1st - Not sure Starmer and his lot are as popular as Tony Blair and his. And Labour are not good at fighting by-elections - look at actual votes cast in recent by-elections.
1st - Not sure Starmer and his lot are as popular as Tony Blair and his. And Labour are not good at fighting by-elections - look at actual votes cast in recent by-elections.
Starmer may not be as popular as Tony Blair, but I'm not sure Rishi Sunak is as popular as John Major.
1st - Not sure Starmer and his lot are as popular as Tony Blair and his. And Labour are not good at fighting by-elections - look at actual votes cast in recent by-elections.
Starmer may not be as popular as Tony Blair, but I'm not sure Rishi Sunak is as popular as John Major.
The 1995 local elections were Labour 47%, Tories 25%, LDs 23%.
This year's local elections at the same stage of the cycle in England were NEV Labour 35%, Tories 26% and LDs 20%.
Neither. We’re in 2023. Historical comparisons are overused. This might not be as bad as HYUFD’s insistence that because something’s never happened it can never happen, nevertheless prognosticators need to look beyond artificial binary comparisons like this, and the variables are all different now.
Starmer and Sunak is like the story of two men running away from a bear. One turns to the other and says "do you think we can outrun it?" The other says "I don't need to outrun it, I just need to outrun you."
As it stands Labour and Starmer are not without their problems, but they look like they can outrun the Tories and Sunak.
1st - Not sure Starmer and his lot are as popular as Tony Blair and his. And Labour are not good at fighting by-elections - look at actual votes cast in recent by-elections.
Starmer may not be as popular as Tony Blair, but I'm not sure Rishi Sunak is as popular as John Major.
Worth remembering that the polls in 1991, even at face value, were pretty close; the wikiworm had the Conservatives about 4 points ahead at the start of the year, Labour about 4 points ahead in the autumn. And that's before factoring in the systematic wrongness of polls at the time.
Hence the narrative shift to "maybe 2010 is the template; Labour recovered strongly in the runup to that election and Cameron nearly blew it." True, but some of the factors at play there (a big UKIP vote to squeeze; a real sense of pulling back from the economic brink) simply don't apply this time. And if the surge is going to happen, it needs to get going soon.
There are always Events, dear boy, but as time passes they will have to be damn big ones.
"Foreign Office issues new advice for UK travellers to France amid ongoing riots
The latest advice for travellers from the UK to France is to "avoid areas where riots are taking place" and check their travel insurance "provides sufficient cover"."
Was Blair really popular or the Tories unpopular? Well. Often forgotten that John Smith had huge poll leads, too.
That's true. Although if you compare the 1993 and 1994 local elections under Smith with 1995 and 1996 under Blair, there was a real step change in Labour performance.
Black Wednesday probably sealed Major's Tories' fate with hindsight, and Smith would've won had he lived.
But, whatever you think of the man and his legacy, Blair really did seal the deal and turned a win into a landslide.
If anyone wants to look in to the laughable state of the regulation around housebuilding it is worth following the CG Fry case as it goes through the courts.
Essentially around 44,000 houses cannot be built despite having planning permission because of an issue to do with 'nutrient neutrality', which means that Councils cannot discharge conditions attached to planning permissions to allow work to start on site. In a very crude summary, the reason for this is that new housing development can add to 'nutrient loads' on protected european habitats sites - despite the fact that most of the problem is usually generated by agriculture and lack of investment in water infrastructure on the part of utility companies.
So even if you get planning permission, and spend years of time and hundreds of thousands of pounds in doing so, and pay off the landowners etc, then you slam straight in to an effective ban on housebuilding, which the government have little interest in doing anything about, other than to try and deflect blame by handing out pathetic 100k grants for local authorities to do solve the problem - although they could solve it immediately by submitting to judgement on this absurd case.
Good commentary by a planning lawyer: "If anyone voted for Brexit thinking that these sorts of problems would become a thing of the past, more fool them."
If anyone wants to look in to the laughable state of the regulation around housebuilding it is worth following the CG Fry case as it goes through the courts.
Essentially around 44,000 houses cannot be built despite having planning permission because of an issue to do with 'nutrient neutrality', which means that Councils cannot discharge conditions attached to planning permissions to allow work to start on site. In a very crude summary, the reason for this is that new housing development can add to 'nutrient loads' on protected european habitats sites - despite the fact that most of the problem is usually generated by agriculture and lack of investment in water infrastructure on the part of utility companies.
So even if you get planning permission, and spend years of time and hundreds of thousands of pounds in doing so, and pay off the landowners etc, then you slam straight in to an effective ban on housebuilding, which the government have little interest in doing anything about, other than to try and deflect blame by handing out pathetic 100k grants for local authorities to do solve the problem - although they could solve it immediately by submitting to judgement on this absurd case.
Good commentary by a planning lawyer: "If anyone voted for Brexit thinking that these sorts of problems would become a thing of the past, more fool them."
"Foreign Office issues new advice for UK travellers to France amid ongoing riots
The latest advice for travellers from the UK to France is to "avoid areas where riots are taking place" and check their travel insurance "provides sufficient cover"."
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
"Foreign Office issues new advice for UK travellers to France amid ongoing riots
The latest advice for travellers from the UK to France is to "avoid areas where riots are taking place" and check their travel insurance "provides sufficient cover"."
SKS supporters please explain why he hasn’t got Labour over 60%
SKS tolerator rather than supporter, but in two words: Duff Methodology.
ICM were the first company to take Shy Tories seriously and try to factor their shyness into their polling.
See those red dots, about one a month, quite a way below all the others? That's ICM. Hence "gold standard" and "worst poll for Labour is the accurate one" tropes for PBers of a certain age.
The ICM/Guardian polls for 1996 were in the range Lab 45-50, Con 28-32, Lib 14-21
Now everyone tries to squeeze people out of their shyness, because it gives the right answers. The polls over the last week? Lab 43-48, Con 24-31, Lib 8-13. (Everyone is down a bit, becuase Greens and RefUK are up.)
It really is that bad for the Conservatives, and I don't see what cavalry is coming to save them.
How many dropped catches is that now in 2 test matches?
Not sure but it's 2 many by Anderson in this Test alone.
Not very much was made of the Stokes one in the last test ...that was absolutely crucial. Difficult but by Stokes ability/ high standard you would expect him to take it.
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
Australia struggling with the short stuff....have England made a boo boo not playing Mark Wood. If you can't cope with mid 80 mph short stuff, add on 10mph and it gets really fun.
"Foreign Office issues new advice for UK travellers to France amid ongoing riots
The latest advice for travellers from the UK to France is to "avoid areas where riots are taking place" and check their travel insurance "provides sufficient cover"."
On the topic, re "After John Major’s miracle in 1992 things quickly fell apart for the Tories, who went behind in the polls before Christmas and never regained the lead", in Major's recent interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast he told an anecdote about having a discussion with some other senior Tory the day after they won in 1992 where they concluded that they had zero chance of winning again in 1997 (and that therefore they should govern according to what they felt was the right thing to do rather than trying to tack towards electability).
"Foreign Office issues new advice for UK travellers to France amid ongoing riots
The latest advice for travellers from the UK to France is to "avoid areas where riots are taking place" and check their travel insurance "provides sufficient cover"."
On the topic, re "After John Major’s miracle in 1992 things quickly fell apart for the Tories, who went behind in the polls before Christmas and never regained the lead", in Major's recent interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast he told an anecdote about having a discussion with some other senior Tory the day after they won in 1992 where they concluded that they had zero chance of winning again in 1997 (and that therefore they should govern according to what they felt was the right thing to do rather than trying to tack towards electability).
Which is almost certainly a bollox rewriting of history.
In the summer of 1992 the discussions were whether the Conservatives would ever lose.
Visegrád 24 @visegrad24 · 14m Statement by the French police unions saying it’s a civil war & that the police will have to form "the resistance" as gov. is weak
“The police are in combat because we are at war. Tomorrow we’ll be in resistance & the gov. will have to become aware of it”
Was Blair really popular or the Tories unpopular? Well. Often forgotten that John Smith had huge poll leads, too.
Being named after a leading beer does have its advantages. It worked for the Tories too when they appointed xxxx in 2019.
Was there ever a worse beer than Castlemaine ?
At least in this country - I assume the Australian version was better.
Amusing adverts though.
It was a classic InBev move. Take popular brand from another country, reformulate it so its as weak as piss and tastes crap, but market the hell out of it.
They have done the same with most of the "foriegn" lagers you see widely advetised in the Uk, Stella etc etc etc
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
Visegrád 24 @visegrad24 · 14m Statement by the French police unions saying it’s a civil war & that the police will have to form "the resistance" as gov. is weak
“The police are in combat because we are at war. Tomorrow we’ll be in resistance & the gov. will have to become aware of it”
SKS supporters please explain why he hasn’t got Labour over 60%
SKS tolerator rather than supporter, but in two words: Duff Methodology.
ICM were the first company to take Shy Tories seriously and try to factor their shyness into their polling.
See those red dots, about one a month, quite a way below all the others? That's ICM. Hence "gold standard" and "worst poll for Labour is the accurate one" tropes for PBers of a certain age.
The ICM/Guardian polls for 1996 were in the range Lab 45-50, Con 28-32, Lib 14-21
Now everyone tries to squeeze people out of their shyness, because it gives the right answers. The polls over the last week? Lab 43-48, Con 24-31, Lib 8-13. (Everyone is down a bit, becuase Greens and RefUK are up.)
It really is that bad for the Conservatives, and I don't see what cavalry is coming to save them.
That is all very convincing, and yet, playing Devil's Advocate, in 1997 there had been a gap of 14 years since "the longest suicide note in history", and 12 years since Kinnock's 1985 speech taking on the Labour Left.
A general election next year will only be five years since Corbyn's defeat in 2019, and four years since Corbyn was declared persona non grata following his response to the report into anti-semitism in the Labour party.
You can be sure that there will be lots of social media advertising from astroturf groups warning voters of the dangers lurking in the Labour party. I'm not convinced that Labour and Starmer have the campaigning abilities to present a message that would neutralise that fearmongering.
On the topic, re "After John Major’s miracle in 1992 things quickly fell apart for the Tories, who went behind in the polls before Christmas and never regained the lead", in Major's recent interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast he told an anecdote about having a discussion with some other senior Tory the day after they won in 1992 where they concluded that they had zero chance of winning again in 1997 (and that therefore they should govern according to what they felt was the right thing to do rather than trying to tack towards electability).
Which is almost certainly a bollox rewriting of history.
In the summer of 1992 the discussions were whether the Conservatives would ever lose.
Yes. The consensus was Labour couldn't possibly win with a Boundary re-distribution and all. Nor could they possibly produce a more Centrist manifesto.
Was Blair really popular or the Tories unpopular? Well. Often forgotten that John Smith had huge poll leads, too.
Blair got fewer votes in 1997 than Major in 1992.
Well yes, but so did Major.
And Blair got the votes where he needed them.
He might not have been as popular as Smith would have been in Scotland or among old style Labour voters but Blair was very popular among younger and more affluent voters and in southern England.
On the topic, re "After John Major’s miracle in 1992 things quickly fell apart for the Tories, who went behind in the polls before Christmas and never regained the lead", in Major's recent interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast he told an anecdote about having a discussion with some other senior Tory the day after they won in 1992 where they concluded that they had zero chance of winning again in 1997 (and that therefore they should govern according to what they felt was the right thing to do rather than trying to tack towards electability).
I think that may be a retcon. I've got Major's autobiography and I didn't get that impression. They just f***ed up and spent the rest of the time running from pillar to post firefighting. It wasn't a bad little government - Major had some good instincts about making government publically accountable, Clarke knew how to chancellor - but you can't mess up that badly (ERM) and cope with that level of disagreement (Maastricht) and expect to stay in Government.
Was Blair really popular or the Tories unpopular? Well. Often forgotten that John Smith had huge poll leads, too.
Blair got fewer votes in 1997 than Major in 1992.
Well yes, but so did Major.
And Blair got the votes where he needed them.
He might not have been as popular as Smith would have been in Scotland or among old style Labour voters but Blair was very popular among younger and more affluent voters and in southern England.
Was 97 the year of Worcester Woman, or was it Bed-Pan Man?
Australia struggling with the short stuff....have England made a boo boo not playing Mark Wood. If you can't cope with mid 80 mph short stuff, add on 10mph and it gets really fun.
Perhaps Wood will play in the next Test, at Headingley, and it will turn out to be a swing bowler's paradise.
Was Blair really popular or the Tories unpopular? Well. Often forgotten that John Smith had huge poll leads, too.
Blair got fewer votes in 1997 than Major in 1992.
Well yes, but so did Major.
And Blair got the votes where he needed them.
He might not have been as popular as Smith would have been in Scotland or among old style Labour voters but Blair was very popular among younger and more affluent voters and in southern England.
New Labour sewed up the media vote. Which then gave the impression of massive popularity. The reality was a mix of enthusiasm and neutrality - vote for the sensible people.
Was Blair really popular or the Tories unpopular? Well. Often forgotten that John Smith had huge poll leads, too.
Blair got fewer votes in 1997 than Major in 1992.
Well yes, but so did Major.
And Blair got the votes where he needed them.
He might not have been as popular as Smith would have been in Scotland or among old style Labour voters but Blair was very popular among younger and more affluent voters and in southern England.
New Labour sewed up the media vote. Which then gave the impression of massive popularity. The reality was a mix of enthusiasm and neutrality - vote for the sensible people.
Although the media aren't as important now, I wouldn't be surprised if nearly all of them go for "time for a change with polly trademark nose peg / we are watching you on EU stuff from likes of the Sun" come the GE.
On the topic, re "After John Major’s miracle in 1992 things quickly fell apart for the Tories, who went behind in the polls before Christmas and never regained the lead", in Major's recent interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast he told an anecdote about having a discussion with some other senior Tory the day after they won in 1992 where they concluded that they had zero chance of winning again in 1997 (and that therefore they should govern according to what they felt was the right thing to do rather than trying to tack towards electability).
I think that may be a retcon. I've got Major's autobiography and I didn't get that impression. They just f***ed up and spent the rest of the time running from pillar to post firefighting. It wasn't a bad little government - Major had some good instincts about making government publically accountable, Clarke knew how to chancellor - but you can't mess up that badly (ERM) and cope with that level of disagreement (Maastricht) and expect to stay in Government.
I think that the economic work, and the work in Northern Ireland, was absolutely geared towards "doing good" rather than "being electable", and that was clear at the time.
It also set the direction of travel for Blair's most significant policy successes - they didn't commit to Tory spending policy purely to avoid scaring the horses.
Visegrád 24 @visegrad24 · 14m Statement by the French police unions saying it’s a civil war & that the police will have to form "the resistance" as gov. is weak
“The police are in combat because we are at war. Tomorrow we’ll be in resistance & the gov. will have to become aware of it”
But opinion polls don't measure by elections. In the same way no one is expecting a 20% GE win for Labour.
Conservative by election battles with Labour tend to reflect the national swing in polls.
Only the LDs really get much bigger swings to them in by elections from the Conservatives than the national polls would suggest, as they are the classic protest vote for the middle of the road voter and also they are far better on the ground activists than Labour, flooding the area with multiple leaflets and workers and also getting more accurate canvass data
On the topic, re "After John Major’s miracle in 1992 things quickly fell apart for the Tories, who went behind in the polls before Christmas and never regained the lead", in Major's recent interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast he told an anecdote about having a discussion with some other senior Tory the day after they won in 1992 where they concluded that they had zero chance of winning again in 1997 (and that therefore they should govern according to what they felt was the right thing to do rather than trying to tack towards electability).
I think that may be a retcon. I've got Major's autobiography and I didn't get that impression. They just f***ed up and spent the rest of the time running from pillar to post firefighting. It wasn't a bad little government - Major had some good instincts about making government publically accountable, Clarke knew how to chancellor - but you can't mess up that badly (ERM) and cope with that level of disagreement (Maastricht) and expect to stay in Government.
Lots of sleaze and scandal as well.
Not to mention the ability to make themselves look ridiculous - I don't think even the current government has reached the nadir of John Major's 'spam fritter' moment.
Was Blair really popular or the Tories unpopular? Well. Often forgotten that John Smith had huge poll leads, too.
Blair got fewer votes in 1997 than Major in 1992.
Well yes, but so did Major.
And Blair got the votes where he needed them.
He might not have been as popular as Smith would have been in Scotland or among old style Labour voters but Blair was very popular among younger and more affluent voters and in southern England.
New Labour sewed up the media vote. Which then gave the impression of massive popularity. The reality was a mix of enthusiasm and neutrality - vote for the sensible people.
Although the media aren't as important now, I wouldn't be surprised if nearly all of them go for "time for a change with polly trademark nose peg / we are watching you on EU stuff from likes of the Sun" come the GE.
I think that’s nailed on.
The only thing left for Starmer & Co. is to avoid a May style self destruct during the campaign.
Which is why, I think, they are being very, very cautious.
On the topic, re "After John Major’s miracle in 1992 things quickly fell apart for the Tories, who went behind in the polls before Christmas and never regained the lead", in Major's recent interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast he told an anecdote about having a discussion with some other senior Tory the day after they won in 1992 where they concluded that they had zero chance of winning again in 1997 (and that therefore they should govern according to what they felt was the right thing to do rather than trying to tack towards electability).
I think that may be a retcon. I've got Major's autobiography and I didn't get that impression. They just f***ed up and spent the rest of the time running from pillar to post firefighting. It wasn't a bad little government - Major had some good instincts about making government publically accountable, Clarke knew how to chancellor - but you can't mess up that badly (ERM) and cope with that level of disagreement (Maastricht) and expect to stay in Government.
Lots of sleaze and scandal as well.
Not to mention the ability to make themselves look ridiculous - I don't think even the current government has reached the nadir of John Major's 'spam fritter' moment.
Had to look that up! (but nowt wrong with spam fritters, baked beans, and decent fried potatoes with fresh tomato.)
Dehenna Davidson leaving after literally one term and aged under 30, ridiculous, even most newly elected MPs are younger than her. Also if she wants to come back and try again for another seat in a decade or 2 why should she be picked if she only wants to stand in good times for the party, not do the hard slog in tougher times?
No they won't. UNS does not apply in by-elections. Frankly it often doesn't apply in key / swing seats either, so toasty goodness coming so many of your lot.
But opinion polls don't measure by elections. In the same way no one is expecting a 20% GE win for Labour.
Conservative by election battles with Labour tend to reflect the national swing in polls.
Only the LDs really get much bigger swings to them in by elections from the Conservatives than the national polls would suggest, as they are the classic protest vote for the middle of the road voter and also they are far better on the ground activists than Labour, flooding the area with multiple leaflets and workers and also getting more accurate canvass data
So this is often but not always true, but I think Labour hitting roughly national swing in BEs in seats they already hold and exceeding it in Tory-held seats (Wakefield) suggests they are performing better than national swing in circumstances like these. I wouldn't take Labour at too far away from evens though since I think you have a fair point and 18% is the limit of national swing at the moment. 3/4 I think it a bit of value, but 1/2 or close wouldn't interest me.
Trump pressured Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey to overturn 2020 election https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/07/01/trump-2020-election-arizona-governor-doug-ducey/ … The extent of Trump’s efforts to cajole Ducey into helping him stay in power have not before been reported, even as other efforts by Trump’s lawyer and allies to pressure Arizona officials have been made public. Ducey told reporters in December 2020 that he and Trump had spoken, but he declined to disclose the contents of the call then or in the more than two years since. Although he disagreed with Trump about the outcome of the election, Ducey has sought to avoid a public battle with Trump...
"Christie said, noting about Trump: “I don’t think he’s ever gone up against somebody who knows how to do what he does. He’s never run against somebody from New Jersey who understands what the New York thing is and what he’s all about. For people like me, who’ve grown up here and lived my whole life in this atmosphere, he’s just one of a lot of people I know who have that personality. He knows I know what his game is.” "
"Christie said, noting about Trump: “I don’t think he’s ever gone up against somebody who knows how to do what he does. He’s never run against somebody from New Jersey who understands what the New York thing is and what he’s all about. For people like me, who’ve grown up here and lived my whole life in this atmosphere, he’s just one of a lot of people I know who have that personality. He knows I know what his game is.” "
"Christie said, noting about Trump: “I don’t think he’s ever gone up against somebody who knows how to do what he does. He’s never run against somebody from New Jersey who understands what the New York thing is and what he’s all about. For people like me, who’ve grown up here and lived my whole life in this atmosphere, he’s just one of a lot of people I know who have that personality. He knows I know what his game is.” "
But opinion polls don't measure by elections. In the same way no one is expecting a 20% GE win for Labour.
Conservative by election battles with Labour tend to reflect the national swing in polls.
Only the LDs really get much bigger swings to them in by elections from the Conservatives than the national polls would suggest, as they are the classic protest vote for the middle of the road voter and also they are far better on the ground activists than Labour, flooding the area with multiple leaflets and workers and also getting more accurate canvass data
So this is often but not always true, but I think Labour hitting roughly national swing in BEs in seats they already hold and exceeding it in Tory-held seats (Wakefield) suggests they are performing better than national swing in circumstances like these. I wouldn't take Labour at too far away from evens though since I think you have a fair point and 18% is the limit of national swing at the moment. 3/4 I think it a bit of value, but 1/2 or close wouldn't interest me.
Even Wakefield's 12% swing to Labour was much lower than every by election swing to the LDs this parliament, Old Bexley and Sidcup was even lower at 10% swing to Labour
But opinion polls don't measure by elections. In the same way no one is expecting a 20% GE win for Labour.
Conservative by election battles with Labour tend to reflect the national swing in polls.
Only the LDs really get much bigger swings to them in by elections from the Conservatives than the national polls would suggest, as they are the classic protest vote for the middle of the road voter and also they are far better on the ground activists than Labour, flooding the area with multiple leaflets and workers and also getting more accurate canvass data
I think you're totally wrong in this case. Selby looks to me to be well set up for a result akin to the Mid Staffs by-election of 1990, when the Labour vote increased by 24% and the Conservative vote fell by 18%. A by-election swing of the magnitude of 20% certainly doesn't look far fetched in the current political climate.
You just don't seem able to appreciate how utterly despised your lot are the moment.
"Christie said, noting about Trump: “I don’t think he’s ever gone up against somebody who knows how to do what he does. He’s never run against somebody from New Jersey who understands what the New York thing is and what he’s all about. For people like me, who’ve grown up here and lived my whole life in this atmosphere, he’s just one of a lot of people I know who have that personality. He knows I know what his game is.” "
"Christie said, noting about Trump: “I don’t think he’s ever gone up against somebody who knows how to do what he does. He’s never run against somebody from New Jersey who understands what the New York thing is and what he’s all about. For people like me, who’ve grown up here and lived my whole life in this atmosphere, he’s just one of a lot of people I know who have that personality. He knows I know what his game is.” "
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
But opinion polls don't measure by elections. In the same way no one is expecting a 20% GE win for Labour.
Conservative by election battles with Labour tend to reflect the national swing in polls.
Only the LDs really get much bigger swings to them in by elections from the Conservatives than the national polls would suggest, as they are the classic protest vote for the middle of the road voter and also they are far better on the ground activists than Labour, flooding the area with multiple leaflets and workers and also getting more accurate canvass data
So this is often but not always true, but I think Labour hitting roughly national swing in BEs in seats they already hold and exceeding it in Tory-held seats (Wakefield) suggests they are performing better than national swing in circumstances like these. I wouldn't take Labour at too far away from evens though since I think you have a fair point and 18% is the limit of national swing at the moment. 3/4 I think it a bit of value, but 1/2 or close wouldn't interest me.
Even Wakefield's 12% swing to Labour was much lower than every by election swing to the LDs this parliament, Bexley was even lower at 10% swing to Labour
I mean, I entirely agree the Lib Dems do better in by-elections than Labour. If they were the main challengers in S&A I'd back them at 1/2 happily. But that doesn't change the fact I think Labour are close enough and popular enough to win it too.
But Old Bexley & Sidcup was a 10% swing when polls were roughly tied nationally, a national swing of 5-6%. So it still showed a better swing to Labour when challenging.
"Christie said, noting about Trump: “I don’t think he’s ever gone up against somebody who knows how to do what he does. He’s never run against somebody from New Jersey who understands what the New York thing is and what he’s all about. For people like me, who’ve grown up here and lived my whole life in this atmosphere, he’s just one of a lot of people I know who have that personality. He knows I know what his game is.” "
If the other candidates have any sense they will withdraw at the v last minute once it is clear Christie and Trump have turned up. Let the former be on stage alone knocking blocks off Trump.
But opinion polls don't measure by elections. In the same way no one is expecting a 20% GE win for Labour.
Conservative by election battles with Labour tend to reflect the national swing in polls.
Only the LDs really get much bigger swings to them in by elections from the Conservatives than the national polls would suggest, as they are the classic protest vote for the middle of the road voter and also they are far better on the ground activists than Labour, flooding the area with multiple leaflets and workers and also getting more accurate canvass data
I think you're totally wrong in this case. Selby looks to me to be well set up for a result akin to the Mid Staffs by-election of 1990, when the Labour vote increased by 24% and the Conservative vote fell by 18%. A by-election swing of the magnitude of 20% certainly doesn't look far fetched in the current political climate.
You just don't seem able to appreciate how utterly despised your lot are the moment.
The hardcore still cling to the idea that they are the moral option. Despite the rest of the universe able to see just how appallingly corrupt, inept, incompetent and uncaring their party is.
"Christie said, noting about Trump: “I don’t think he’s ever gone up against somebody who knows how to do what he does. He’s never run against somebody from New Jersey who understands what the New York thing is and what he’s all about. For people like me, who’ve grown up here and lived my whole life in this atmosphere, he’s just one of a lot of people I know who have that personality. He knows I know what his game is.” "
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
Interest rates.
Interest rates fell as a result of Black Wednesday.
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
Interest rates.
Interest rates fell as a result of Black Wednesday.
Yes, what did for the Tories was that they were prepared to put their ideology ahead of the interests of the people they were supposed to govern for.
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
Not all, Rory Stewart for example when he was an MP.
However all MPs regardless of party face much more abuse than pre 2000, particularly because of the growth of social media.
Before at most they would get the odd abusive letter or be shouted at occasionally in their local street
"Christie said, noting about Trump: “I don’t think he’s ever gone up against somebody who knows how to do what he does. He’s never run against somebody from New Jersey who understands what the New York thing is and what he’s all about. For people like me, who’ve grown up here and lived my whole life in this atmosphere, he’s just one of a lot of people I know who have that personality. He knows I know what his game is.” "
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
I think the worst thing must be with the social media and widespread availability of camera phones. You will get abuse morning, noon and night online, then you go into the real world and people abuse you in order to take pictures / videos to upload to social media.
For example, one thing I thought was not on was Matt Hancock during the pandemic, any time he was ever seen out in public spending an hour or two with his kids, people took photos and all over social media.
"Christie said, noting about Trump: “I don’t think he’s ever gone up against somebody who knows how to do what he does. He’s never run against somebody from New Jersey who understands what the New York thing is and what he’s all about. For people like me, who’ve grown up here and lived my whole life in this atmosphere, he’s just one of a lot of people I know who have that personality. He knows I know what his game is.” "
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
I think the worst thing must be with the social media and widespread availability of camera phones. You will get abuse morning, noon and night online, then you go into the real world and people abuse you in order to take pictures / videos to upload to social media.
For example, one thing I thought was not on was Matt Hancock during the pandemic, any time he was ever seen out in public spending an hour or two with his kids, people took photos and all over social media.
The difference between 1991/2 and 1996/7 is that in 1991 there were decent but not overwhelming reasons for rejecting the government of the day.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
How were ordinary people 'bankrupted' by Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM ?
Interest rates.
Interest rates fell 4% because of Black Wednesday and leaving the ERM.
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
I think the worst thing must be with the social media and widespread availability of camera phones. You will get abuse morning, noon and night online, then you go into the real world and people abuse you in order to take pictures / videos to upload to social media.
For example, one thing I thought was not on was Matt Hancock during the pandemic, any time he was ever seen out in public spending an hour or two with his kids, people took photos and all over social media.
It wasn't spending his time with his family which brought Hancock's downfall.
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
I think the worst thing must be with the social media and widespread availability of camera phones. You will get abuse morning, noon and night online, then you go into the real world and people abuse you in order to take pictures / videos to upload to social media.
For example, one thing I thought was not on was Matt Hancock during the pandemic, any time he was ever seen out in public spending an hour or two with his kids, people took photos and all over social media.
It wasn't spending his time with his family which brought Hancock's downfall.
No, we know that. And he rightly lost his job for that.
But before that scandal even broke, people were taking photos of him with his kids, and basically going f##k get back to work you lazy f##ker, why aren't you at work etc.
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
I think the worst thing must be with the social media and widespread availability of camera phones. You will get abuse morning, noon and night online, then you go into the real world and people abuse you in order to take pictures / videos to upload to social media.
For example, one thing I thought was not on was Matt Hancock during the pandemic, any time he was ever seen out in public spending an hour or two with his kids, people took photos and all over social media.
It wasn't spending his time with his family which brought Hancock's downfall.
It was breaching social distancing.
(I did actually get that as an answer in a politics essay once.)
Comments
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1674746053030031361?s=20
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/just-stop-oil-pride-protest-b2367714.html
This year's local elections at the same stage of the cycle in England were NEV Labour 35%, Tories 26% and LDs 20%.
So Tories and LDs little different from 1995 but Labour much lower. On a forced choice of Sunak or Starmer as PM rather than just electing their local council I suspect some LD voters in May will go back to the Tories at a general election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections
Well. Often forgotten that John Smith had huge poll leads, too.
As it stands Labour and Starmer are not without their problems, but they look like they can outrun the Tories and Sunak.
Hence the narrative shift to "maybe 2010 is the template; Labour recovered strongly in the runup to that election and Cameron nearly blew it." True, but some of the factors at play there (a big UKIP vote to squeeze; a real sense of pulling back from the economic brink) simply don't apply this time. And if the surge is going to happen, it needs to get going soon.
There are always Events, dear boy, but as time passes they will have to be damn big ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election
The latest advice for travellers from the UK to France is to "avoid areas where riots are taking place" and check their travel insurance "provides sufficient cover"."
https://news.sky.com/story/foreign-office-issues-new-advice-for-uk-travellers-to-france-amid-ongoing-riots-12912791
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jul/01/councils-in-england-hit-by-unsustainable-450m-bill-for-free-bus-passes
Black Wednesday probably sealed Major's Tories' fate with hindsight, and Smith would've won had he lived.
But, whatever you think of the man and his legacy, Blair really did seal the deal and turned a win into a landslide.
Essentially around 44,000 houses cannot be built despite having planning permission because of an issue to do with 'nutrient neutrality', which means that Councils cannot discharge conditions attached to planning permissions to allow work to start on site. In a very crude summary, the reason for this is that new housing development can add to 'nutrient loads' on protected european habitats sites - despite the fact that most of the problem is usually generated by agriculture and lack of investment in water infrastructure on the part of utility companies.
So even if you get planning permission, and spend years of time and hundreds of thousands of pounds in doing so, and pay off the landowners etc, then you slam straight in to an effective ban on housebuilding, which the government have little interest in doing anything about, other than to try and deflect blame by handing out pathetic 100k grants for local authorities to do solve the problem - although they could solve it immediately by submitting to judgement on this absurd case.
Good commentary by a planning lawyer: "If anyone voted for Brexit thinking that these sorts of problems would become a thing of the past, more fool them."
https://simonicity.com/2023/06/30/cg-fry-aa-post-pp/
Super cunning plan to get Smith on strike.
Anderson drops Head off Tongue.
Next ball Smith caught off Tongue.
I voted for Brexit thinking our politicians should and could then be more accountable to these sort of problems.
I voted for Brexit thinking that politicians being able to blame the EU then say "nothing I can do about it" would become a thing of the past.
An Australian lady in front of me missed both of those wickets at the loo. The England fan next to her says “you need to leave more often”.
The toppling of Mrs T and the disaster of the poll tax were awful, but actually most voters were not bankrupted by them. Compared with today government was modestly competent.
After the ERM disaster ordinary people lost their trust in the ordinary competence of the government, for good reason. Ordinary people were bankrupted by it. The Tories of course never recovered.
The sub issue is this: in 1991/2 Labour was still leftish; in 1996/7 it was Christian Democrat.
In 2023 the Tories have bankrupted their support base, except for older house owners (they have bankrupted their children of course).
This is 1996. The Tories cannot recover, unless Labour produces a leftish programme. They won't.
ICM were the first company to take Shy Tories seriously and try to factor their shyness into their polling.
See those red dots, about one a month, quite a way below all the others? That's ICM. Hence "gold standard" and "worst poll for Labour is the accurate one" tropes for PBers of a certain age.
The ICM/Guardian polls for 1996 were in the range Lab 45-50, Con 28-32, Lib 14-21
Now everyone tries to squeeze people out of their shyness, because it gives the right answers. The polls over the last week? Lab 43-48, Con 24-31, Lib 8-13. (Everyone is down a bit, becuase Greens and RefUK are up.)
It really is that bad for the Conservatives, and I don't see what cavalry is coming to save them.
However, I reckon it's more likely England will be chasing around 450 and get nowhere near.....
At least in this country - I assume the Australian version was better.
Amusing adverts though.
In the summer of 1992 the discussions were whether the Conservatives would ever lose.
@visegrad24
·
14m
Statement by the French police unions saying it’s a civil war & that the police will have to form "the resistance" as gov. is weak
“The police are in combat because we are at war. Tomorrow we’ll be in resistance & the gov. will have to become aware of it”
https://twitter.com/visegrad24
They have done the same with most of the "foriegn" lagers you see widely advetised in the Uk, Stella etc etc etc
You're just too blind to see it.
A general election next year will only be five years since Corbyn's defeat in 2019, and four years since Corbyn was declared persona non grata following his response to the report into anti-semitism in the Labour party.
You can be sure that there will be lots of social media advertising from astroturf groups warning voters of the dangers lurking in the Labour party. I'm not convinced that Labour and Starmer have the campaigning abilities to present a message that would neutralise that fearmongering.
The consensus was Labour couldn't possibly win with a Boundary re-distribution and all. Nor could they possibly produce a more Centrist manifesto.
He might not have been as popular as Smith would have been in Scotland or among old style Labour voters but Blair was very popular among younger and more affluent voters and in southern England.
It also set the direction of travel for Blair's most significant policy successes - they didn't commit to Tory spending policy purely to avoid scaring the horses.
https://youtu.be/uWxcnl8PL_o
Only the LDs really get much bigger swings to them in by elections from the Conservatives than the national polls would suggest, as they are the classic protest vote for the middle of the road voter and also they are far better on the ground activists than Labour, flooding the area with multiple leaflets and workers and also getting more accurate canvass data
Not to mention the ability to make themselves look ridiculous - I don't think even the current government has reached the nadir of John Major's 'spam fritter' moment.
The only thing left for Starmer & Co. is to avoid a May style self destruct during the campaign.
Which is why, I think, they are being very, very cautious.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/01/tories-mass-exodus-parliament-mps-quit-commons
So am I.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46692421
Edit: but how about Ms Coffey and the turnips?
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/mar/18/therese-coffeys-eat-turnips-message-leaves-bitter-taste-after-uks-biggest-grower-gives-up
Starmer doesn’t need to be Blair to win, but the size of Labour’s win in 1997 was in large part due to Blair.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/07/01/trump-2020-election-arizona-governor-doug-ducey/
… The extent of Trump’s efforts to cajole Ducey into helping him stay in power have not before been reported, even as other efforts by Trump’s lawyer and allies to pressure Arizona officials have been made public. Ducey told reporters in December 2020 that he and Trump had spoken, but he declined to disclose the contents of the call then or in the more than two years since. Although he disagreed with Trump about the outcome of the election, Ducey has sought to avoid a public battle with Trump...
"Christie said, noting about Trump: “I don’t think he’s ever gone up against somebody who knows how to do what he does. He’s never run against somebody from New Jersey who understands what the New York thing is and what he’s all about. For people like me, who’ve grown up here and lived my whole life in this atmosphere, he’s just one of a lot of people I know who have that personality. He knows I know what his game is.” "
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/opinion/chris-christie-florida-trump.html
You just don't seem able to appreciate how utterly despised your lot are the moment.
But Old Bexley & Sidcup was a 10% swing when polls were roughly tied nationally, a national swing of 5-6%. So it still showed a better swing to Labour when challenging.
Departing Tory MPs who spoke to the Observer cited a whole range of reasons for deciding to leave Westminster. “You shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which being an MP has become not particularly pleasant,” said one. “The amount of abuse that’s thrown at us has increased, the conditions have become worse.”
Politicians, as a whole, have an image of acting immaturely, behaving with partisan spirit, not answering questions, making excuses, and seeing issues in rough shades of black and white. They hurl meaningless abuse while ignoring the question. They pretend to see no good in the other side.
So is it surprising that they are treated roughly?
However all MPs regardless of party face much more abuse than pre 2000, particularly because of the growth of social media.
Before at most they would get the odd abusive letter or be shouted at occasionally in their local street
For example, one thing I thought was not on was Matt Hancock during the pandemic, any time he was ever seen out in public spending an hour or two with his kids, people took photos and all over social media.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Bank-Rate.asp
But before that scandal even broke, people were taking photos of him with his kids, and basically going f##k get back to work you lazy f##ker, why aren't you at work etc.
That was not on.
(I did actually get that as an answer in a politics essay once.)