Howdy, Stranger!

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

What if the Tories don’t hold any of Thursday’s by-elections? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,150
edited July 2023 in General
imageWhat if the Tories don’t hold any of Thursday’s by-elections? – politicalbetting.com

Thursday is a big day for the PM whose party is facing three very difficult defences in Westminster by-elections.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,733
    Carnyx said:

    I read your title as wondering if the Tories would cancel the by-elections, and was thinking, martial law or what?

    Yes, me too!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,958
    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,087
    edited July 2023
    O/T What happened to Cerberus ? Predicted to hit 48 in Sicily this weekend just gone but didn't get much above 40 iirc.

    The dog that didn't bark ?
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Marx, K.

    ""Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce"."

    For Sunak to be ousted and hang on as caretaker while we do the Conservative Road Show (again) would be history repeating itself a third time as something as far on from farce as farce is from tragedy. On a log scale. He would displace Truss and May as laughing stock. He cannot let this happen. Therefore he will call a GE to head off a challenge becausde he has to. He has no choice.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,958
    This is not good news

    Ukraine formally notified of end to grain deal

    Russia has formally notified Ukraine that it will terminate the Black Sea grain deal, according to Moscow’s ambassador to Belarus.

    Boris Gryzlov said a note had been sent from the Russian embassy in Minsk to Ukraine via diplomatic channels, and that the deal would end from July 18.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,925
    Carnyx said:

    I read your title as wondering if the Tories would cancel the by-elections, and was thinking, martial law or what?

    Don't give them ideas.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Pulpstar said:

    O/T What happened to Cerberus ? Predicted to hit 48 in Sicily this weekend just gone but didn't get much above 40 iirc.

    The dog that didn't bark ?

    Second bite expected

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/europe-heatwave-weather-2023-latest-news-b2376359.html
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,925
    Pulpstar said:

    O/T What happened to Cerberus ? Predicted to hit 48 in Sicily this weekend just gone but didn't get much above 40 iirc.

    The dog that didn't bark ?

    It's Charon this week.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,087
    edited July 2023
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    O/T What happened to Cerberus ? Predicted to hit 48 in Sicily this weekend just gone but didn't get much above 40 iirc.

    The dog that didn't bark ?

    It's Charon this week.
    The forecast highs for Cerberus were definitely too high, unlike our own heat wave where the forecast highs were pretty much spot on last year. It seems to me the collective media got a bit carried away with the Cerberus forecasts adding a few degrees to what the scientists & meterologists gave them.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,142
    edited July 2023
    I don't think there's any serious risk of Sunak losing the leadership.

    From the previous thread, Kellner's article makes the point that mentioning Sunak/Hunt slightly improves Tory polling.

    The TINA argument is also pretty strong, noting that one of the by-elections on Thursday is the result of the most obvious king across the water making himself unavailable for selection, at least until after the next general election.

    Enough Conservative MPs have either bought into the Sunak strategy as the least worst available, or are checking out anyway.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    O/T What happened to Cerberus ? Predicted to hit 48 in Sicily this weekend just gone but didn't get much above 40 iirc.

    The dog that didn't bark ?

    It's Charon this week.
    The forecast highs for Cerberus were definitely too high, unlike our own heat wave where the forecast highs were pretty much spot on last year. It seems to me the collective media got a bit carried away with the Cerberus forecasts adding a few degrees to what the scientists & meterologists gave them.
    Which is so silly, because it just feeds a narrative of "media hype." Meanwhile Nicosia, Cyprus is expecting 12 days in the 40-42 range, Palermo gets 38-40.

    China was completely out of left field for me.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,925
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    O/T What happened to Cerberus ? Predicted to hit 48 in Sicily this weekend just gone but didn't get much above 40 iirc.

    The dog that didn't bark ?

    It's Charon this week.
    The forecast highs for Cerberus were definitely too high, unlike our own heat wave where the forecast highs were pretty much spot on last year. It seems to me the collective media got a bit carried away with the Cerberus forecasts adding a few degrees to what the scientists & meterologists gave them.
    Were they forecast, or just possible highs ?
    Weather forecasting, of course, is subject to considerable uncertainty.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    If you coronate twice in a row all the HYUFDs will go to REFUK.

    Echt zugzwang.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,087
    The European Space Agency predicted that temperatures would exceed 48 °C (118 °F) in Sardinia over the weekend of 15 July, marking the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe.

    https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@2523227/historic

    Actual high 37.

    It's either a large miss by ESA or undue prominence to an uncertain early forecast.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,191
    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Except the kind of people who hate Sunak really really hate Hunt. Or anyone else who still has some grip on reality and arithmetic.

    God knows who gets the gig if Sunak gets run over by a bus tomorrow.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,958
    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Frankly inexcusable and disgusting post no matter what your politics

    Inciting violence to politicians is totally unacceptable, even if in your case you think it is clever
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,958

    I don't think there's any serious risk of Sunak losing the leadership.

    From the previous thread, Kellner's article makes the point that mentioning Sunak/Hunt slightly improves Tory polling.

    The TINA argument is also pretty strong, noting that one of the by-elections on Thursday is the result of the most obvious king across the water making himself unavailable for selection, at least until after the next general election.

    Enough Conservative MPs have either bought into the Sunak strategy as the least worst available, or are checking out anyway.

    To be honest I quite like the prospect of a Sunak v Starmer contest
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,280
    Who would want the job?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,719
    edited July 2023
    Sean_F said:

    Who would want the job?

    Someone wanting to up his pension and get a permanent office allowance?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,087
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    O/T What happened to Cerberus ? Predicted to hit 48 in Sicily this weekend just gone but didn't get much above 40 iirc.

    The dog that didn't bark ?

    It's Charon this week.
    The forecast highs for Cerberus were definitely too high, unlike our own heat wave where the forecast highs were pretty much spot on last year. It seems to me the collective media got a bit carried away with the Cerberus forecasts adding a few degrees to what the scientists & meterologists gave them.
    Were they forecast, or just possible highs ?
    Weather forecasting, of course, is subject to considerable uncertainty.
    I find it a bit odd that a forecast was so breathlessly reported on whereas an actual +50 high (And record for China) seems barely to have been mentioned.

    The reporting for Cerberus/Charon is "is set to hit"/ "Is expected to break" 48.8 C.[1] I'd bet on it NOT breaking that now given the weekend temps and ESA's prediction.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12297771/Europe-set-hit-hottest-temperature-48C-double-heatwaves-boil-continent.html
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,719
    edited July 2023
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    O/T What happened to Cerberus ? Predicted to hit 48 in Sicily this weekend just gone but didn't get much above 40 iirc.

    The dog that didn't bark ?

    It's Charon this week.
    The forecast highs for Cerberus were definitely too high, unlike our own heat wave where the forecast highs were pretty much spot on last year. It seems to me the collective media got a bit carried away with the Cerberus forecasts adding a few degrees to what the scientists & meterologists gave them.
    Were they forecast, or just possible highs ?
    Weather forecasting, of course, is subject to considerable uncertainty.
    I find it a bit odd that a forecast was so breathlessly reported on whereas an actual +50 high (And record for China) seems barely to have been mentioned.

    The reporting for Cerberus/Charon is "is set to hit"/ "Is expected to break" 48.8 C.[1] I'd bet on it NOT breaking that now given the weekend temps and ESA's prediction.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12297771/Europe-set-hit-hottest-temperature-48C-double-heatwaves-boil-continent.html
    Er, look at what you are citing. Admittedly not the DE.

    Edit: but yes, the reporting is a problem.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,319
    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Which one is "Rat- Eyes"? The candidate list is rather lengthy.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,865
    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    This is the same eu that condones paying the libyan coast guard to turn migrants into indentured field workers. Would it?
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    edited July 2023
    Pulpstar said:

    The European Space Agency predicted that temperatures would exceed 48 °C (118 °F) in Sardinia over the weekend of 15 July, marking the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe.

    https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@2523227/historic

    Actual high 37.

    It's either a large miss by ESA or undue prominence to an uncertain early forecast.

    They're just föhning it in these days
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,721
    If by 'in trouble' we mean 'could be ousted', then no. Changing the leader is not going to improve things because there's no-one who's more popular and capable to take over, and even if there were, there's no guarantee that a leadership election would deliver No 10 to them. Enough Tory MPs will be able to see this to prevent an election being triggered.

    It's not Sunak; it's the Tories.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Tories seem value in Selby fwiw, unless I'm missing something.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Except the kind of people who hate Sunak really really hate Hunt. Or anyone else who still has some grip on reality and arithmetic.

    God knows who gets the gig if Sunak gets run over by a bus tomorrow.
    Dowden straight away, I guess. Then watch as Nads steps aside to let Boris run in her seat and make an immediate bid for the leadership.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,081
    Selebian said:

    Losses are expected, even all three. Some mutterings, but I don't expect a move against Sunak. It's the scale of the losses (and turnout) that will interest Con MPs, I expect.

    If one or more are saved, it will look like a good day for Sunak.

    The problem for Con MPs is that while there may be a better leader to keep the red wall seats, the blue wall MPs would probably find that leader less appealing than Sunak (and vice versa). Johnson had to go if you, as a Con MP, had any itegrity. Truss had to go if you, as a Con MP, had any interest in still being one after the next election. Sunak does not have to go because it's not obvious who is going to save your job and even if you pick someone, other MPs may see him/her as losing their jobs for them. You might well end up with someone worse for you.

    Yes, Sunak has to fight the GE and he can't but lose it. This is why I do a daily top up into my 'Starmer Next PM' one year savings account on betfair. It's paying 20% which beats everything else on the market hands down.
  • I don't think there's any serious risk of Sunak losing the leadership.

    From the previous thread, Kellner's article makes the point that mentioning Sunak/Hunt slightly improves Tory polling.

    The TINA argument is also pretty strong, noting that one of the by-elections on Thursday is the result of the most obvious king across the water making himself unavailable for selection, at least until after the next general election.

    Enough Conservative MPs have either bought into the Sunak strategy as the least worst available, or are checking out anyway.

    To be honest I quite like the prospect of a Sunak v Starmer contest
    Quite a stark contrast from Johnson v Corbyn, certainly.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,087
    edited July 2023
    Ghedebrav said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The European Space Agency predicted that temperatures would exceed 48 °C (118 °F) in Sardinia over the weekend of 15 July, marking the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe.

    https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@2523227/historic

    Actual high 37.

    It's either a large miss by ESA or undue prominence to an uncertain early forecast.

    They're just föhning it in these days
    I've corrected the wikipedia entry. No mention of the heatwave specifically hitting 48 C over the previous weekend by ESA in the Reuters article.

    Wiki entry:
    Old:

    The [[European Space Agency]] predicted that temperatures would exceed {{cvt|48|C}} in [[Sardinia]] over the weekend of 15 July, marking the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe.

    My edit:


    The [[European Space Agency]] predicted that temperatures would exceed {{cvt|48|C}} in [[Sardinia]] some time in July, marking the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe.

    Original source: (From the Reuters article)

    The European Space Agency (ESA), whose satellites monitor land and sea temperatures, said July could be a torrid month.

    "Italy, Spain, France, Germany and Poland are all facing a major heatwave with temperatures expected to climb to 48 Celsius on the islands of Sicily and Sardinia – potentially the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe," it said.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,721
    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Except the kind of people who hate Sunak really really hate Hunt. Or anyone else who still has some grip on reality and arithmetic.

    God knows who gets the gig if Sunak gets run over by a bus tomorrow.
    Dowden straight away, I guess. Then watch as Nads steps aside to let Boris run in her seat and make an immediate bid for the leadership.
    1. Johnson isn't on the approved list.
    2. Even if he was, and was selected, and was elected, he may well then be immediately suspended as per the Privileges Cttee report and subject to recall. Granted, that recall might well not succeed given that he had just been elected but the process could well go ahead anyway.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,721
    Ghedebrav said:

    Tories seem value in Selby fwiw, unless I'm missing something.

    Yes. 87% is too high for Labour.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,319
    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Except the kind of people who hate Sunak really really hate Hunt. Or anyone else who still has some grip on reality and arithmetic.

    God knows who gets the gig if Sunak gets run over by a bus tomorrow.
    Dowden straight away, I guess. Then watch as Nads steps aside to let Boris run in her seat and make an immediate bid for the leadership.
    1. Johnson isn't on the approved list.
    2. Even if he was, and was selected, and was elected, he may well then be immediately suspended as per the Privileges Cttee report and subject to recall. Granted, that recall might well not succeed given that he had just been elected but the process could well go ahead anyway.
    Johnson is not a person who considers process and precedent an impediment.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Pulpstar said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The European Space Agency predicted that temperatures would exceed 48 °C (118 °F) in Sardinia over the weekend of 15 July, marking the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe.

    https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@2523227/historic

    Actual high 37.

    It's either a large miss by ESA or undue prominence to an uncertain early forecast.

    They're just föhning it in these days
    I've corrected the wikipedia entry. No mention of the heatwave specifically hitting 48 C over the previous weekend by ESA in the Reuters article.

    Wiki entry:
    Old:

    The [[European Space Agency]] predicted that temperatures would exceed {{cvt|48|C}} in [[Sardinia]] over the weekend of 15 July, marking the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe.

    My edit:


    The [[European Space Agency]] predicted that temperatures would exceed {{cvt|48|C}} in [[Sardinia]] some time in July, marking the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe.

    Original source: (From the Reuters article)

    The European Space Agency (ESA), whose satellites monitor land and sea temperatures, said July could be a torrid month.

    "Italy, Spain, France, Germany and Poland are all facing a major heatwave with temperatures expected to climb to 48 Celsius on the islands of Sicily and Sardinia – potentially the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe," it said.
    I was just making a nerdy pun tbh.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,721
    Ghedebrav said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Except the kind of people who hate Sunak really really hate Hunt. Or anyone else who still has some grip on reality and arithmetic.

    God knows who gets the gig if Sunak gets run over by a bus tomorrow.
    Dowden straight away, I guess. Then watch as Nads steps aside to let Boris run in her seat and make an immediate bid for the leadership.
    1. Johnson isn't on the approved list.
    2. Even if he was, and was selected, and was elected, he may well then be immediately suspended as per the Privileges Cttee report and subject to recall. Granted, that recall might well not succeed given that he had just been elected but the process could well go ahead anyway.
    Johnson is not a person who considers process and precedent an impediment.
    Indeed. Nonetheless, he can't just place himself on the shortlist.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,319

    Ghedebrav said:

    Tories seem value in Selby fwiw, unless I'm missing something.

    Yes. 87% is too high for Labour.
    Equally Uxbridge.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,081
    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Except the kind of people who hate Sunak really really hate Hunt. Or anyone else who still has some grip on reality and arithmetic.

    God knows who gets the gig if Sunak gets run over by a bus tomorrow.
    Dowden straight away, I guess. Then watch as Nads steps aside to let Boris run in her seat and make an immediate bid for the leadership.
    Barclay's my (little) live punt for next Tory leader. On him at 40 something.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    edited July 2023

    Ghedebrav said:

    Tories seem value in Selby fwiw, unless I'm missing something.

    Yes. 87% is too high for Labour.
    The only poll I've seen was by JL Partners commissioned by 38 Degrees. It shows a frankly astonishing swing to Labour, more than double the net Con-Lab swing polled in Uxbridge (which, pace HYUFD's Hindus, strikes me as much more fertile Labour territory).

    EDIT: Cons currently drifting, and 11/2 with William Hill which definitely looks like value to me.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,721

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,034
    edited July 2023

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems so terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    What will help Sunak considerably is that Parliament is in recess on Thursday until September. So there will be no machinations at Westminster.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Leon said:

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems to terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
    Honestly, I can see why Bukele is extremely popular.

    El Salvador was not far from collapse into a criminal state - an insanely high murder rate, gangs de facto running neighbourhoods, people legitimately afraid to leave the house and cross the wrong street.

    If I were a Salvadorian who'd been living in fear like this, I'd be bloody delighted to see all those tattooed scumbags crammed together in manacles and left to rot in that megajail. Faced with the question about some innocents being caught up in that, there's the excellent and highly logical comeback that far more innocents were caught up the status quo beforehand.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,034
    Poland is a large country with some significant poverty and notable amounts of inequality

    It also has the third lowest crime rate in the EU. And you can sense this. No one is gonna take your phone. It’s that vibe

    Explanations welcome. I can think of at least two

    https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/poland-third-safest-country-in-eu---eurostat-20426#:~:text=Poland is the third safest,average stood at 11 percent
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,342
    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Jeremy Hunt? What a bizarre suggestion - what exactly would be the point?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,034
    Ghedebrav said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems to terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
    Honestly, I can see why Bukele is extremely popular.

    El Salvador was not far from collapse into a criminal state - an insanely high murder rate, gangs de facto running neighbourhoods, people legitimately afraid to leave the house and cross the wrong street.

    If I were a Salvadorian who'd been living in fear like this, I'd be bloody delighted to see all those tattooed scumbags crammed together in manacles and left to rot in that megajail. Faced with the question about some innocents being caught up in that, there's the excellent and highly logical comeback that far more innocents were caught up the status quo beforehand.
    Oh of course. He’s adored by the people. Possibly the most popular democratically elected leader on the planet
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,191
    Leon said:

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems to terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
    A bit like early Brown sticking to spending limits in 1997-9 that even Kenneth Clarke admitted were something of a joke? Or Denis Healey doing eyewatering cuts in the late 1970s? In that sense, you're right, I suspect. However, if there are cuts to be made (and it's really hard to see where, for all the blather on the low tax right), then Labour are probably more trusted and better able to get away with them.

    (The two child limit on benefits is horrible, and ought to not exist. Because bad things happen to families who already have three children, or people have twins by accident, or you know, kids who didn't ask to be born shouldn't suffer. But we are in a world where the government has less than no money.)
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Which one is "Rat- Eyes"? The candidate list is rather lengthy.
    Hunt. My late mother dubbed him thusly.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,342

    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Except the kind of people who hate Sunak really really hate Hunt.
    Otherwise known as 'the electorate'.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Leon said:

    Poland is a large country with some significant poverty and notable amounts of inequality

    It also has the third lowest crime rate in the EU. And you can sense this. No one is gonna take your phone. It’s that vibe

    Explanations welcome. I can think of at least two

    https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/poland-third-safest-country-in-eu---eurostat-20426#:~:text=Poland is the third safest,average stood at 11 percent

    Ha, my mate got his phone nicked in Krakow a couple of months ago (admittedly in a strip joint on a lads' jolly; from his description fairly obviously a place set up to relieve drunken brits of their money and possessions).
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,637
    edited July 2023
    Leon said:

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems so terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
    Fiscal reality does not mean he cannot tax more.

    Now, he may say he is not going to do that but I cannot see how he avoids it. If he taxes the wealthy more, the usual suspects will bleat but ordinary Joe and Jane won't mind overly much.

    It's Starmer's only route to making a difference, given he's not about to rejoin the EU.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,319
    edited July 2023

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    I see your argument, but I am not on board with it. And Leon might be right that as the 27 move to the right safeguards identified as "woke" might be jettisoned by the EU.

    Nonetheless instinctively I believe the EU ability to curtail base populism was a positive. But it was sold by the cynical as "foreign interference". Now we have ruthlessly ambitious operatives like Cruella, Honest Bob and 30p Lee to contend with who can sell the notion of "foreigners smell bad so let's shoot them all" without an ultimate safeguard, and claim my, or Opposition MPs, or the ECHR's condemnation simply to be "elite, liberal wokery".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,509
    Leon said:

    Poland is a large country with some significant poverty and notable amounts of inequality

    It also has the third lowest crime rate in the EU. And you can sense this. No one is gonna take your phone. It’s that vibe

    Explanations welcome. I can think of at least two

    https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/poland-third-safest-country-in-eu---eurostat-20426#:~:text=Poland is the third safest,average stood at 11 percent

    I was quite surprised that Istanbul seemed very safe when I visited there a couple of months ago, at least in the touristy areas. Felt absolutely fine walking around at night.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,280
    edited July 2023

    Ghedebrav said:

    Tories seem value in Selby fwiw, unless I'm missing something.

    Yes. 87% is too high for Labour.
    Equally Uxbridge.
    Yes, I expect the results to confirm Selby with a higher % Labour majority / smaller minority than Uxbridge, despite it needing something like 9.5% higher swing in Selby to even equalise things.

    A lot of that is based on the local positions, Labour being 10% behind in Selby and around 17% behind in Uxbridge in May 2022. These look borne out by some of the constituency
    polling.

    Local elections, where decent data were
    available, have served me well as markers for
    Lab-Con by-elections this parliament, though
    Batley and Wakefield had good participation
    and were within a month or two of the respective by-elections. There is a bit more
    variation here, especially around elapsed
    time and geography.

    (btw, totted up Somerton & Frome LE 22 roughly the other day, and around a 10% LD lead there from 22. Done deal).

    Predictions:
    - Lab win Selby by >1000 votes
    - Lab win Uxbridge by smaller margin than Selby (agree neither should be 87%)
    - LD >20% margin in S&F
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,034

    Leon said:

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems so terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
    Fiscal reality does not mean he cannot tax more.

    Now, he may say he is not going to do that but I cannot see how he avoids it. If he taxes the wealthy more, the usual suspects will bleat but ordinary Joe and Jane won't mind overly much.

    It's Starmer's only route to making a difference, given he's not about to rejoin the EU.
    We’ve already become a pretty high tax government under the Tories, so as to pay for our insane debt. Starmer might be able to nudge it a little more but I can’t see him moving dramatically. Wealth taxes are a disaster as Hollande discovered

    Starmer has basically zero room to maneuver
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,191

    Leon said:

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems so terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
    Fiscal reality does not mean he cannot tax more.

    Now, he may say he is not going to do that but I cannot see how he avoids it. If he taxes the wealthy more, the usual suspects will bleat but ordinary Joe and Jane won't mind overly much.

    It's Starmer's only route to making a difference, given he's not about to rejoin the EU.
    The planning stuff (if it happens) will make a difference, probably quite a big difference. Question is whether it can make enough difference before the 2029ish election.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,492
    This is why Sunak is so bad, he's acting like a poundshop Humza Yousaf regarding Kate Forbes

    James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, is being tipped to take over from Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, who is to step down at the next reshuffle.

    Tom Tugendhat, the security minister and a former territorial army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is also believed to be in the running for the role. Rishi Sunak is expected to conduct a shake-up of his top team, probably in September, to refresh his government before next year’s election.

    Senior government figures said that Cleverly might be in line for a move, and Anne-Marie Trevelyan in a position to succeed him. The defence job is one of the most important for Sunak to fill, given the war in Ukraine, and Cleverly has experience because of his present job. He is an army reservist....

    ...Other contenders for Wallace’s job include James Heappey, the armed forces minister; and Sunak’s ally John Glen, who is chief secretary to the Treasury.

    An outside bet would be Penny Mordaunt, who is leader of the House but briefly had the job under Theresa May. She is just behind Wallace and Cleverly as the most popular cabinet ministers among Tory members. However, she is regarded with suspicion in Downing Street following her run for the leadership and is unlikely to be given such a high-profile role.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/james-cleverly-poised-to-replace-ben-wallace-as-defence-secretary-twhfhw7w7

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,721
    Ghedebrav said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems to terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
    Honestly, I can see why Bukele is extremely popular.

    El Salvador was not far from collapse into a criminal state - an insanely high murder rate, gangs de facto running neighbourhoods, people legitimately afraid to leave the house and cross the wrong street.

    If I were a Salvadorian who'd been living in fear like this, I'd be bloody delighted to see all those tattooed scumbags crammed together in manacles and left to rot in that megajail. Faced with the question about some innocents being caught up in that, there's the excellent and highly logical comeback that far more innocents were caught up the status quo beforehand.
    It's neither an excellent nor a highly logical comeback as it implicitly accepts an ethical equivalence between the state and criminal gangs. The best that could be said for such failings is that they were inevitable and, as such, necessary given the scale of the problem (which is, of course, a lot easier to say when you don't know any of the innocents so caught up).

    Nonetheless, dictators have often achieved genuine significant popularity off the back of securing apparent domestic security and safety (and, relatedly, a stable economy), to the point of the public preferring that to democracy and the rule-of-law if the latter can't assure those basics. Maslow and all that.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,264
    In Northern News Jamie Driscoll (North of Tyne Mayor) has resigned from the Labour party and is now fundraising to run as an independent candidate.

    Now if I lived in the area I would be supporting him as the Labour candidate is dire and the Labour party completely shafted Jamie to avoid him being their candidate.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,925
    Some serious bullshitting from the Post Office on WATO today.

    If it’s so bloody difficult to go through the documents (and I suspect they’re BS numbers), how did they manage to gather sufficient evidence to bring prosecutions in the first place ?

    Contemptible excuses for what looks an awful lot like obstruction.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    This is why Sunak is so bad, he's acting like a poundshop Humza Yousaf regarding Kate Forbes

    James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, is being tipped to take over from Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, who is to step down at the next reshuffle.

    Tom Tugendhat, the security minister and a former territorial army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is also believed to be in the running for the role. Rishi Sunak is expected to conduct a shake-up of his top team, probably in September, to refresh his government before next year’s election.

    Senior government figures said that Cleverly might be in line for a move, and Anne-Marie Trevelyan in a position to succeed him. The defence job is one of the most important for Sunak to fill, given the war in Ukraine, and Cleverly has experience because of his present job. He is an army reservist....

    ...Other contenders for Wallace’s job include James Heappey, the armed forces minister; and Sunak’s ally John Glen, who is chief secretary to the Treasury.

    An outside bet would be Penny Mordaunt, who is leader of the House but briefly had the job under Theresa May. She is just behind Wallace and Cleverly as the most popular cabinet ministers among Tory members. However, she is regarded with suspicion in Downing Street following her run for the leadership and is unlikely to be given such a high-profile role.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/james-cleverly-poised-to-replace-ben-wallace-as-defence-secretary-twhfhw7w7

    Well Tuggers is apparently in the running and also ran against Sunak. The objection to Penny may be Sunak wants to go big on Woke.

    also she seems pretty useless except at sword bearing.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,034

    Ghedebrav said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems to terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
    Honestly, I can see why Bukele is extremely popular.

    El Salvador was not far from collapse into a criminal state - an insanely high murder rate, gangs de facto running neighbourhoods, people legitimately afraid to leave the house and cross the wrong street.

    If I were a Salvadorian who'd been living in fear like this, I'd be bloody delighted to see all those tattooed scumbags crammed together in manacles and left to rot in that megajail. Faced with the question about some innocents being caught up in that, there's the excellent and highly logical comeback that far more innocents were caught up the status quo beforehand.
    It's neither an excellent nor a highly logical comeback as it implicitly accepts an ethical equivalence between the state and criminal gangs. The best that could be said for such failings is that they were inevitable and, as such, necessary given the scale of the problem (which is, of course, a lot easier to say when you don't know any of the innocents so caught up).

    Nonetheless, dictators have often achieved genuine significant popularity off the back of securing apparent domestic security and safety (and, relatedly, a stable economy), to the point of the public preferring that to democracy and the rule-of-law if the latter can't assure those basics. Maslow and all that.
    It’s highly logical. If your life was being ruined by the 10% chance of being murdered by drug gangs then you will vote for the guy who offers you a 1% chance of being murdered by the government

    That’s entirely rational. Also, of course, many other societal benefits accrue from a drastically lowered
    crime rate (like higher foreign investment etc)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,925

    This is why Sunak is so bad, he's acting like a poundshop Humza Yousaf regarding Kate Forbes

    James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, is being tipped to take over from Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, who is to step down at the next reshuffle.

    Tom Tugendhat, the security minister and a former territorial army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is also believed to be in the running for the role. Rishi Sunak is expected to conduct a shake-up of his top team, probably in September, to refresh his government before next year’s election.

    Senior government figures said that Cleverly might be in line for a move, and Anne-Marie Trevelyan in a position to succeed him. The defence job is one of the most important for Sunak to fill, given the war in Ukraine, and Cleverly has experience because of his present job. He is an army reservist....

    ...Other contenders for Wallace’s job include James Heappey, the armed forces minister; and Sunak’s ally John Glen, who is chief secretary to the Treasury.

    An outside bet would be Penny Mordaunt, who is leader of the House but briefly had the job under Theresa May. She is just behind Wallace and Cleverly as the most popular cabinet ministers among Tory members. However, she is regarded with suspicion in Downing Street following her run for the leadership and is unlikely to be given such a high-profile role.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/james-cleverly-poised-to-replace-ben-wallace-as-defence-secretary-twhfhw7w7

    It’s largely irrelevant anyway.

    The significant point (and I have to give credit, for the first time in my life, to Mark Francois for noting it) is that we’ve had nine ministers for Defence Procurement in the last decade.

    Small wonder that the entire system is a rolling disaster.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,721

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    I see your argument, but I am not on board with it. And Leon might be right that as the 27 move to the right safeguards identified as "woke" might be jettisoned by the EU.

    Nonetheless instinctively I believe the EU ability to curtail base populism was a positive. But it was sold by the cynical as "foreign interference". Now we have ruthlessly ambitious operatives like Cruella, Honest Bob and 30p Lee to contend with who can sell the notion of "foreigners smell bad so let's shoot them all" without an ultimate safeguard, and claim my, or Opposition MPs, or the ECHR's condemnation simply to be "elite, liberal wokery".
    The only ultimate safeguard is the opinion of the electorate. It's no good bewailing the policies of populist Tories when they do that precisely because they believe it will go down well with the public. There are too many on the left - Green activists tend to be particularly prone to it - who hold a disdain for actual democracy because it means engaging with people who they see as holding grubby views. But persuasion is critical. Unless people buy into the basic premises on which, say, the ECHR is founded, then of course opponents of it will gain traction - and that buy-in doesn't happen, against challenge, unless people make the case in good faith.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,509
    Nigelb said:

    Some serious bullshitting from the Post Office on WATO today.

    If it’s so bloody difficult to go through the documents (and I suspect they’re BS numbers), how did they manage to gather sufficient evidence to bring prosecutions in the first place ?

    Contemptible excuses for what looks an awful lot like obstruction.

    The enquiry chair should refer the obstruction to the police, or whoever is the appropriate authority to start the process of locking up the PO management. Appaling behaviour from them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,087

    This is why Sunak is so bad, he's acting like a poundshop Humza Yousaf regarding Kate Forbes

    James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, is being tipped to take over from Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, who is to step down at the next reshuffle.

    Tom Tugendhat, the security minister and a former territorial army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is also believed to be in the running for the role. Rishi Sunak is expected to conduct a shake-up of his top team, probably in September, to refresh his government before next year’s election.

    Senior government figures said that Cleverly might be in line for a move, and Anne-Marie Trevelyan in a position to succeed him. The defence job is one of the most important for Sunak to fill, given the war in Ukraine, and Cleverly has experience because of his present job. He is an army reservist....

    ...Other contenders for Wallace’s job include James Heappey, the armed forces minister; and Sunak’s ally John Glen, who is chief secretary to the Treasury.

    An outside bet would be Penny Mordaunt, who is leader of the House but briefly had the job under Theresa May. She is just behind Wallace and Cleverly as the most popular cabinet ministers among Tory members. However, she is regarded with suspicion in Downing Street following her run for the leadership and is unlikely to be given such a high-profile role.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/james-cleverly-poised-to-replace-ben-wallace-as-defence-secretary-twhfhw7w7

    It'd be a downward move for Cleverly.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,319
    Just heard Nick Read from the Post Office condemning Kevan Jones for criticising the Post Office Board's Brucie bonus.

    What is it with all these horrid Labour MPs called Jones beating up on Nick?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,081
    edited July 2023
    Leon said:

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems so terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
    I really don't think so. Team Starmer has 3 priorities. Win the election. Win the election. Win the election. It's almost in the bag but it isn't quite; and the only serious risk is that the traditional attack lines of the Tories and their media enablers (Labour can't be trusted on the economy, Labour are soft on immigration, Labour sneer at traditional values, Labour aren't patriotic, Labour are against aspiration la di da) will again have resonance and be enough to prevent the party turning its polling lead into votes and seats.

    The strategy (being followed with monomaniacal discipline) is to neutralize all of these attack lines in advance, de-risk the election, leave the Tories with nothing to get their teeth into, force them to run on their record and - sure as eggs - lose. We'll find out how Starmer will govern when he's governing and although there'll be no big scary lurch left it's incredibly unlikely it won't be distinctly left of the Conservative Party, esp this Conservative Party.

    So I'm sorry Leon but a Labour government is coming and, no, it won't be like your preferred Tory one. You will notice a change, it won't be to your taste, and you'll have to grin and bear it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,005
    FPT @Andy_JS
    Andy_JS said:

    "AI has always plagued mankind
    Technological arrogance brought about our Fall
    By Jacob Howland

    Why are the countries of the West sliding toward electronically enhanced totalitarianism? Was it inevitable that government employees and corporate technicians wielding digital and psychological tools would promote a false conspiracy theory to cripple a sitting American president, and suppress and discredit news to aid a favoured candidate? Or that public health officials in Europe and the English-speaking world would use what may have been the deliberate release of a Chinese bioweapon to infringe civil liberties and hijack representative democracy?"

    https://unherd.com/2023/07/ai-has-always-plagued-mankind/

    Andy, thanks as ever for the link, but I wasn't that impressed. It was just a recitation of Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology. Except in the literary sense, I don't think you can use Prometheus tricking Zeus as an example of AI. It would be equally as (in)valid for me to use a Star Trek episode about a bad computer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,925

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    I see your argument, but I am not on board with it. And Leon might be right that as the 27 move to the right safeguards identified as "woke" might be jettisoned by the EU.

    Nonetheless instinctively I believe the EU ability to curtail base populism was a positive. But it was sold by the cynical as "foreign interference". Now we have ruthlessly ambitious operatives like Cruella, Honest Bob and 30p Lee to contend with who can sell the notion of "foreigners smell bad so let's shoot them all" without an ultimate safeguard, and claim my, or Opposition MPs, or the ECHR's condemnation simply to be "elite, liberal wokery".
    The only ultimate safeguard is the opinion of the electorate. It's no good bewailing the policies of populist Tories when they do that precisely because they believe it will go down well with the public. There are too many on the left - Green activists tend to be particularly prone to it - who hold a disdain for actual democracy because it means engaging with people who they see as holding grubby views. But persuasion is critical. Unless people buy into the basic premises on which, say, the ECHR is founded, then of course opponents of it will gain traction - and that buy-in doesn't happen, against challenge, unless people make the case in good faith.
    True, but Mexicanpete is condemning rather than bewailing the populist Tories. Which is part of the ongoing argument.

    And is it really ‘outsourcing’ ?
    All countries have laws and constitutions which are rather more deeply embedded than whatever the plurality at the last election decides is desirable.
    While it’s true that such constraints are more deeply embedded if you’ve signed up to international obligations, it’s not such a different matter. And as we’ve seen, it’s always possible to abandon such obligations.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,719
    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    I read your title as wondering if the Tories would cancel the by-elections, and was thinking, martial law or what?

    Don't give them ideas.
    They've already tried - identity evidence and all that. Could get sticky if the voters turned away exceed the margins between candidates. And three goes at that happening.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,651
    eek said:

    In Northern News Jamie Driscoll (North of Tyne Mayor) has resigned from the Labour party and is now fundraising to run as an independent candidate.

    Now if I lived in the area I would be supporting him as the Labour candidate is dire and the Labour party completely shafted Jamie to avoid him being their candidate.

    https://www.gofundme.com/f/jamie-driscoll-for-north-east-mayor?member=26933721&sharetype=teams&utm_campaign=p_na+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=customer
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,925
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some serious bullshitting from the Post Office on WATO today.

    If it’s so bloody difficult to go through the documents (and I suspect they’re BS numbers), how did they manage to gather sufficient evidence to bring prosecutions in the first place ?

    Contemptible excuses for what looks an awful lot like obstruction.

    The enquiry chair should refer the obstruction to the police, or whoever is the appropriate authority to start the process of locking up the PO management. Appaling behaviour from them.
    The relevant legislation empowering such enquiries means that they are the plaything of government. Without the backing of Badenoch, such action isn’t really possible.
    The chair should perhaps threaten publicly to resign ?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,748

    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Except the kind of people who hate Sunak really really hate Hunt. Or anyone else who still has some grip on reality and arithmetic.

    God knows who gets the gig if Sunak gets run over by a bus tomorrow.
    The bus driver (old joke).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,925
    Interesting.

    Males Are the Taller Sex. Estrogen, Not Fights for Mates, May Be Why.

    To explain why men are on average taller than women, scientists theorized about competition for mates. But the effects of estrogen on bone growth may be answer enough.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/males-are-the-taller-sex-estrogen-not-fights-for-mates-may-be-why-20200608/
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,748
    Fruit correctly labelled today so probably last week was a defective printer (or my dodgy eyesight).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,492

    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Except the kind of people who hate Sunak really really hate Hunt. Or anyone else who still has some grip on reality and arithmetic.

    God knows who gets the gig if Sunak gets run over by a bus tomorrow.
    Nadine Dorries, no wait she'd be the one driving the bus.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/6299327

    Córdoba getting 43 this afternoon.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,319

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    I see your argument, but I am not on board with it. And Leon might be right that as the 27 move to the right safeguards identified as "woke" might be jettisoned by the EU.

    Nonetheless instinctively I believe the EU ability to curtail base populism was a positive. But it was sold by the cynical as "foreign interference". Now we have ruthlessly ambitious operatives like Cruella, Honest Bob and 30p Lee to contend with who can sell the notion of "foreigners smell bad so let's shoot them all" without an ultimate safeguard, and claim my, or Opposition MPs, or the ECHR's condemnation simply to be "elite, liberal wokery".
    The only ultimate safeguard is the opinion of the electorate. It's no good bewailing the policies of populist Tories when they do that precisely because they believe it will go down well with the public. There are too many on the left - Green activists tend to be particularly prone to it - who hold a disdain for actual democracy because it means engaging with people who they see as holding grubby views. But persuasion is critical. Unless people buy into the basic premises on which, say, the ECHR is founded, then of course opponents of it will gain traction - and that buy-in doesn't happen, against challenge, unless people make the case in good faith.
    I am a great advocate of sovereign democracy, especially on a proportional basis.

    Let's take Brexit. The ultimate democratic mandate by plebiscite. In principle a marvellous idea, but when both sets of protagonists sold themselves on false prospecti and one side in particular had their falsehoods backed by client media it makes a mockery of democracy.

    For democracy to work "truth" should be the key prospectus for Left, Right and Centre.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,966
    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Frankly it is expected and anything other than 3 loses would be a huge surprise

    It must be remembered Friday is the start of the summer recess, the open and the ashes test are being played, people are going on holiday, (if strikes let them) then Sunak is planning a September reshuffle no doubt to replace Wallace

    I just do not see anyone in the conservative party better than Sunak, nor an appetite for another leadership election, so I expect Sunak will take on Starmer at the next GE

    What if the Men in Grey Tenas short-circuit the process again so we don't have to have the whole carnival of filth? Bullet in the head for Sunak (aim carefully, his head is the size of a hazelnut), swift coronation for Rat Eyes or anybody else reality adjacent then a swift GE before the voters' OODA cycle re-asserts itself.
    Except the kind of people who hate Sunak really really hate Hunt. Or anyone else who still has some grip on reality and arithmetic.

    God knows who gets the gig if Sunak gets run over by a bus tomorrow.
    Dowden straight away, I guess. Then watch as Nads steps aside to let Boris run in her seat and make an immediate bid for the leadership.
    Johnson would lose that by-election!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,005
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,034
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'

    Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.

    Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?

    You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.

    Wishful thinking.

    Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
    I don't think so, Pete, because the bias I always have to fight in myself is the other way. The inclination to bet in a manner that will create profit if what I don't want to happen happens. The old 'emotional hedge'. Route to the poorhouse.

    And Sunak's no Blair either, is he? In fact the only Blair is Blair.
    Do you remember the shock on the morning of Friday 10th April 1992? That sick pit in your stomach when you realised another 5 years of Conservative Governments was in view. I do, so I am bracing myself this time.

    And this next Conservative Government of controlled decline will be so much worse without the constraints of the EU to keep it in check. We will come out of it with the most illiberal and populist administration we have ever seen in the UK, and somewhere around mid 2027 the reigns will be taken over by Badenoch, Braverman or Jenrick. Brace, brace!
    This is quite a revealing comment. You were quite happy with the EU as it enforced constraints on the UK that would not be democratically voted for by the UK. Surely that is highly illiberal?

    I think you will find that across Europe there are much more populist and illiberal elected governments than in the UK.
    By being signed up to EU some of the more illiberal populist nonsense that Braverman (in her dreams it would seem) might like to adopt into law would have been unavailable.

    Reintroducing capital punishment for taxi- driver nonces or strafing the boats might get a cynical vote or two, but it would have been frowned upon by Brussels. Good old Brussels!
    But, with respect, that answer is revealing of the problem so deeply embedded within what likes to see itself as the liberal centre-left that it doesn't even recognise what others can clearly see.

    You're not making the case against these policies on their merits but would rather rely on external constraints to prevent their implementation. You assume that they're so self-evidently right that this isn't needed and yet also recognise that a popularly-elected government might want to do so anyway: there's a huge disconnect there. Inevitably, that situation also makes that external constraint unpopular, leading to a wider crisis of legitimacy for it and leaving the field free for the populist right to dominate.

    All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place.
    With a (now) sixty plus majority, Suella can do what the hell she likes (so long as the courts can be cowed into submission). Take Rwanda. It wasn't in the 2019 manifesto, but she is going for it anyway. And if it falls at the ECHR what will she do? Take a parliamentary vote to leave the ECHR. I don't remember seeing that in the 2019 manifesto.

    But on your wider point, "All because you won't get down and engage in the debate in the first place". If a policy panders to the basest idiosyncrasies of the most intolerant voters. "I'll support the strafing of boats because I don't like foreigners" we would normally expect our sovereign elected officers to have the intellect and calm reflection to filter out these base thoughts. But we have Lee Anderson. I'll try to engage with him, but I can't promise a positive outcome.
    It's not a question of engaging with Lee Anderson; it's a question of engaging with the public and explaining from first principles why Lee Anderson is wrong. Enough of the hand-wringing: get involved - it's not someone else's* job. You can't just impose policies; you have to win the public over to them.

    * Collectively. Outsourcing restraint to external agencies, particularly foreign agencies, is too easily seen as winning by cheating and enables the populist right (and, in other ways, populist left) to undermine their legitimacy.
    FPT


    I’m really struggling to find a way that Starmer is further left than Sunak. Fiscal reality means he cannot borrow, tax or spend more. He’s said this bluntly

    He might - might - be more pro-EU but he seems so terrified of Brexit I doubt he will make any serious moves

    His adoption of the “horribly Tory” two child policy means he’s very much in the Sunak zone on welfare. Wes Streeting’s announcement that we most not worship the NHS - it’s not an idol - means we might actually get more “market oriented” reform there than with the Tories

    Ergo, Starmer could end up further right than Sunak, in government. Bit like that centrist El Salvador fella who turned into Franco (and is now enormously popular)
    I really don't think so. Team Starmer has 3 priorities. Win the election. Win the election. Win the election. It's almost in the bag but it isn't quite; and the only serious risk is that the traditional attack lines of the Tories and their media enablers (Labour can't be trusted on the economy, Labour are soft on immigration, Labour sneer at traditional values, Labour aren't patriotic, Labour are against aspiration la di da) will again have resonance and be enough to prevent the party turning its polling lead into votes and seats.

    The strategy (being followed with monomaniacal discipline) is to neutralize all of these attack lines in advance, de-risk the election, leave the Tories with nothing to get their teeth into, force them to run on their record and - sure as eggs - lose. We'll find out how Starmer will govern when he's governing and although there'll be no big scary lurch left it's incredibly unlikely it won't be distinctly left of the Conservative Party, esp this Conservative Party.

    So I'm sorry Leon but a Labour government is coming and, no, it won't be like your preferred Tory one. You will notice a change, it won't be to your taste, and you'll have to grin and bear it.
    At what point do I say the Tories are going to win? Nowhere

    So that was ten minutes of your life wasted. As to how he’s going to be further left, you notably don’t spell it out. Because this is already a left wing government

    I suppose he could authorise trans surgeries for kids age 8
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,295
    edited July 2023
    It would be very odd for Cleverly to be moved from the Foreign Office. He is generally thought by the commentariat to be doing a good job. It would also be a downward move.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Very popular (now former) Labour Mayor has left the party because he wasn’t short listed and the Labour Party has gone too far to the right - he will be running for the new Mayor role that covers more of the North West:

    https://twitter.com/mayorjd/status/1680912916164276224?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ

    In my mind, he is more likely to win than the Labour candidate - easier to convince Cons to vote Ind than Labour and he has a track record of doing the role, although at smaller scale.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,509
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some serious bullshitting from the Post Office on WATO today.

    If it’s so bloody difficult to go through the documents (and I suspect they’re BS numbers), how did they manage to gather sufficient evidence to bring prosecutions in the first place ?

    Contemptible excuses for what looks an awful lot like obstruction.

    The enquiry chair should refer the obstruction to the police, or whoever is the appropriate authority to start the process of locking up the PO management. Appaling behaviour from them.
    The relevant legislation empowering such enquiries means that they are the plaything of government. Without the backing of Badenoch, such action isn’t really possible.
    The chair should perhaps threaten publicly to resign ?
    Ah okay. So the Chair needs to formally and publicly request a meeting with the minister to ‘express concerns’ about the behaviour of the PO management that have forced a lengthy delay to his enquiry.

    Could they be done for Contempt of Parliament?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,295
    David Herdson posting some sensible stuff this morning.
  • Miklosvar said:

    This is why Sunak is so bad, he's acting like a poundshop Humza Yousaf regarding Kate Forbes

    James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, is being tipped to take over from Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, who is to step down at the next reshuffle.

    Tom Tugendhat, the security minister and a former territorial army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is also believed to be in the running for the role. Rishi Sunak is expected to conduct a shake-up of his top team, probably in September, to refresh his government before next year’s election.

    Senior government figures said that Cleverly might be in line for a move, and Anne-Marie Trevelyan in a position to succeed him. The defence job is one of the most important for Sunak to fill, given the war in Ukraine, and Cleverly has experience because of his present job. He is an army reservist....

    ...Other contenders for Wallace’s job include James Heappey, the armed forces minister; and Sunak’s ally John Glen, who is chief secretary to the Treasury.

    An outside bet would be Penny Mordaunt, who is leader of the House but briefly had the job under Theresa May. She is just behind Wallace and Cleverly as the most popular cabinet ministers among Tory members. However, she is regarded with suspicion in Downing Street following her run for the leadership and is unlikely to be given such a high-profile role.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/james-cleverly-poised-to-replace-ben-wallace-as-defence-secretary-twhfhw7w7

    Well Tuggers is apparently in the running and also ran against Sunak. The objection to Penny may be Sunak wants to go big on Woke.

    also she seems pretty useless except at sword bearing.
    I assume the reference is to Mordaunt running in the second contest last year rather than the first.

    Hunt was among those running in the first, and I assume Sunak is pretty sanguine about the fact a lot of people chucked their hats in the ring for that one.

    It's the second one where Mordaunt rather unwisely gave it another go when Sunak was pushing for a rallying round and a coronation (which he ultimately got but it wasn't as clean as he'd have liked).
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,295
    edited July 2023
    Keir Starmer literally can’t afford to sign up to any spending policy, such is the state of government finances.

    That doesn’t make him “more left wing than Sunak”, which is a bizarre claim.

    Merely that he wants to win the election, and leave as many options open as possible.

    He is not very charismatic, but he has ruthless focus.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,649

    eek said:

    In Northern News Jamie Driscoll (North of Tyne Mayor) has resigned from the Labour party and is now fundraising to run as an independent candidate.

    Now if I lived in the area I would be supporting him as the Labour candidate is dire and the Labour party completely shafted Jamie to avoid him being their candidate.

    https://www.gofundme.com/f/jamie-driscoll-for-north-east-mayor?member=26933721&sharetype=teams&utm_campaign=p_na+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=customer
    Just donated £20

    We need a lot of James Driscoll's to show SKS and Akehurst stupid actions have consequences.

    Already had successful campaigns from others who stood up and won including Murza last week.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    Nigelb said:

    This is why Sunak is so bad, he's acting like a poundshop Humza Yousaf regarding Kate Forbes

    James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, is being tipped to take over from Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, who is to step down at the next reshuffle.

    Tom Tugendhat, the security minister and a former territorial army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is also believed to be in the running for the role. Rishi Sunak is expected to conduct a shake-up of his top team, probably in September, to refresh his government before next year’s election.

    Senior government figures said that Cleverly might be in line for a move, and Anne-Marie Trevelyan in a position to succeed him. The defence job is one of the most important for Sunak to fill, given the war in Ukraine, and Cleverly has experience because of his present job. He is an army reservist....

    ...Other contenders for Wallace’s job include James Heappey, the armed forces minister; and Sunak’s ally John Glen, who is chief secretary to the Treasury.

    An outside bet would be Penny Mordaunt, who is leader of the House but briefly had the job under Theresa May. She is just behind Wallace and Cleverly as the most popular cabinet ministers among Tory members. However, she is regarded with suspicion in Downing Street following her run for the leadership and is unlikely to be given such a high-profile role.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/james-cleverly-poised-to-replace-ben-wallace-as-defence-secretary-twhfhw7w7

    It’s largely irrelevant anyway.

    The significant point (and I have to give credit, for the first time in my life, to Mark Francois for noting it) is that we’ve had nine ministers for Defence Procurement in the last decade.

    Small wonder that the entire system is a rolling disaster.
    Wallace is still cutting even though he's in the departure lounge. The NMH helicopter program has just been cut from 44 to '25 to 35' which we all know means 25.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    @HYUFD is tipping the Tories to win Uxbridge because of the Ulez-x.

    DYOR etc etc
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,721
    148grss said:

    Very popular (now former) Labour Mayor has left the party because he wasn’t short listed and the Labour Party has gone too far to the right - he will be running for the new Mayor role that covers more of the North West:

    https://twitter.com/mayorjd/status/1680912916164276224?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ

    In my mind, he is more likely to win than the Labour candidate - easier to convince Cons to vote Ind than Labour and he has a track record of doing the role, although at smaller scale.

    North East.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    148grss said:

    Very popular (now former) Labour Mayor has left the party because he wasn’t short listed and the Labour Party has gone too far to the right - he will be running for the new Mayor role that covers more of the North West:

    https://twitter.com/mayorjd/status/1680912916164276224?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ

    In my mind, he is more likely to win than the Labour candidate - easier to convince Cons to vote Ind than Labour and he has a track record of doing the role, although at smaller scale.

    North East.
    My geography is useless - thank you
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,295

    eek said:

    In Northern News Jamie Driscoll (North of Tyne Mayor) has resigned from the Labour party and is now fundraising to run as an independent candidate.

    Now if I lived in the area I would be supporting him as the Labour candidate is dire and the Labour party completely shafted Jamie to avoid him being their candidate.

    https://www.gofundme.com/f/jamie-driscoll-for-north-east-mayor?member=26933721&sharetype=teams&utm_campaign=p_na+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=customer
    Just donated £20

    We need a lot of James Driscoll's to show SKS and Akehurst stupid actions have consequences.

    Already had successful campaigns from others who stood up and won including Murza last week.
    Ken Livingstone was great for London, for the first four years at least. Can Driscoll do a Livingstone?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,087
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    Males Are the Taller Sex. Estrogen, Not Fights for Mates, May Be Why.

    To explain why men are on average taller than women, scientists theorized about competition for mates. But the effects of estrogen on bone growth may be answer enough.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/males-are-the-taller-sex-estrogen-not-fights-for-mates-may-be-why-20200608/

    That fits, women don't have the same growth from ~ 13 -> 18 that men do.

    https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/child-growth/growth-reference-5-19-years/height-for-age-(5-19-years)/cht-hfa-girls-perc-5-19years.pdf?sfvrsn=f90a33cf_4

    Female @ 13 yrs 170 cm expected height ~ 175; male @ 13 yrs 170 cm expected height 190 cm.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,295

    @HYUFD is tipping the Tories to win Uxbridge because of the Ulez-x.

    DYOR etc etc

    Is @HYUFD considered a reliable tipster?
    Not, I think, on recent form.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,925
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some serious bullshitting from the Post Office on WATO today.

    If it’s so bloody difficult to go through the documents (and I suspect they’re BS numbers), how did they manage to gather sufficient evidence to bring prosecutions in the first place ?

    Contemptible excuses for what looks an awful lot like obstruction.

    The enquiry chair should refer the obstruction to the police, or whoever is the appropriate authority to start the process of locking up the PO management. Appaling behaviour from them.
    The relevant legislation empowering such enquiries means that they are the plaything of government. Without the backing of Badenoch, such action isn’t really possible.
    The chair should perhaps threaten publicly to resign ?
    Ah okay. So the Chair needs to formally and publicly request a meeting with the minister to ‘express concerns’ about the behaviour of the PO management that have forced a lengthy delay to his enquiry.

    Could they be done for Contempt of Parliament?
    I think not. @Cyclefree can no doubt confirm.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005#Criticisms
    … Indeed, the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court" and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister…

This discussion has been closed.