are in trouble and they do have somewhere else to go. I recommend reading some of the excellent threads on Wings over Scotland* and then dipping below the line there for as long as you can thole. Campbell is a good writer, witty and with a finely developed sense of the absurd but his readers are the sort of people whom we used to call cybernats and they now hate the SNP with a passion.
My expectation is that the SNP will lose roughly half of their Westminster seats at the next election, mainly to Labour. It may well give Labour a majority.
I don't see them going to Labour David, that is out of frying pan into the fire. More likely to not vote or go to any other independence party. Personally it would be good to see them hammered and for us to be shafted by Labour to waken up the idiots who still think they are anything other than London sockpuppets. Westminster is not important for Scotland, it needs people with backbone in Holyrood and Labour shafting us would stiffen some of the spineless.
Will Alba be standing candidates against the SNP? Indeed will their two MPs - originally elected as SNP - be standing for re-election?
On the water, borrowing to pay dividends when you're a monopoly provider should have been completely illegal
Indeed. But the prevailing view was that any regulation of this was bad, and New Labour was also complicit in this, as we saw in the artlcle below.
Ofwat is also still basically toothless compared to any comparable regulator in any neighbouring, or major European countries. We need to get out of this very strange , and uniquely and inflexibly , ultra-laissex faire approach to all these kind of issues, before they get worse. It also what happens when "the market" is lazily and undifferentiatedly described as inherently wise for 30 years.
There was quite a convincing debunking of the sewage story on Twitter this morning. By a Tory supporting brexiteer, but nobody has yet debunked the debunking so he may well have a point. One of those threads that contradicts my deeply held beliefs and changes my mind. Any experts out there able to tell me if he’s missing something?
On the water, borrowing to pay dividends when you're a monopoly provider should have been completely illegal
Indeed. But the prevailing view was that any regulation of this was bad, and New Labour was also complicit in this, as we saw in the artlcle below.
Ofwat is also still basically toothless compared to any comparable regulator in any neighbouring, or major European countries. We need to get out of this very strange , and uniquely and inflexibly , ultra-laissex faire approach to all these kind of issues, before they get worse. It also what happens when "the market" is lazily and undifferentiatedly described as inherently wise for 30 years.
There was quite a convincing debunking of the sewage story on Twitter this morning. By a Tory supporting brexiteer, but nobody has yet debunked the debunking so he may well have a point. One of those threads that contradicts my deeply held beliefs and changes my mind. Any experts out there able to tell me if he’s missing something?
Put it another way, currently less than half of 2019 Conservative voters will vote the same way next time. I think there will be some reversion of Reform Party supporters and Don't Knows but not nearly enough, unless anything else changes.
And add critical other point. There's no churn in these tables. No-one is moving to the Conservatives to make up their losses.
This is the most deadly issue. Voters have made up their minds on at least one point: The Tories must go.
Sir Kier may not have sealed to deal but the risk for him is not that they will go back to the Tories, but that the voters follow though on a Cleggasm style surge to Sir Edward and this time they actually make it to the ballot box. The prosperous middle class of Sevenoaks and Camberley are clearly flirting with the idea now.
I don't think that is a risk for Labour - there are few seats that a Labour / Lib Dem or 3 way marginals where no clear anti-tory candidate isn't obvious.
The worry for the Tory party is that both sides switch anti-tory at the same time at which point it's very possible that the Lib Dems collect 30-40 seats leaving the Tories at 130-160 seats.
One thing thats not taken into account for tory prospects is how the ukraine war goes. With our decision to send f16 fighter jets we are pretty much all in and given the sacrifices made by us all over the past year any reversals on the battlefield could well play badly.
Put it another way, currently less than half of 2019 Conservative voters will vote the same way next time. I think there will be some reversion of Reform Party supporters and Don't Knows but not nearly enough, unless anything else changes.
And add critical other point. There's no churn in these tables. No-one is moving to the Conservatives to make up their losses.
This is the most deadly issue. Voters have made up their minds on at least one point: The Tories must go.
Sir Kier may not have sealed to deal but the risk for him is not that they will go back to the Tories, but that the voters follow though on a Cleggasm style surge to Sir Edward and this time they actually make it to the ballot box. The prosperous middle class of Sevenoaks and Camberley are clearly flirting with the idea now.
I don't think that is a risk for Labour - there are few seats that a Labour / Lib Dem or 3 way marginals where no clear anti-tory candidate isn't obvious.
The worry for the Tory party is that both sides switch anti-tory at the same time at which point it's very possible that the Lib Dems collect 30-40 seats leaving the Tories at 130-160 seats.
One thing thats not taken into account for tory prospects is how the ukraine war goes. With our decision to send f16 fighter jets we are pretty much all in and given the sacrifices made by us all over the past year any reversals on the battlefield could well play badly.
Sticking with 1134 and 11 post this weeks. Will be right eventually!
This will make me vote Tory at the next election if Jeremy Hunt kicks out Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew won’t quit Royal Lodge unless Charles can make him agree
The King has no power to turf Andrew out of Royal lodge, his home for the past 20 years, so the decision may come down to the chancellor of the exchequer
Prince Andrew has no intention of leaving his home at Royal Lodge, Windsor, and believes that the King has no power to turf him out, a close associate of the duke has said.
The Duke of York, who has lived at the 30-room mansion for 20 years, is reportedly under pressure from Buckingham Palace to move to Frogmore Cottage, a smaller residence on the Windsor estate previously inhabited by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
The associate, who is in regular contact with the duke, said that Andrew believed he was secure in the property because his name is on the lease with the Crown Estate and not the royal family’s.
“The lease is in the duke’s name so no one can take that away from him,” the source told The Times. “It has never been suggested that it could be taken away from him. It’s a long lease with 80 to 90 years left on it.
“This is a lease between him and the Crown Estate. That’s not a matter for the King. It’s a matter for the chancellor of the exchequer. The only way you could get him to move out would be through an arrangement — he would have to agree.”
The Crown Estate describes itself as a public body sitting outside government. Its board is appointed by the King on the recommendation of the prime minister from candidates vetted by a selection board that includes the Treasury.
Andrew’s associate said that there was “no foundation” to reports this week that the duke could be pressured into leaving by actions such as cutting off his electricity supply.
The source said that the King was unlikely to exert pressure on Andrew because it would not make him a “very popular person within the family”. They added: “There are other members of the family who would not want to see a member kicked out.”
"Water companies are struggling to hold their finances in order as interest rates rise on the huge debts they have taken on to pay dividends, according to a leading economist.
Dieter Helm, a professor of economic policy at the University of Oxford and an adviser to governments, said there were worrying signs from water companies about their financial stability as the economic crisis pushes up interest rates.
At privatisation in 1989, the nine English water companies were debt free. Between 1991 and 2019 they took on £52bn of debt, according to analysis. By last year debt had risen to £56.2bn, with Ofwat warning of concerns about the financial resilience of the sector."
Another consequence of the zero interest rate policy.
There were fixed returns based on the regulated asset base that were negotiated with the regulator. This was around a 5.5-6.0% return on regulated equity. Not unreasonable (lower than the long run return of 7% on traditional equity investments because infra is seen as a low risk sector)
However was based on a faulty analysis of the cost of capital (because debt financing was so low) - the shareholders cost of financing was consistently below OFWAT’s assumptions.. So the shareholders borrowed massively to fund investment and dividends (rather than using equity).
Then, because the returns available were capped at 5.5-6.0% (far lower than unregulated opportunities) they were incentivised to minimise the investment in the water network and maximise the dividend payouts.
So it was a very unusual cocktail of trends that resulted in this position. No one has acted unreasonably. Probably the mistake was that the regulators should have put a cap on the cash dividends that could be extracted from the company.
But they should offer zero breaks to the shareholders now. They have benefited from the dividends now have to repay the debt. If they can’t then the debt providers take the companies (or the government buys the equity for cents on the dollar). No bail outs.
On the water, borrowing to pay dividends when you're a monopoly provider should have been completely illegal
Indeed. But the prevailing view was that any regulation of this was bad, and New Labour was also complicit in this, as we saw in the artlcle below.
Ofwat is also still basically toothless compared to any comparable regulator in any neighbouring, or major European countries. We need to get out of this very strange , and uniquely and inflexibly , ultra-laissex faire approach to all these kind of issues, before they get worse. It also what happens when "the market" is lazily and undifferentiatedly described as inherently wise for 30 years.
There was quite a convincing debunking of the sewage story on Twitter this morning. By a Tory supporting brexiteer, but nobody has yet debunked the debunking so he may well have a point. One of those threads that contradicts my deeply held beliefs and changes my mind. Any experts out there able to tell me if he’s missing something?
So why all the uproar about them now when sewage has been flowing into rivers forever?
More data.
In 2014, Richard Benyon MP led the charge for all CSO's in England and Wales to be 100% monitored by 2023. In 2016 when the rollout started only 5% were monitored.
Despite a lack of monitoring the issue of sewage overflows has almost certainly got better, not worse. Especially in urban areas. Testing going back to the 70's shows Ammonia and BOD levels associated with sewage declining markedly in rivers.
"Water companies are struggling to hold their finances in order as interest rates rise on the huge debts they have taken on to pay dividends, according to a leading economist.
Dieter Helm, a professor of economic policy at the University of Oxford and an adviser to governments, said there were worrying signs from water companies about their financial stability as the economic crisis pushes up interest rates.
At privatisation in 1989, the nine English water companies were debt free. Between 1991 and 2019 they took on £52bn of debt, according to analysis. By last year debt had risen to £56.2bn, with Ofwat warning of concerns about the financial resilience of the sector."
Borrowing money to pay dividends seems utterly reckless.
It’s actually entirely rational - I’ve posted a detailed response the post a couple of minutes ago
An official declaration of Russian victory for the Battle for Bakhmut is expected within the coming days. Given the depletion of reportedly 300,000+ Ukrainian forces combined with their inadequate air defense capabilities, this is expected to be a watershed moment in the war.
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The SNP aren't in as much trouble as is generally assumed. The Blue Woad Brigade has, after all, nowhere else to go. Labour will be doing very well to pick up a dozen seats.
Tactical voting might move the dial a bit more, though OTOH it doesn't do to overestimate the enthusiasm for an incoming Labour administration. I might begin to believe that the majority is on if Labour offers an appealing alternative vision of its own, rather than relying on being "Not Tories" and doing as little as possible to upset the minted codger vote. There have been a few encouraging noises about confronting the Nimbies this week, but whether this translates into workable policy remains to be seen.
No, they are in trouble and they do have somewhere else to go. I recommend reading some of the excellent threads on Wings over Scotland* and then dipping below the line there for as long as you can thole. Campbell is a good writer, witty and with a finely developed sense of the absurd but his readers are the sort of people whom we used to call cybernats and they now hate the SNP with a passion.
My expectation is that the SNP will lose roughly half of their Westminster seats at the next election, mainly to Labour. It may well give Labour a majority.
I don't see them going to Labour David, that is out of frying pan into the fire. More likely to not vote or go to any other independence party. Personally it would be good to see them hammered and for us to be shafted by Labour to waken up the idiots who still think they are anything other than London sockpuppets. Westminster is not important for Scotland, it needs people with backbone in Holyrood and Labour shafting us would stiffen some of the spineless.
Will Alba be standing candidates against the SNP? Indeed will their two MPs - originally elected as SNP - be standing for re-election?
I would hope they stand a few but their focus will be Holyrood. Westminster is not important other than to disrupt, current mob have gone native thanks to the money poured at them. It is in Holyrood or Scotland at large by Convention . where Independence will be decided. Westminster is a sideshow.
Politico: US is preparing for the possibility of freezing the conflict in Ukraine Washington no longer believes in the success of the counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the newspaper writes. That is why the United States is discussing options to freeze the conflict. Suspension of the NVO involves the definition of certain borders that Ukraine and Russia would agree not to cross, the newspaper notes.
On the water, borrowing to pay dividends when you're a monopoly provider should have been completely illegal
Indeed. But the prevailing view was that any regulation of this was bad, and New Labour was also complicit in this, as we saw in the artlcle below.
Ofwat is also still basically toothless compared to any comparable regulator in any neighbouring, or major European countries. We need to get out of this very strange , and uniquely and inflexibly , ultra-laissex faire approach to all these kind of issues, before they get worse. It also what happens when "the market" is lazily and undifferentiatedly described as inherently wise for 30 years.
There was quite a convincing debunking of the sewage story on Twitter this morning. By a Tory supporting brexiteer, but nobody has yet debunked the debunking so he may well have a point. One of those threads that contradicts my deeply held beliefs and changes my mind. Any experts out there able to tell me if he’s missing something?
I'm afraid this strikes me almost as pure government and water industry publicity, painting such a Panglossian and simple picture of progress that the almost overt spokesmanship for the government, towards the end, comes as not much surprise.
Here's what looks like a more independent approach, quoted by the Charted Institute of Waste and Environmental Management
"By Professor at University of Greenwich Public Services International Research Unit, (PSIRU) David Hall"
"Privatisation of water was deeply unpopular and remains so. In July 1989, as the private companies took over, a poll showed 79 per cent of people opposed. In 2017, after more than a quarter of a century’s experience, 83 per cent wanted water returned to public ownership.
The economic rationale offered for privatisation was that private companies would finance the investments required by EU standards without the burden of public borrowing, bringing their own money and greater efficiency into the system.
But after 25 years, water prices had risen by 40 per cent above the general rate of inflation, and the amount of shareholder money in the companies has reduced in real terms.
Despite acquiring the companies debt-free, the owners have accumulated debt of more than £50 billion, effectively used to finance dividends of over £50 billion. The annual cost of these dividends and interest on the debt is £2.3 billion a year more expensive than it would be under public ownership.
The companies’ performance has been equally poor. Sewage flooding remains a major problem, with repeated problems and fines. Thames Water has been a repeat offender, but the new super sewer being constructed to deal with the problem is another economic problem. As Thames refused to finance it by itself, the super sewer is financed by government loans and by an extra charge on consumers even before it is finished.
There is underinvestment in water-resource management, with too-easy recourse to hosepipe bans, while water leakage runs at 3.1 billion litres per day – between 15 per cent and 30 per cent of water produced.
The system also lacks effective public accountability. Southern Water is being investigated for breaching its statutory duties by Ofwat, the Environment Agency, and reportedly could face a Serious Fraud Office investigation.
But the ineffectiveness of Ofwat is another failed aspect of the system. Companies have been able to repeatedly game the price-regulation formulae to boost profits and extract dividends without critical scrutiny. They rely on Ofwat to act publicly as their defender – rather than a protector of consumer rights.
The privatised water system is leaking sewage, water and money. Renationalisation is a popular option and would bring England and Wales back into line with the rest of the world, including Scotland.
The law on compensation means that could cost £14.5 billion, according to Moody’s; the savings of £2 billion per year would provide a very good public return."
Off topic: have the privilege of sitting in the Royal Box at Wembley tomorrow for the Non-League cup finals. As former Director and current shareholder of Ascot United I was delighted to get the invite. Ascot play Newport Pagnell in the FA Vase and are odds on favourite, based on winning their league with over 100 points - but NP are the holders and Ascot players might just be affected by the occasion - worth a look if you’re an avid punter on non-league soccer.
Good luck for a win tomorrow, at worst have a great day out
The writing of Foreign Affairs and National Interest reveals that the USA is already "looking back" on Ukraine NI: WASHINGTON MADE A STRATEGIC MISTAKE BY ENTERING THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA FA: "It's time for the West to start more actively planning the future of Ukraine, not focusing only on the announced counter-offensive." History shows that some conflicts can be very difficult to end" NI: "The irony of the situation is that the West was drawn into the war against Russia at the very moment when it should have been developing a dialogue with it in order to oppose China... The US is in the mood for a confrontation with two great powers, and only naive optimists believe that Washington can win"
Politico: US is preparing for the possibility of freezing the conflict in Ukraine Washington no longer believes in the success of the counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the newspaper writes. That is why the United States is discussing options to freeze the conflict. Suspension of the NVO involves the definition of certain borders that Ukraine and Russia would agree not to cross, the newspaper notes.
think we need to bow our heads and share a moment of silence in behalf of the hard-coping Ukraine fans who are suffering through a very difficult past few days. While they achieved a well-earned but fleeting triumph by ambushing 2 RuAF jets and 2 helicopters, it's been all downhill since then. The annihilation of the ammo dumps at Pavlograd and Khmelnytsky has undoubtedly struck a severe blow against the prospects of a credible Ukrainian offensive. Their rapidly dwindling air fleet has been reduced by 2 more Su-24s, an Su-25, and a MiG-29. No fewer than 8 of the recently delivered Storm Shadow cruise missiles have been shot down, along with many HARMS and HIMARS missiles that failed to reach their intended targets. In extraordinarily dramatic fashion, an entire Patriot missile battery has been reduced to scattered shards of smoldering metal. Alas, all the most recent wunderwaffen have fallen far short of their lofty expectations. And now, to add humiliating insult to injury, the impotent Bakhmut counterattack has been decisively routed, with severe losses, and the AFU is finally giving up the fight for the ashes and rubble that will now once again assume the name Artemovsk. Zelensky has undoubtedly conducted his final begging tour of European capitals, obtaining from the vassal puppets more empty promises. Now his days are numbered ...
Put it another way, currently less than half of 2019 Conservative voters will vote the same way next time. I think there will be some reversion of Reform Party supporters and Don't Knows but not nearly enough, unless anything else changes.
And add critical other point. There's no churn in these tables. No-one is moving to the Conservatives to make up their losses.
This is the most deadly issue. Voters have made up their minds on at least one point: The Tories must go.
Sir Kier may not have sealed to deal but the risk for him is not that they will go back to the Tories, but that the voters follow though on a Cleggasm style surge to Sir Edward and this time they actually make it to the ballot box. The prosperous middle class of Sevenoaks and Camberley are clearly flirting with the idea now.
A Labour majority might be prevented by the LDs doing too well, you mean? Are there enough Con seats that are both LD and Labour targets for this to be a realistic possibility?
There are I think (but haven't checked) a fair number of seats with figures like Con 45 Lab 30 LD 18 in 2019 (and 40/35/12 in 2017). These ought to be Labour gains but I don't think the LD centre is ruthless in telling their constituency parties not to play silly buggers, and I expect a number will do the "only LibDems can win here" stuff with funny barcharts, as they did in places like Uxbridge and Portsmouth South last time (and have done in Broxtowe in every election since 1992). There won't be central party funding for that, but I doubt if the "stop messing about and go and help in a winnable seat" message will be clear enough. That will save some Tory seats in places where there is a clear anti-Tory majority.
think we need to bow our heads and share a moment of silence in behalf of the hard-coping Ukraine fans who are suffering through a very difficult past few days. While they achieved a well-earned but fleeting triumph by ambushing 2 RuAF jets and 2 helicopters, it's been all downhill since then. The annihilation of the ammo dumps at Pavlograd and Khmelnytsky has undoubtedly struck a severe blow against the prospects of a credible Ukrainian offensive. Their rapidly dwindling air fleet has been reduced by 2 more Su-24s, an Su-25, and a MiG-29. No fewer than 8 of the recently delivered Storm Shadow cruise missiles have been shot down, along with many HARMS and HIMARS missiles that failed to reach their intended targets. In extraordinarily dramatic fashion, an entire Patriot missile battery has been reduced to scattered shards of smoldering metal. Alas, all the most recent wunderwaffen have fallen far short of their lofty expectations. And now, to add humiliating insult to injury, the impotent Bakhmut counterattack has been decisively routed, with severe losses, and the AFU is finally giving up the fight for the ashes and rubble that will now once again assume the name Artemovsk. Zelensky has undoubtedly conducted his final begging tour of European capitals, obtaining from the vassal puppets more empty promises. Now his days are numbered ...
Huge explosion just now in Western Ukraine. Want to see what 100’s MILLIONS ££££ of OUR tax payer money being blown up looks like…. As the cost of living crisis for everyone else intensifies, politicians & those with ties to the military industrial complex get richer through this proxy war. And for what just a load of weapons & ammunition, most of which never makes its intended location, some is sold to criminals on black market the remainder simply gets blown up easily by Putin.
think we need to bow our heads and share a moment of silence in behalf of the hard-coping Ukraine fans who are suffering through a very difficult past few days. While they achieved a well-earned but fleeting triumph by ambushing 2 RuAF jets and 2 helicopters, it's been all downhill since then. The annihilation of the ammo dumps at Pavlograd and Khmelnytsky has undoubtedly struck a severe blow against the prospects of a credible Ukrainian offensive. Their rapidly dwindling air fleet has been reduced by 2 more Su-24s, an Su-25, and a MiG-29. No fewer than 8 of the recently delivered Storm Shadow cruise missiles have been shot down, along with many HARMS and HIMARS missiles that failed to reach their intended targets. In extraordinarily dramatic fashion, an entire Patriot missile battery has been reduced to scattered shards of smoldering metal. Alas, all the most recent wunderwaffen have fallen far short of their lofty expectations. And now, to add humiliating insult to injury, the impotent Bakhmut counterattack has been decisively routed, with severe losses, and the AFU is finally giving up the fight for the ashes and rubble that will now once again assume the name Artemovsk. Zelensky has undoubtedly conducted his final begging tour of European capitals, obtaining from the vassal puppets more empty promises. Now his days are numbered ...
On the water, borrowing to pay dividends when you're a monopoly provider should have been completely illegal
Indeed. But the prevailing view was that any regulation of this was bad, and New Labour was also complicit in this, as we saw in the artlcle below.
Ofwat is also still basically toothless compared to any comparable regulator in any neighbouring, or major European countries. We need to get out of this very strange , and uniquely and inflexibly , ultra-laissex faire approach to all these kind of issues, before they get worse. It also what happens when "the market" is lazily and undifferentiatedly described as inherently wise for 30 years.
There was quite a convincing debunking of the sewage story on Twitter this morning. By a Tory supporting brexiteer, but nobody has yet debunked the debunking so he may well have a point. One of those threads that contradicts my deeply held beliefs and changes my mind. Any experts out there able to tell me if he’s missing something?
Debunk it a bit. On the comparative data on water quality that he points to, the bad boys are England, Germany and the Netherlands. So not uniquely bad, but bad compared with Europe as a whole. The concern that I don't know if is the case and which he doesn't address, is that England could be slipping further behind comparatively, possibly in part because of Brexit.
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
Hard to believe Labour will get anywhere near 20-25 in Scotland. People hate Labour almost as much as the Tories.
It doesn't take too much to get to that number though. Lots of close Labour SNP marginals.
I think you could have a disappointing result for Labour down south but still see those 20 seats change hands. By then, the SNP will have been in power for 17 years, and I don't see much scope for them to change the current narrative. Hull 802 might be launched ahead of the GE...
Is 802 not the one that still needs 3 x the price of a ferry to complete even though 3 x the price of a ferry has already been spent on it or am I mixing it up with the one that cost 3 x as much as a ferry that is only 6 years late
think we need to bow our heads and share a moment of silence in behalf of the hard-coping Ukraine fans who are suffering through a very difficult past few days. While they achieved a well-earned but fleeting triumph by ambushing 2 RuAF jets and 2 helicopters, it's been all downhill since then. The annihilation of the ammo dumps at Pavlograd and Khmelnytsky has undoubtedly struck a severe blow against the prospects of a credible Ukrainian offensive. Their rapidly dwindling air fleet has been reduced by 2 more Su-24s, an Su-25, and a MiG-29. No fewer than 8 of the recently delivered Storm Shadow cruise missiles have been shot down, along with many HARMS and HIMARS missiles that failed to reach their intended targets. In extraordinarily dramatic fashion, an entire Patriot missile battery has been reduced to scattered shards of smoldering metal. Alas, all the most recent wunderwaffen have fallen far short of their lofty expectations. And now, to add humiliating insult to injury, the impotent Bakhmut counterattack has been decisively routed, with severe losses, and the AFU is finally giving up the fight for the ashes and rubble that will now once again assume the name Artemovsk. Zelensky has undoubtedly conducted his final begging tour of European capitals, obtaining from the vassal puppets more empty promises. Now his days are numbered ...
I think that just like their military they must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel now. These latest versions are no where near as subtle and interesting as the earlier ones. These are the T55s of the Russian Troll factories.
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The anti-Tory vote will be well organised.
The bigger problem for Rishi is actually getting the Tory vote to show up.
If both happen, he's in real trouble.
Until the locals I was not convinced your first sentence was correct, but after those results I do think you are right. The LDs were polling really quite low but had spectacular results in their areas. Since then several polls have shown a slight increase in their ratings and a slight lowering of Labour. I have chosen (whether correct or not) to believe that is a reflection of tactical voting rather than a change in support for these parties. If it continues and nothing else changes I think it could be a slaughter with Labour taking their targets and the LDs taking theirs. It could be the LDs do spectacularly well. @HYUFD has already pointed out the situation in Henley and you only have to look at Gove's Surrey Heath seat to look at what the LDs did there. It is a seat I am very familiar with from the past and which used to have 100% Tory Council control. The issue for the LDs will be resources. They could also do with getting that national poll rating up more. That needs by elections and a greater awareness of tactical voting.
In contrast to 1997 the Tories now do better with the skilled working class but worse with the upper middle class. That was shown in the local elections where the Tories lost control of every council in Surrey, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire except Reigate and Broxbourne but held Dudley, Harlow, Dartford, Basildon and Walsall all of which voted for Blair in 1997.
So I expect the Tories to lose seats like Henley, Wantage and Esher and Walton and Surrey SW potentially to the LDs which Major held but hold some seats like Harlow, Basildon and Dudley which Blair won
Agree (getting worried I am doing too much of that recently @HYUFD ).
Around my way all the local seats are now vulnerable and I know them all pretty well, namely Guildford, SW Surrey (which will split in two, both of which will be vulnerable), Mole Valley, Guildford and Esher and Walton. And even Surrey Heath although I would put SH in the same category as Henley in that the local election results say it is vulnerable, but I will be shocked if it falls.
Obviously good news for my side, although targeting every seat in the area is a challenge. In the last election we were moved several times as the target list shrank and shrank.
As you say the Tories may hold seats Labour won off the Tories previously. If both scenarios happen I will be very happy.
think we need to bow our heads and share a moment of silence in behalf of the hard-coping Ukraine fans who are suffering through a very difficult past few days. While they achieved a well-earned but fleeting triumph by ambushing 2 RuAF jets and 2 helicopters, it's been all downhill since then. The annihilation of the ammo dumps at Pavlograd and Khmelnytsky has undoubtedly struck a severe blow against the prospects of a credible Ukrainian offensive. Their rapidly dwindling air fleet has been reduced by 2 more Su-24s, an Su-25, and a MiG-29. No fewer than 8 of the recently delivered Storm Shadow cruise missiles have been shot down, along with many HARMS and HIMARS missiles that failed to reach their intended targets. In extraordinarily dramatic fashion, an entire Patriot missile battery has been reduced to scattered shards of smoldering metal. Alas, all the most recent wunderwaffen have fallen far short of their lofty expectations. And now, to add humiliating insult to injury, the impotent Bakhmut counterattack has been decisively routed, with severe losses, and the AFU is finally giving up the fight for the ashes and rubble that will now once again assume the name Artemovsk. Zelensky has undoubtedly conducted his final begging tour of European capitals, obtaining from the vassal puppets more empty promises. Now his days are numbered ...
think we need to bow our heads and share a moment of silence in behalf of the hard-coping Ukraine fans who are suffering through a very difficult past few days. While they achieved a well-earned but fleeting triumph by ambushing 2 RuAF jets and 2 helicopters, it's been all downhill since then. The annihilation of the ammo dumps at Pavlograd and Khmelnytsky has undoubtedly struck a severe blow against the prospects of a credible Ukrainian offensive. Their rapidly dwindling air fleet has been reduced by 2 more Su-24s, an Su-25, and a MiG-29. No fewer than 8 of the recently delivered Storm Shadow cruise missiles have been shot down, along with many HARMS and HIMARS missiles that failed to reach their intended targets. In extraordinarily dramatic fashion, an entire Patriot missile battery has been reduced to scattered shards of smoldering metal. Alas, all the most recent wunderwaffen have fallen far short of their lofty expectations. And now, to add humiliating insult to injury, the impotent Bakhmut counterattack has been decisively routed, with severe losses, and the AFU is finally giving up the fight for the ashes and rubble that will now once again assume the name Artemovsk. Zelensky has undoubtedly conducted his final begging tour of European capitals, obtaining from the vassal puppets more empty promises. Now his days are numbered ...
I think that just like their military they must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel now. These latest versions are no where near as subtle and interesting as the earlier ones. These are the T55s of the Russian Troll factories.
They're burned through their elite trolls, and these are ones conscripted into punishment battalions.
According to one of the NATO officers who provided headquarters support for counterattacks on the flanks of the Bakhmut group on May 12, Ukraine suffered one of the biggest losses since 2014 - 1,725 people were killed. The strikes of the 2nd Azov brigade on the southern flank and two mechanized brigades and one motorized rifle battalion on the northern flank were stopped, and the losses amounted to one regiment. The rapid withdrawal of Russian troops to the plain and the shelling of Russian tanks, artillery and Russian aircraft on the line of defense prepared at high altitudes led to heavy losses. A large number of foreign mercenaries and far-right groups are stuck in Bakhmut. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have been trying for several days to ease the pressure on the group so that it can be withdrawn, but Russia nullifies these attempts with a massive bombardment.
On the water, borrowing to pay dividends when you're a monopoly provider should have been completely illegal
Indeed. But the prevailing view was that any regulation of this was bad, and New Labour was also complicit in this, as we saw in the artlcle below.
Ofwat is also still basically toothless compared to any comparable regulator in any neighbouring, or major European countries. We need to get out of this very strange , and uniquely and inflexibly , ultra-laissex faire approach to all these kind of issues, before they get worse. It also what happens when "the market" is lazily and undifferentiatedly described as inherently wise for 30 years.
There was quite a convincing debunking of the sewage story on Twitter this morning. By a Tory supporting brexiteer, but nobody has yet debunked the debunking so he may well have a point. One of those threads that contradicts my deeply held beliefs and changes my mind. Any experts out there able to tell me if he’s missing something?
I'm afraid this strikes me almost as pure government and water industry publicity, painting such a Panglossian and simple picture of progress that the almost overt spokesmanship for the government, towards the end, comes as not much surprise.
Here's what looks like a more independent approach, quoted by the Charted Institute of Waste and Environmental Management
"By Professor at University of Greenwich Public Services International Research Unit, (PSIRU) David Hall"
"Privatisation of water was deeply unpopular and remains so. In July 1989, as the private companies took over, a poll showed 79 per cent of people opposed. In 2017, after more than a quarter of a century’s experience, 83 per cent wanted water returned to public ownership.
The economic rationale offered for privatisation was that private companies would finance the investments required by EU standards without the burden of public borrowing, bringing their own money and greater efficiency into the system.
But after 25 years, water prices had risen by 40 per cent above the general rate of inflation, and the amount of shareholder money in the companies has reduced in real terms.
Despite acquiring the companies debt-free, the owners have accumulated debt of more than £50 billion, effectively used to finance dividends of over £50 billion. The annual cost of these dividends and interest on the debt is £2.3 billion a year more expensive than it would be under public ownership.
The companies’ performance has been equally poor. Sewage flooding remains a major problem, with repeated problems and fines. Thames Water has been a repeat offender, but the new super sewer being constructed to deal with the problem is another economic problem. As Thames refused to finance it by itself, the super sewer is financed by government loans and by an extra charge on consumers even before it is finished.
There is underinvestment in water-resource management, with too-easy recourse to hosepipe bans, while water leakage runs at 3.1 billion litres per day – between 15 per cent and 30 per cent of water produced.
The system also lacks effective public accountability. Southern Water is being investigated for breaching its statutory duties by Ofwat, the Environment Agency, and reportedly could face a Serious Fraud Office investigation.
But the ineffectiveness of Ofwat is another failed aspect of the system. Companies have been able to repeatedly game the price-regulation formulae to boost profits and extract dividends without critical scrutiny. They rely on Ofwat to act publicly as their defender – rather than a protector of consumer rights.
The privatised water system is leaking sewage, water and money. Renationalisation is a popular option and would bring England and Wales back into line with the rest of the world, including Scotland.
The law on compensation means that could cost £14.5 billion, according to Moody’s; the savings of £2 billion per year would provide a very good public return."
To be fair, whilst I agree with practically everything you have quoted there, none of it actually challenges the quote that TimS was asking about.
These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.
If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.
Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.
Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
The SNP aren't in as much trouble as is generally assumed. The Blue Woad Brigade has, after all, nowhere else to go. Labour will be doing very well to pick up a dozen seats.
Tactical voting might move the dial a bit more, though OTOH it doesn't do to overestimate the enthusiasm for an incoming Labour administration. I might begin to believe that the majority is on if Labour offers an appealing alternative vision of its own, rather than relying on being "Not Tories" and doing as little as possible to upset the minted codger vote. There have been a few encouraging noises about confronting the Nimbies this week, but whether this translates into workable policy remains to be seen.
No, they are in trouble and they do have somewhere else to go. I recommend reading some of the excellent threads on Wings over Scotland* and then dipping below the line there for as long as you can thole. Campbell is a good writer, witty and with a finely developed sense of the absurd but his readers are the sort of people whom we used to call cybernats and they now hate the SNP with a passion.
My expectation is that the SNP will lose roughly half of their Westminster seats at the next election, mainly to Labour. It may well give Labour a majority.
I don't see them going to Labour David, that is out of frying pan into the fire. More likely to not vote or go to any other independence party. Personally it would be good to see them hammered and for us to be shafted by Labour to waken up the idiots who still think they are anything other than London sockpuppets. Westminster is not important for Scotland, it needs people with backbone in Holyrood and Labour shafting us would stiffen some of the spineless.
Will Alba be standing candidates against the SNP? Indeed will their two MPs - originally elected as SNP - be standing for re-election?
An official declaration of Russian victory for the Battle for Bakhmut is expected within the coming days. Given the depletion of reportedly 300,000+ Ukrainian forces combined with their inadequate air defense capabilities, this is expected to be a watershed moment in the war.
Incredible losses": the West will not be able to make up for the losses of the Ukrainian army Former adviser to the head of the Pentagon, Douglas McGregor, said that since the beginning of the Russian special operation, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have lost about 10,000 armored vehicles. Such losses are incredible and cannot be replenished.
On the water, borrowing to pay dividends when you're a monopoly provider should have been completely illegal
Indeed. But the prevailing view was that any regulation of this was bad, and New Labour was also complicit in this, as we saw in the artlcle below.
Ofwat is also still basically toothless compared to any comparable regulator in any neighbouring, or major European countries. We need to get out of this very strange , and uniquely and inflexibly , ultra-laissex faire approach to all these kind of issues, before they get worse. It also what happens when "the market" is lazily and undifferentiatedly described as inherently wise for 30 years.
There was quite a convincing debunking of the sewage story on Twitter this morning. By a Tory supporting brexiteer, but nobody has yet debunked the debunking so he may well have a point. One of those threads that contradicts my deeply held beliefs and changes my mind. Any experts out there able to tell me if he’s missing something?
Debunk it a bit. On the comparative data on water quality that he points to, the bad boys are England, Germany and the Netherlands. So not uniquely bad, but bad compared with Europe as a whole. The concern that I don't know if is the case and which he doesn't address, is that England could be slipping further behind comparatively, possibly in part because of Brexit.
So the countries rated the worst are those most likely to be doing the most reporting ?
think we need to bow our heads and share a moment of silence in behalf of the hard-coping Ukraine fans who are suffering through a very difficult past few days. While they achieved a well-earned but fleeting triumph by ambushing 2 RuAF jets and 2 helicopters, it's been all downhill since then. The annihilation of the ammo dumps at Pavlograd and Khmelnytsky has undoubtedly struck a severe blow against the prospects of a credible Ukrainian offensive. Their rapidly dwindling air fleet has been reduced by 2 more Su-24s, an Su-25, and a MiG-29. No fewer than 8 of the recently delivered Storm Shadow cruise missiles have been shot down, along with many HARMS and HIMARS missiles that failed to reach their intended targets. In extraordinarily dramatic fashion, an entire Patriot missile battery has been reduced to scattered shards of smoldering metal. Alas, all the most recent wunderwaffen have fallen far short of their lofty expectations. And now, to add humiliating insult to injury, the impotent Bakhmut counterattack has been decisively routed, with severe losses, and the AFU is finally giving up the fight for the ashes and rubble that will now once again assume the name Artemovsk. Zelensky has undoubtedly conducted his final begging tour of European capitals, obtaining from the vassal puppets more empty promises. Now his days are numbered ...
Comments
In 2017 the SNP lost 476,867 votes whilst the Tories gained 323,852 votes from the 2015 GE.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/09/11/labours-gains-in-scotland-were-mostly-down-to-the-snp-misplacing-nearly-half-a-million-voters-not-because-of-some-great-love-for-corbyn/
And add critical other point. There's no churn in these tables. No-one is moving to the Conservatives to make up their losses.
Basically this prevailed until fairly recently (though not perhaps with banks) but has been so abandoned that ineffective regulation of the private sector is now a major industry. (Rail, water and so on).
The slightly more convincing comparison is Major.
So I expect the Tories to lose seats like Henley, Wantage and Esher and Walton and Surrey SW potentially to the LDs which Major held but hold some seats like Harlow, Basildon and Dudley which Blair won
The public anger on these issues is reaching the kind of critical level where even the tabloids usually sniff the wind, and in this case will probably quietly change direction from the solely "population pressure" stories. This also happened in various issues around 1995, and paved the way for New Labour to get in.
The more people see Starmer during an election campaign Labour's vote will go up because the country loves a good lawyer.
Rishi Sunak has ‘total confidence’ in his vision for victory
The prime minister thinks tax cuts will keep Tories in power
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-rests-his-hopes-on-bringing-back-the-feelgood-factor-tw9wl98f9
Personally it would be good to see them hammered and for us to be shafted by Labour to waken up the idiots who still think they are anything other than London sockpuppets. Westminster is not important for Scotland, it needs people with backbone in Holyrood and Labour shafting us would stiffen some of the spineless.
Prince Andrew won’t quit Royal Lodge unless Charles can make him agree
The King has no power to turf Andrew out of Royal lodge, his home for the past 20 years, so the decision may come down to the chancellor of the exchequer
Prince Andrew has no intention of leaving his home at Royal Lodge, Windsor, and believes that the King has no power to turf him out, a close associate of the duke has said.
The Duke of York, who has lived at the 30-room mansion for 20 years, is reportedly under pressure from Buckingham Palace to move to Frogmore Cottage, a smaller residence on the Windsor estate previously inhabited by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
The associate, who is in regular contact with the duke, said that Andrew believed he was secure in the property because his name is on the lease with the Crown Estate and not the royal family’s.
“The lease is in the duke’s name so no one can take that away from him,” the source told The Times. “It has never been suggested that it could be taken away from him. It’s a long lease with 80 to 90 years left on it.
“This is a lease between him and the Crown Estate. That’s not a matter for the King. It’s a matter for the chancellor of the exchequer. The only way you could get him to move out would be through an arrangement — he would have to agree.”
The Crown Estate describes itself as a public body sitting outside government. Its board is appointed by the King on the recommendation of the prime minister from candidates vetted by a selection board that includes the Treasury.
Andrew’s associate said that there was “no foundation” to reports this week that the duke could be pressured into leaving by actions such as cutting off his electricity supply.
The source said that the King was unlikely to exert pressure on Andrew because it would not make him a “very popular person within the family”. They added: “There are other members of the family who would not want to see a member kicked out.”
Bad optics for Charles whatever he does.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seo-begin-prince-andrew-also-charlesstand-royal-lodge-king-fwrkg25lj
Waitrose belt Conservatives have managed to hit the sweet spot of upsetting both those who cannot afford to live there and also those who are terrified of losing their housing equity gains.
Starmer doesn't offer that - he offers competency which (being blunt) neither Bozo nor Truss did but Sunak also offers that.
So people voting labour are not doing it for a brighter future at the moment they are doing it in the hope that things won't get worse (as they have done for many over the past 13 years).
That also plays to Labour.
The 2019 fruit loops are still very much the voice of the 2024 Conservative party, whereas an exhumed Corbyn propped in front of a camera doesn't speak for Starmer's team.
This has the potential of splitting the anti conservative vote - effectively the opposite of Reform.
Tactical messaging will be important.
It may be in Starmer’s interests to make the next election as boring as possible. Encourage those Ref-leading and disillusioned red wall Tories to have a nice nap and sit it out this time, or book a cruise from Southampton for election week.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CsdQ8vXM48R/
Should come as little surprise that it has led to moronic acts.
Which for 1 of the wards makes zero sense as to solve the problem they are protesting about they need the Northern Relief bypass built and that requires money and support from Ben Houchen.
I think Rishi is someone that doesn't understand himself too well, although not necessarily a bad person.
https://cds.sevenoaks.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=165&RPID=30107880&J=18
The Yorkshire Post
@yorkshirepost
Tees Freeport latest: Government 'has not given permission' for National Audit Office investigation
Which tells me everything Private Eye says is true and it's way worse than that because you could have coped with that level of known corruption.
And that if Rishi is hoping for the Teesside Red Wall seats to remain blue next time round he is likely to be unlucky.
I think you could have a disappointing result for Labour down south but still see those 20 seats change hands. By then, the SNP will have been in power for 17 years, and I don't see much scope for them to change the current narrative. Hull 802 might be launched ahead of the GE...
They've also been superb on water indusrty and rail graft for over 30 years now, although no one, including either New Labour or Tory front benches, has really been listening.
Andrew will presumably be joining the LDs delivering Focus leaflets and bar charts in Surrey SW to get rid of the Chancellor at the next election if Hunt does kick him out?
Whether that is still the case after the election is another matter but he is at least recognising the fundemental problems in the current system.
On his blog, I think Meeks does a good job of explaining why don't knows and Reform voters will either save the Tories or at least prevent Starmer from getting a majority. In respect to don't knows:
"And what of don’t knows? It’s absolutely true that a high percentage of 2019 Conservative voters are currently saying that they don’t know who they’re going to vote for. By itself this group comprises something like 10% of the electorate. That’s a big group. And it’s absolutely true that many people who say “don’t know” ultimately plump for their previous choice. So this looks more promising for the Conservatives, right?
Well. Pollsters have long sought to take this effect into account in their surveys. Some of them have now gone well beyond accounting for “shy Tories” and now seek to attribute likely future decisions by the genuinely unsure on the basis of their past behaviour. Opinium in particular have pioneered this method."
As for Reform:
"Reform is currently polling about 5%. There’s an assumption that most of this will revert to the Conservatives come the general election. This seems doubtful. Under its previous name of the Brexit party, it took 2% of the vote in 2019. But it only stood in 275 seats, so this percentage needs to be at least doubled to establish the benchmark against it should be judged (arguably more than doubled given that it stood largely in Labour-held seats which were not necessarily its most fertile territory). If it makes good on its promise to stand in every seat this time, I expect it to take something quite close to 5% of the vote nationally. It’s not as though Rishi Sunak holds a particular appeal for prospective Reform voters. Many of them regard him as a closet Remainer."
I think this is also supported by some recent R&W polling which suggests that only a quarter of Reform voters would vote Tory if there was no Reform candidate in their constituency, with 15% voting Labour and around half not bothering to vote at all.
Point is, we can't assume just all 2019 Tory DKs and Reform voters will swing back to the Tories at the election, and I think a lot of them just won't bother voting at all (like many 1992 Tory voters didn't in the 97 election).
There's no moderate position on housing in the waitrose belt - you need to make a decision one way or the other accepting that you will upset one group but hoping to get votes from the other.
The strongest Tory vote now is in white working class or pensioner filled areas with 60%+ Leave votes in 2016, posh upper middle class areas however are vulnerable to the LDs in the home counties and Labour in London even if they stayed Tory in 1997
I did back Borussia Dortmund in my early title bets (along with Arsenal and Napoli) though I don't think it'll come off.
Younger urban relatives I have are also livid.
I suppose the Tories must still have support somewhere, though,
The midlands, the suburbs, the red walls, the coasts, and the deep countryside.
As such he's not my sort of politician at all, but I respect that he actually wants to grapple with problems and do something about them.
Sir Kier may not have sealed to deal but the risk for him is not that they will go back to the Tories, but that the voters follow though on a Cleggasm style surge to Sir Edward and this time they actually make it to the ballot box. The prosperous middle class of Sevenoaks and Camberley are clearly flirting with the idea now.
But there a lot of soft Yes left of centre voters who would not agree with this at all and want the Tories gone. If Humsa can't give these voters a good reason to vote for the SNP, a lot of them will vote SLAB at the election.
And as you point out, a lot of the hardcore independent voters will probably either vote for Alba or (more likely) not bother showing up at all. I suspect the reason why the SNPs current line on Labour is so confused is because they need to simultaneously appeal to both these groups. Hence why Labour are apparently as bad as the Tories, but despite this they would block a minority Tory government but not a Labour one.
The mind boggles at what we shall actually get. But one possibility is that a very complicated non-Tory alliance will both do badly, fall early, and leave the Tories as the only other possible government before they have had time to recover ideologically.
A government where Labour win 260 seats and would be complicated and messy.
Ofwat is also still basically toothless compared to any comparable regulator in any neighbouring, or major European country. We need to get out of this very strange , and uniquely and inflexibly ultra-laissex faire approach to all these kind of issues, before they get worse. It's also what happens when "the market" is lazily and undifferentiatedly described as inherently wise by both governing parties for than 30 years, and then the popular press meanwhile bats away almost every issue with this god of wisdom to immigration.
The worry for the Tory party is that both sides switch anti-tory at the same time at which point it's very possible that the Lib Dems collect 30-40 seats leaving the Tories at 130-160 seats.
https://twitter.com/loftussteve/status/1659637753158545414?s=46
There were fixed returns based on the regulated asset base that were negotiated with the regulator. This was around a 5.5-6.0% return on regulated equity. Not unreasonable (lower than the long run return of 7% on traditional equity investments because infra is seen as a low risk sector)
However was based on a faulty analysis of the cost of capital (because debt financing was so low) - the shareholders cost of financing was consistently below OFWAT’s assumptions.. So the shareholders borrowed massively to fund investment and dividends (rather than using equity).
Then, because the returns available were capped at 5.5-6.0% (far lower than unregulated opportunities) they were incentivised to minimise the investment in the water network and maximise the dividend payouts.
So it was a very unusual cocktail of trends that resulted in this position. No one has acted unreasonably. Probably the mistake was that the regulators should have put a cap on the cash dividends that could be extracted from the company.
But they should offer zero breaks to the shareholders now. They have benefited from the dividends now have to repay the debt. If they can’t then the debt providers take the companies (or the government buys the equity for cents on the dollar). No bail outs.
So why all the uproar about them now when sewage has been flowing into rivers forever?
More data.
In 2014, Richard Benyon MP led the charge for all CSO's in England and Wales to be 100% monitored by 2023. In 2016 when the rollout started only 5% were monitored.
https://twitter.com/LoftusSteve/status/1659637761207418883
Despite a lack of monitoring the issue of sewage overflows has almost certainly got better, not worse. Especially in urban areas. Testing going back to the 70's shows Ammonia and BOD levels associated with sewage declining markedly in rivers.
https://twitter.com/LoftusSteve/status/1659637770413899778
An official declaration of Russian victory for the Battle for Bakhmut is expected within the coming days. Given the depletion of reportedly 300,000+ Ukrainian forces combined with their inadequate air defense capabilities, this is expected to be a watershed moment in the war.
https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/1659646546068029440?s=20
https://twitter.com/Spriter99880/status/1659179735388233729?s=20
Here's what looks like a more independent approach, quoted by the Charted Institute of Waste and Environmental Management
"By Professor at University of Greenwich Public Services International Research Unit, (PSIRU) David Hall"
"Privatisation of water was deeply unpopular and remains so. In July 1989, as the private companies took over, a poll showed 79 per cent of people opposed. In 2017, after more than a quarter of a century’s experience, 83 per cent wanted water returned to public ownership.
The economic rationale offered for privatisation was that private companies would finance the investments required by EU standards without the burden of public borrowing, bringing their own money and greater efficiency into the system.
But after 25 years, water prices had risen by 40 per cent above the general rate of inflation, and the amount of shareholder money in the companies has reduced in real terms.
Despite acquiring the companies debt-free, the owners have accumulated debt of more than £50 billion, effectively used to finance dividends of over £50 billion. The annual cost of these dividends and interest on the debt is £2.3 billion a year more expensive than it would be under public ownership.
The companies’ performance has been equally poor. Sewage flooding remains a major problem, with repeated problems and fines. Thames Water has been a repeat offender, but the new super sewer being constructed to deal with the problem is another economic problem. As Thames refused to finance it by itself, the super sewer is financed by government loans and by an extra charge on consumers even before it is finished.
There is underinvestment in water-resource management, with too-easy recourse to hosepipe bans, while water leakage runs at 3.1 billion litres per day – between 15 per cent and 30 per cent of water produced.
The system also lacks effective public accountability. Southern Water is being investigated for breaching its statutory duties by Ofwat, the Environment Agency, and reportedly could face a Serious Fraud Office investigation.
But the ineffectiveness of Ofwat is another failed aspect of the system. Companies have been able to repeatedly game the price-regulation formulae to boost profits and extract dividends without critical scrutiny. They rely on Ofwat to act publicly as their defender – rather than a protector of consumer rights.
The privatised water system is leaking sewage, water and money. Renationalisation is a popular option and would bring England and Wales back into line with the rest of the world, including Scotland.
The law on compensation means that could cost £14.5 billion, according to Moody’s; the savings of £2 billion per year would provide a very good public return."
https://twitter.com/Spriter99880/status/1658740124908126209?s=20
https://twitter.com/imetatronink/status/1658494355899047939?s=20
https://twitter.com/NormATM1903/status/1659627032572047361?s=20
https://twitter.com/cotupacs/status/1659283387956207617?s=20
https://twitter.com/brotherlouie22/status/1658266622065270786?s=20
Around my way all the local seats are now vulnerable and I know them all pretty well, namely Guildford, SW Surrey (which will split in two, both of which will be vulnerable), Mole Valley, Guildford and Esher and Walton. And even Surrey Heath although I would put SH in the same category as Henley in that the local election results say it is vulnerable, but I will be shocked if it falls.
Obviously good news for my side, although targeting every seat in the area is a challenge. In the last election we were moved several times as the target list shrank and shrank.
As you say the Tories may hold seats Labour won off the Tories previously. If both scenarios happen I will be very happy.
https://twitter.com/vicktop55/status/1658519723653332998?s=20
https://twitter.com/djuric_zlatko/status/1658009191879933955?s=20