What's the historic split of Tory "don't know" at the prior election compared to say a year out from the next one and how have those 'don't knows' eventually split ?
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Nick they're telling _you_ they're not going to vote but in your vast experience how many people actually do sit out an election for whatever reason.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me.
I went to see my 93-year old mother the other day and her copy of the Times was open showing a picture of one Tony Blair. I asked her what she was reading (she is at the stage of remembering her maths tutor at school but not what she had for breakfast that day) and she replied that Tony Blair succeeded because he convinced people that his Labour Party didn't hate them and wanted to provide politics for all. A simple premise but one that I don't think your Party has followed for some time.
Lots of reasons to suspect a thumping Labour majority, but a fair few that suggest caution. The large number of seats that need to be gained. The lack of enthusiasm for Starmer and Labour. The usual swing back that is seen.
I have bet on a Majority and also on most seats. I expect both to come good, but I would not be amazed if only the second did.
The notable anecdata round my way is that in 1997, all the "I've only ever voted Tory" people I knew (I was one) voted Tory. Now, a significant proportion of them are of the "this lot need to get the boot and I'm not voting for them" persuasion. They (almost without exception) voted Tory in 2019. (I was one of the exceptions.)
It is very, very far from a ringing endorsement for Labour, but very, very much still in their favour.
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Nick they're telling _you_ they're not going to vote but in your vast experience how many people actually do sit out an election for whatever reason.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me...
Bbbut...you have a fetching hat! How can people not like you?
Probably explains why SKS is so cautious at the moment.
But I still think he will be PM after the next GE
The Tories, as has been said more than once, need an outright majority and that is not likely. They are uncoalitionable.
The DUP would likely back or abstain a Sunak minority gov't for enough pork in the barrel. That's about it though.
Do you think so after Boris shafted them ?
Yes, Sunak is not Boris. But they're unlikely to be within the narrow window that presented such a golden opportunity (That they were always going to inevitably squander) with May again.
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
If you were an American you’d be receiving a Purple Heart.
So if the choice, for SKS, is to govern in coalition with the SNP in return for an indy ref or to have a minority govt reliant on minor parties would he take the former ?
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Nick they're telling _you_ they're not going to vote but in your vast experience how many people actually do sit out an election for whatever reason.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me...
Bbbut...you have a fetching hat! How can people not like you?
While the Labour by-election win was the biggest majority ever overturned in such a contest, the Lib Dem result is bigger overall, shifting 19,000 blue majority to 11,000 votes to the good for the yellows.
The urge to get rid of Conservatives was very strong in both seats. It is worth remembering Labour start a long way back but regular 20 point poll leads would take a Theresa Mayesque electoral campaign to overcome.
Probably explains why SKS is so cautious at the moment.
But I still think he will be PM after the next GE
The Tories, as has been said more than once, need an outright majority and that is not likely. They are uncoalitionable.
The DUP would likely back or abstain a Sunak minority gov't for enough pork in the barrel. That's about it though.
Do you think so after Boris shafted them ?
Yes, Sunak is not Boris. But they're unlikely to be within the narrow window that presented such a golden opportunity (That they were always going to inevitably squander) with May again.
The other reason I'd still put the DUP with the Tories is that if Labour need to do some sort of tacit deal with the DUP then they've already had meetings with both the Lib Dems and the SNP for them to not oppose a Labour minority gov't (Maybe Plaid and the greens too). I think the DUP would be equally favourable to approaches from Starmer and Sunak if no other parties were involved but Labour already has a fair few barnacles on the boat if they're needing to talk to the DUP about forming an administration.
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
Yes, a bad dry sandwich will always be worse than anything deep fried. My worst was in Italy at a motorway services. Very dry bread with some salami inside, dry cheese curled at the edges and no butter.
Have also had ham sandwiches where the ham was a bit off. Those are rank.
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
Yes, last week, a smoked salmon sandwich (two of them, actually) from Pret via Deliveroo. Rather than cancel the order because they'd run out (this was towards the end of the day) Pret took about half an hour to accept the order while they scraped around the bins, and sent salmon hardened to a sharp edge, on stale bread, with no visible butter. FFS if you've run out of the good stuff just cancel the flipping order. I would have left a one-star review but that is too much hassle: too many boxes to fill in.
A Lab majority is not a certainty by any means. The number of gains they need is huge. However:
- Yes, some of the ex-Con DKs will return but so will some of the ex-Lab DKs. - A lot of the ex-Con DKs will have been first-time Con voters or motivated by Brexit and/or Corbyn. These will be a lot harder for the Tories to get back than the ex-Lab DKs. The comparison here is with 1992/97, when the Lab vote only went up by 2m but the Con one dropped by 5m. - Anti-Con tactical voting will be much more of a thing than it was in 2019. - 12% of the 2019 Con vote going direct to Lab is huge by the standards of the last decade. - Can Con squeeze Reform? Maybe, to some extent, but (a) much of that vote will be so disillusioned that they'll vote RefUK anyway - see 2015 - and (b) Labour has its own Green / LD vote to squeeze. - Scotland. Lab/SNP seats will be critical and, obviously, won't show up in the Con numbers.
I get the argument against him (he fucked around and the locals will find out), although I am still glad he said it. Him kissing a male fan in Dubai made me wince tho: that's the kind of behavior that gets people killed. Just because one can get a flight there and it has big buildings and good shopping does not make it safe.
So if the choice, for SKS, is to govern in coalition with the SNP in return for an indy ref or to have a minority govt reliant on minor parties would he take the former ?
I'm still yet to hear Starmer talk about inflation.
You might not like Sunak or Hunt but they at least have a grip on the importance of stabilising the value of the pound and our national solvency more broadly.
Probably explains why SKS is so cautious at the moment.
But I still think he will be PM after the next GE
The Tories, as has been said more than once, need an outright majority and that is not likely. They are uncoalitionable.
The DUP would likely back or abstain a Sunak minority gov't for enough pork in the barrel. That's about it though.
Do you think so after Boris shafted them ?
Yes, Sunak is not Boris. But they're unlikely to be within the narrow window that presented such a golden opportunity (That they were always going to inevitably squander) with May again.
The deal they made was with May, not Johnson. The risk is always that the Tory leader will be deposed.
That said, the DUP don't really need a deal. They have the direct rule from London they've always wanted.
I think this pretty well explodes the Republican case that there was political interference in the Hunter Biden investigation.
Here's some ACTUAL TESTIMONY from Joseph Ziegler that @jeddrosche somehow failed to mention: There are emails in the case file abt 6A problems and Trump's influence and THAT's why they didn't charge the case. Wonder why Jedd left that out?
...I wonder why Jedd left out that Shapley didn't become a "whistleblower" until he had to turn over the emails he had failed to turn over in March 2022?
The point about a lot of 2019 conservative voters having been first timers is an interesting one. Easier for them to come back home after a disastrous 2019 flirtation. But they are probably already saying Labour in the polls.
The counterpoint to the thread header is that Opinium's methodology for voting intention is supposed to be predictive factoring in swing-back and treat Con 19 Don't knows as such. So with Opinium's latest VI having a Lab +17 lead not sure I agree this an issue for Labour given the pollster's methodology? I imagine there will be some swingback from Lab +17 but a Labour majority only needs (probably) a +7/+8 lead *if* Scotland goes Labour and there's lots of tactical voting in England.
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Nick they're telling _you_ they're not going to vote but in your vast experience how many people actually do sit out an election for whatever reason.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me.
I went to see my 93-year old mother the other day and her copy of the Times was open showing a picture of one Tony Blair. I asked her what she was reading (she is at the stage of remembering her maths tutor at school but not what she had for breakfast that day) and she replied that Tony Blair succeeded because he convinced people that his Labour Party didn't hate them and wanted to provide politics for all. A simple premise but one that I don't think your Party has followed for some time.
Yes...after my confident assertion earlier I looked up the Opinium poll and actually Mike is right and I'm wrong - only 2% of 2019 Con voters say they won't vote, and 30% say they don't know.
On the "liking" point, I think that there are few people left in Labour who hate anyone very much, but there's a broad failure to understand why anyone would still vote Tory - we can see why one might be a fan of Thatcher or indeed Boris, but currently the Government just seem a fag-end administration with no particular appeal. Most Labour people have a personal priority - the NHS, childcare, the environment, etc. - and you'd be right to think they will want to prioritise their favourite cause rather than simply governing dispassionately for all. But Starmer does get it - he's not at all interested in being the champion of a few causes at the expense of the wider common interest. I'm not sure he positively likes you, but you're safe against vindictive policies.
So if the choice, for SKS, is to govern in coalition with the SNP in return for an indy ref or to have a minority govt reliant on minor parties would he take the former ?
Starmer is not even at the Vote Labour and Win a Microwave stage. You know who else ran essentially negative campaigns? David Cameron. He turned a big lead into a hung parliament, almost lost Scotland and did lose Brexit. Yet the centrists around Starmer think Cameron was a political genius, or at least, they act as if they do.
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Nick they're telling _you_ they're not going to vote but in your vast experience how many people actually do sit out an election for whatever reason.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me.
I went to see my 93-year old mother the other day and her copy of the Times was open showing a picture of one Tony Blair. I asked her what she was reading (she is at the stage of remembering her maths tutor at school but not what she had for breakfast that day) and she replied that Tony Blair succeeded because he convinced people that his Labour Party didn't hate them and wanted to provide politics for all. A simple premise but one that I don't think your Party has followed for some time.
Did you ever vote for Tony Blair? If not it rather undermines your point.
Starmer is trying to heed your advice and follow Blair's mid-90s playbook. Albeit with less charisma so he's not hitting the same heights in the opinion polls.
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Nick they're telling _you_ they're not going to vote but in your vast experience how many people actually do sit out an election for whatever reason.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me.
I went to see my 93-year old mother the other day and her copy of the Times was open showing a picture of one Tony Blair. I asked her what she was reading (she is at the stage of remembering her maths tutor at school but not what she had for breakfast that day) and she replied that Tony Blair succeeded because he convinced people that his Labour Party didn't hate them and wanted to provide politics for all. A simple premise but one that I don't think your Party has followed for some time.
It's at times like this that I really wish that we had modern standard polling data from the runup to 1997.
But comparing the actual vote counts from 1992 and 1997 is probably the best data we have;
Conservatives went from 14 million to 9.6 million, so down 4.4 million votes. Labour went from 11.6 million to 13.5 million, so up 1.9 million votes.
Some of that difference is probably in the 0.8 million people who voted for the Referendum party, but there must also have been a chunk of Con to "see if there's anything good on the telly" party switching.
In the case of BBB2, it was snooker, Top Gear and a Horizon about hot air balloons.
The value remains in NOM. I have no idea what the next GE result will be, but if you look at the size of the target, a Labour majority is a very specific and narrow one, requiring a sustained top performance from Labour and continuing rubbish from the Tories. The NOM target is gigantic, embracing a number of realistic possibilities.
Starmer is not even at the Vote Labour and Win a Microwave stage. You know who else ran essentially negative campaigns? David Cameron. He turned a big lead into a hung parliament, almost lost Scotland and did lose Brexit. Yet the centrists around Starmer think Cameron was a political genius, or at least, they act as if they do.
I think big opposition leads are often illusory to an extent. Most people are not politically engaged (despite @heathener seemingly encountering folk who's opening gambit is 'what about that Sunak, then'). They don't really think about politics in the way that many on PB do. When they are polled, they are pissed off with the current government and say that they will vote for someone else.
And then when the election rolls round, its on the news all the time, they suddenly start to notice a bit, and maybe the opposition isn't quite as attractive as they thought, and maybe "free owls for all" isn't believable, and some of them do what they said they wouldn't, and vote for the bloody government again.
Did Cameron blow a big lead? Did May? Or were those leads built on sand?
So if the choice, for SKS, is to govern in coalition with the SNP in return for an indy ref or to have a minority govt reliant on minor parties would he take the former ?
Lab Minority would be my guess.
The uncertainties mean that I am not betting on any 'Next Government' outcome. There are too many unknowns.
Over 2 million people have died in England and Wales since the 2019 election. I would expect that a high proportion of them voted Conservative and don't expect them to have been replaced by converts to the Tory cause. Every month that Sunak delays the GE he loses a few thousand more voters!
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
A cheese sandwich on the Isle of Wight years ago. The ingredients were bad enough - dry budget sliced white loaf and crap budget cheddar - but most off putting was that whoever had prepared it had left a huge greasy thumbprint in the middle of the bread.
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Nick they're telling _you_ they're not going to vote but in your vast experience how many people actually do sit out an election for whatever reason.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me.
I went to see my 93-year old mother the other day and her copy of the Times was open showing a picture of one Tony Blair. I asked her what she was reading (she is at the stage of remembering her maths tutor at school but not what she had for breakfast that day) and she replied that Tony Blair succeeded because he convinced people that his Labour Party didn't hate them and wanted to provide politics for all. A simple premise but one that I don't think your Party has followed for some time.
I'm not sure he positively likes you, but you're safe against vindictive policies.
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
It's whale meat and batter made of kerosene. Don't you know there's a war on?
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
Over 2 million people have died in England and Wales since the 2019 election. I would expect that a high proportion of them voted Conservative and don't expect them to have been replaced by converts to the Tory cause.
I don't like this whole age demographic certainty - young Lab, old Cons - it was/is the same with Brexit.
And even if you believe it all, as soon as one oldie Cons drops off the perch then a previous youngie Lab becomes an old Cons voter and a hitherto not old enough to vote teen becomes a Lab young voter and equilibrium is maintained.
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
It's whale meat and batter made of kerosene. Don't you know there's a war on?
I'm not sure deep frying kerosene is a good idea ?
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
And how many people in the school will know how to use one in the event that (most likely) a member of staff has a heart attack.
Its back to the link on posted on the last thread giving the example of £250m throw at bin collection, but nobody knows if it was a good idea, if it was well spent, how effective it was, could that money have been spent elsewhere.
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
Yes, last week, a smoked salmon sandwich (two of them, actually) from Pret via Deliveroo. Rather than cancel the order because they'd run out (this was towards the end of the day) Pret took about half an hour to accept the order while they scraped around the bins, and sent salmon hardened to a sharp edge, on stale bread, with no visible butter. FFS if you've run out of the good stuff just cancel the flipping order. I would have left a one-star review but that is too much hassle: too many boxes to fill in.
I’m sorry, but mine was not only repulsive and disgusting it caused me physical pain. I win
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
And how many people in the school will know how to use one in the event that (most likely) a member of staff has a heart attack.
tbf, modern defibrillators talk you through the process. It's pretty foolproof.
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Yep. Tory voters stay at home when they don't want their government to carry on but can't stomach voting for someone else. They stayed home by their millions in 1992.
So if 31% not voting became 25%, how many seats would the Tories automatically lose with their vote doing down by that kind of number?
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
Yes, last week, a smoked salmon sandwich (two of them, actually) from Pret via Deliveroo. Rather than cancel the order because they'd run out (this was towards the end of the day) Pret took about half an hour to accept the order while they scraped around the bins, and sent salmon hardened to a sharp edge, on stale bread, with no visible butter. FFS if you've run out of the good stuff just cancel the flipping order. I would have left a one-star review but that is too much hassle: too many boxes to fill in.
TBF Why on earth would you order two already-overpriced smoked salmon sandwiches at the end of the day from Pret via Deliveroo?!
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
A cheese sandwich on the Isle of Wight years ago. The ingredients were bad enough - dry budget sliced white loaf and crap budget cheddar - but most off putting was that whoever had prepared it had left a huge greasy thumbprint in the middle of the bread.
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
So if the choice, for SKS, is to govern in coalition with the SNP in return for an indy ref or to have a minority govt reliant on minor parties would he take the former ?
The latter. Starmer would prefer the SNP to bring down a Labour minority government as they did in 1979. So he can afford to face down the SNP because that outcome would be electorally beneficial for Labour in Scotland.
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
Starmer is not even at the Vote Labour and Win a Microwave stage. You know who else ran essentially negative campaigns? David Cameron. He turned a big lead into a hung parliament, almost lost Scotland and did lose Brexit. Yet the centrists around Starmer think Cameron was a political genius, or at least, they act as if they do.
I think big opposition leads are often illusory to an extent. Most people are not politically engaged (despite @heathener seemingly encountering folk who's opening gambit is 'what about that Sunak, then'). They don't really think about politics in the way that many on PB do. When they are polled, they are pissed off with the current government and say that they will vote for someone else.
And then when the election rolls round, its on the news all the time, they suddenly start to notice a bit, and maybe the opposition isn't quite as attractive as they thought, and maybe "free owls for all" isn't believable, and some of them do what they said they wouldn't, and vote for the bloody government again.
Did Cameron blow a big lead? Did May? Or were those leads built on sand?
Except that unbelievable "free owls for all" is more likely to be the Tory offer than the Labour offer this time around. Tax cuts, anyone?
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
And how many people in the school will know how to use one in the event that (most likely) a member of staff has a heart attack.
Its back to the link on posted on the last thread giving the example of £250m throw at bin collection, but nobody knows if it was a good idea, if it was well spent, how effective it was, could that money have been spent elsewhere.
Training not required, and everyone knows one is there. That's partyl why we have one at our gym - for local businesses to have access too.
I recall someone driving a Landrover recently visited a school unexpectedly "after a medical episode" !
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
And how many people in the school will know how to use one in the event that (most likely) a member of staff has a heart attack.
Its back to the link on posted on the last thread giving the example of £250m throw at bin collection, but nobody knows if it was a good idea, if it was well spent, how effective it was, could that money have been spent elsewhere.
More than kids have heart attacks - more likely the teachers, other staff. And modern de-fibs are easy to use (unlike older models, you can't shock someone who isn't in VF).
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Nick they're telling _you_ they're not going to vote but in your vast experience how many people actually do sit out an election for whatever reason.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me.
I went to see my 93-year old mother the other day and her copy of the Times was open showing a picture of one Tony Blair. I asked her what she was reading (she is at the stage of remembering her maths tutor at school but not what she had for breakfast that day) and she replied that Tony Blair succeeded because he convinced people that his Labour Party didn't hate them and wanted to provide politics for all. A simple premise but one that I don't think your Party has followed for some time.
Yes...after my confident assertion earlier I looked up the Opinium poll and actually Mike is right and I'm wrong - only 2% of 2019 Con voters say they won't vote, and 30% say they don't know.
On the "liking" point, I think that there are few people left in Labour who hate anyone very much, but there's a broad failure to understand why anyone would still vote Tory - we can see why one might be a fan of Thatcher or indeed Boris, but currently the Government just seem a fag-end administration with no particular appeal. Most Labour people have a personal priority - the NHS, childcare, the environment, etc. - and you'd be right to think they will want to prioritise their favourite cause rather than simply governing dispassionately for all. But Starmer does get it - he's not at all interested in being the champion of a few causes at the expense of the wider common interest. I'm not sure he positively likes you, but you're safe against vindictive policies.
Not voting for a party because you sense they hate you has probably been a phenomenon affecting Labour for a long time, given they have always said things that implied they dislike the rich, but I think it now has wider application across the parties. Every major party appears to hate - and to revel in hating - certain groups of voters.
I would find the idea of voting Tory these days completely alien because most days one of them is in the press saying how much people like me are a problem. The woke blob, metropolitan liberals, remoaners, Londoners more broadly. Why would I vote for a party who profess to hate my type?
The SNP - particularly their footsoldiers - are at Corbyn levels in their sneering at "yoons" or the English, but then they want or don't need them as voters. They just need fellow pro-indy travellers.
The Lib Dems try to be nicey-nicey with everyone, and it's easier now than it was in the aftermath of the referendum, but there are still large swathes of the population who think the Lib Dems hold them in contempt for voting Brexit.
Starmer is attempting to avoid looking like he hates any groups in society, except of course his own far Left. I suspect there will be residual suspicion among traditionalist voters that he thinks they are all racist transphobic bigots though.
Starmer is not even at the Vote Labour and Win a Microwave stage. You know who else ran essentially negative campaigns? David Cameron. He turned a big lead into a hung parliament, almost lost Scotland and did lose Brexit. Yet the centrists around Starmer think Cameron was a political genius, or at least, they act as if they do.
I think big opposition leads are often illusory to an extent. Most people are not politically engaged (despite @heathener seemingly encountering folk who's opening gambit is 'what about that Sunak, then'). They don't really think about politics in the way that many on PB do. When they are polled, they are pissed off with the current government and say that they will vote for someone else.
And then when the election rolls round, its on the news all the time, they suddenly start to notice a bit, and maybe the opposition isn't quite as attractive as they thought, and maybe "free owls for all" isn't believable, and some of them do what they said they wouldn't, and vote for the bloody government again.
Did Cameron blow a big lead? Did May? Or were those leads built on sand?
Except that unbelievable "free owls for all" is more likely to be the Tory offer than the Labour offer this time around. Tax cuts, anyone?
Perhaps. Wait until the polls narrow a fraction and Starmer panics.
Personally, I think it will be worst and most negative, snarky and downright aggressive election in a long time.
Tories will throw the kitchen sink at Labour out of a raging at the dying of the light and Lab are gearing up to throw the dirt back imho.
I don't think it will be as bad as 2019. Cummings isn't involved for a start. It won't be pretty, but Sunak and Starmer just don't do nastiness the same way Johnson and Corbyn did.
Don't Opinium reassign Don't Knows back to the party they voted for in 2019, though? I thought they did. If that is the case, just note that Labour had a 17 point lead over the Tories in the last Opinium poll.
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Nick they're telling _you_ they're not going to vote but in your vast experience how many people actually do sit out an election for whatever reason.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me.
I went to see my 93-year old mother the other day and her copy of the Times was open showing a picture of one Tony Blair. I asked her what she was reading (she is at the stage of remembering her maths tutor at school but not what she had for breakfast that day) and she replied that Tony Blair succeeded because he convinced people that his Labour Party didn't hate them and wanted to provide politics for all. A simple premise but one that I don't think your Party has followed for some time.
It's at times like this that I really wish that we had modern standard polling data from the runup to 1997.
But comparing the actual vote counts from 1992 and 1997 is probably the best data we have;
Conservatives went from 14 million to 9.6 million, so down 4.4 million votes. Labour went from 11.6 million to 13.5 million, so up 1.9 million votes.
Some of that difference is probably in the 0.8 million people who voted for the Referendum party, but there must also have been a chunk of Con to "see if there's anything good on the telly" party switching.
In the case of BBB2, it was snooker, Top Gear and a Horizon about hot air balloons.
Looking at your figures I guessed that a factor may have been Paddy Ashdown's LibDems in that they went from 20 seats up to 46, but no their percentage actually decreased by 5%. So under FPTP a huge factor will be tactical voting as it was then.
Personally, I think it will be worst and most negative, snarky and downright aggressive election in a long time.
Tories will throw the kitchen sink at Labour out of a raging at the dying of the light and Lab are gearing up to throw the dirt back imho.
I don't think it will be as bad as 2019. Cummings isn't involved for a start. It won't be pretty, but Sunak and Starmer just don't do nastiness the same way Johnson and Corbyn did.
Unfair on Corbyn himself (though not on some of his fans). Despite his manifest shortcomings, one thing he didn't do was descend to personal abuse. Rather like Tony Benn in that regard.
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
I have eaten british rail sandwiches and still carry the memory scars
Yes if Starmer gets a majority it may be gains from the SNP that do it. If 2019 Tory voters now DK return to the Tories it could still be a hung parliament in England
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
How many children have heart attacks in a year in school? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is not available? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is available?
I’m sorry, but I have to talk about this sandwich I just had. The WORST SANDWICH IN HISTORY
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
One with the ham slice from the end of a catering tin. Complete with the tough plastic disc lining at the end of the cylinder. I ate two bites before investigating.
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
How many children have heart attacks in a year in school? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is not available? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is available?
Teachers, other staff, passers by whose companions know that schools have defibrillators.
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Yep. Tory voters stay at home when they don't want their government to carry on but can't stomach voting for someone else. They stayed home by their millions in 1992.
So if 31% not voting became 25%, how many seats would the Tories automatically lose with their vote doing down by that kind of number?
In literal terms: they got 43.6% last time, so 31% of that not voting is 14% less. If that became 25% not voting, it would become 11% less. Useful but not a big deal. If three quarters decided to vote Tory after all that would indeed endanger a Labour majority - but IMO won't happen.
It's worth bearing in mind that 30%+ of the electorate don't vote in any given election. Everyone knows people who think it's a waste of time, they're all the same, etc. Nobody feels odd or extreme if they decide not to vote.
Starmer is not even at the Vote Labour and Win a Microwave stage. You know who else ran essentially negative campaigns? David Cameron. He turned a big lead into a hung parliament, almost lost Scotland and did lose Brexit. Yet the centrists around Starmer think Cameron was a political genius, or at least, they act as if they do.
I think big opposition leads are often illusory to an extent. Most people are not politically engaged (despite @heathener seemingly encountering folk who's opening gambit is 'what about that Sunak, then'). They don't really think about politics in the way that many on PB do. When they are polled, they are pissed off with the current government and say that they will vote for someone else.
And then when the election rolls round, its on the news all the time, they suddenly start to notice a bit, and maybe the opposition isn't quite as attractive as they thought, and maybe "free owls for all" isn't believable, and some of them do what they said they wouldn't, and vote for the bloody government again.
Did Cameron blow a big lead? Did May? Or were those leads built on sand?
Famously, May did blow a very big lead. Were you making a humorous point?
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Nick they're telling _you_ they're not going to vote but in your vast experience how many people actually do sit out an election for whatever reason.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me.
I went to see my 93-year old mother the other day and her copy of the Times was open showing a picture of one Tony Blair. I asked her what she was reading (she is at the stage of remembering her maths tutor at school but not what she had for breakfast that day) and she replied that Tony Blair succeeded because he convinced people that his Labour Party didn't hate them and wanted to provide politics for all. A simple premise but one that I don't think your Party has followed for some time.
Yes...after my confident assertion earlier I looked up the Opinium poll and actually Mike is right and I'm wrong - only 2% of 2019 Con voters say they won't vote, and 30% say they don't know.
On the "liking" point, I think that there are few people left in Labour who hate anyone very much, but there's a broad failure to understand why anyone would still vote Tory - we can see why one might be a fan of Thatcher or indeed Boris, but currently the Government just seem a fag-end administration with no particular appeal. Most Labour people have a personal priority - the NHS, childcare, the environment, etc. - and you'd be right to think they will want to prioritise their favourite cause rather than simply governing dispassionately for all. But Starmer does get it - he's not at all interested in being the champion of a few causes at the expense of the wider common interest. I'm not sure he positively likes you, but you're safe against vindictive policies.
Not voting for a party because you sense they hate you has probably been a phenomenon affecting Labour for a long time, given they have always said things that implied they dislike the rich, but I think it now has wider application across the parties. Every major party appears to hate - and to revel in hating - certain groups of voters.
I would find the idea of voting Tory these days completely alien because most days one of them is in the press saying how much people like me are a problem. The woke blob, metropolitan liberals, remoaners, Londoners more broadly. Why would I vote for a party who profess to hate my type?
The SNP - particularly their footsoldiers - are at Corbyn levels in their sneering at "yoons" or the English, but then they want or don't need them as voters. They just need fellow pro-indy travellers.
The Lib Dems try to be nicey-nicey with everyone, and it's easier now than it was in the aftermath of the referendum, but there are still large swathes of the population who think the Lib Dems hold them in contempt for voting Brexit.
Starmer is attempting to avoid looking like he hates any groups in society, except of course his own far Left. I suspect there will be residual suspicion among traditionalist voters that he thinks they are all racist transphobic bigots though.
Yep, the Tories have basically told half the country - the bit that lives in cities, is under 50, voted Remain, doesn't want the BBC closed down, supports Net Zero, doesn't think cartoons should be painted over at refugee centres for kids, etc - that they are woke anti-British elitists who do not merit anything other than total scorn.
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
That charity mentions cardiac screening which you'd imagine could be easily rolled out en masse to schools, thanks to automation. Cheap, portable ECGs are available (think Apple watches) and can be read with AI, passing anything complicated to a proper doctor.
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
How many children have heart attacks in a year in school? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is not available? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is available?
Teachers, other staff, passers by whose companions know that schools have defibrillators.
Thank you for providing nouns, but I was hoping for numbers...☹️
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Yep. Tory voters stay at home when they don't want their government to carry on but can't stomach voting for someone else. They stayed home by their millions in 1992.
Are you sure? 1997, perhaps?
Wasn't 1992 Conservatives the highest number of votes ever won by any party in any election ever in UK?
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
How many children have heart attacks in a year in school? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is not available? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is available?
Teachers, other staff, passers by whose companions know that schools have defibrillators.
Thank you for providing nouns, but I was hoping for numbers...☹️
Not direct numbers, at least not in the abstract, but some info: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26386373/ Can't speak for the review, but Resuscitation is a pukka journal - they've published me*, several times!
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
How many children have heart attacks in a year in school? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is not available? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is available?
Teachers, other staff, passers by whose companions know that schools have defibrillators.
Yep, one of the caretakers at my secondary school had a heart attack and died on the school premises. Not sure if this would have helped, but it might have done.
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
How many children have heart attacks in a year in school? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is not available? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is available?
Teachers, other staff, passers by whose companions know that schools have defibrillators.
Thank you for providing nouns, but I was hoping for numbers...☹️
Some numbers. For Denmark - about a tenth the English population, albeit with some pre-schoolers. 214 deaths a year, and therew'd be heart attacks which don't lead to deaths to add to that.
Edit: crude enough for a sniff test - about 2K [edit] deaths in English schools, about 25K schools - so better than one in ten chance of a particular kit being used.
@CorrectHorseBat well interestingly, I've seen the Lab candidate out and about knocking on doors recently working Lib Dem wards. He's definitely going for it.
But Shappsy is getting some big anti- green wins against woke Labour.
They might be disingenuous wins, but a win is a win.
Kicking a ball into an empty net is easy, unless you're Diana Ross.
Labour needs to find the backbone to defend its policies and to explain them. The Tories might have more trouble then.
Spot on. In 2019, the Tories made Boris Johnson their leader knowing what a disaster he would be because they saw short term advantage in it. Now they are back peddling on Net Zero for exactly the same reasons. Labour needs to grow a pair and call them out in it.
@CorrectHorseBat well interestingly, I've seen the Lab candidate out and about knocking on doors recently working Lib Dem wards. He's definitely going for it.
Personally, I think it will be worst and most negative, snarky and downright aggressive election in a long time.
Tories will throw the kitchen sink at Labour out of a raging at the dying of the light and Lab are gearing up to throw the dirt back imho.
I don't think it will be as bad as 2019. Cummings isn't involved for a start. It won't be pretty, but Sunak and Starmer just don't do nastiness the same way Johnson and Corbyn did.
Unfair on Corbyn himself (though not on some of his fans). Despite his manifest shortcomings, one thing he didn't do was descend to personal abuse. Rather like Tony Benn in that regard.
Yes, you are right. Johnson said other Tories wanted to "surrender" to foreign states, pushed the anti-Semitic slur against Corbyn with the help of the Tory gutter media including the BBC, while the said media was printing lines such as that Corbyn wears a beard and is therefore just like a jihadist bomber and here's a picture of him in a winter hat and doesn't he look Russian. Then later he linked Keir Starmer's name with Jimmy Savile's.
Corbyn should have stuck the boot in against corruption, lies, the private schools, the City, and the ruling class generally, but he's too nice. "Tories like fighting in the gutter because that's where they belong, takers of Russian money that they are." But of course he didn't say that. He tried "They go low, we go high".
The next election will be just as nasty, perhaps not so personalised nasty, given the way Sunak's and Starmer's respective brands have been positioned, but it's not even clear they'll still be the leaders.
Re. Sunak, there could be 18 months to go and there are bound to be some more by-elections.
To put it very crudely, the Carlton Club or men in grey suits or association of constituency chairmen after taking phone calls from Jacob, or however we are supposed to frame it, may well decide that they want to honkify the senior rank of the visible party to win votes and if they do it could be back to hedge fund work for Sunak.
But Shappsy is getting some big anti- green wins against woke Labour.
They might be disingenuous wins, but a win is a win.
Indeed. And they can say any old sh** to win an election and not let it affect what they do afterwards - international commitments on green, deals signed, mustn't welsh on them, and so on. They're politicians after all.
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
How many children have heart attacks in a year in school? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is not available? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is available?
Teachers, other staff, passers by whose companions know that schools have defibrillators.
This is the point (maybe not the reason for provision, but the value). AEDs are alreayd fairly widespread, but many people don't know where. Locally, I know of one in the pub in my parents in law's village and one in Selby library, but there are probably other, closer, ones I don't know about. Knowing there's one at the local school makes them accessible to a large proportion of the population.
There is the question about out of hours/out of term time. Some standardisation in location and access would make these most useful.
I've also wondered about rates of vandalism/theft for AEDs.
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
How many children have heart attacks in a year in school? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is not available? How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is available?
Teachers, other staff, passers by whose companions know that schools have defibrillators.
This is the point (maybe not the reason for provision, but the value). AEDs are alreayd fairly widespread, but many people don't know where. Locally, I know of one in the pub in my parents in law's village and one in Selby library, but there are probably other, closer, ones I don't know about. Knowing there's one at the local school makes them accessible to a large proportion of the population.
There is the question about out of hours/out of term time. Some standardisation in location and access would make these most useful.
I've also wondered about rates of vandalism/theft for AEDs.
I've not noticed the latter being conspicuously high. The current practice seems to be to have them with a combination lock - you phone up the emergency people and they give you the code to unlock it. I know, I know, but it presumably discourages the more casual vandalism/removal.
Starmer is not even at the Vote Labour and Win a Microwave stage. You know who else ran essentially negative campaigns? David Cameron. He turned a big lead into a hung parliament, almost lost Scotland and did lose Brexit. Yet the centrists around Starmer think Cameron was a political genius, or at least, they act as if they do.
I think big opposition leads are often illusory to an extent. Most people are not politically engaged (despite @heathener seemingly encountering folk who's opening gambit is 'what about that Sunak, then'). They don't really think about politics in the way that many on PB do. When they are polled, they are pissed off with the current government and say that they will vote for someone else.
And then when the election rolls round, its on the news all the time, they suddenly start to notice a bit, and maybe the opposition isn't quite as attractive as they thought, and maybe "free owls for all" isn't believable, and some of them do what they said they wouldn't, and vote for the bloody government again.
Did Cameron blow a big lead? Did May? Or were those leads built on sand?
Famously, May did blow a very big lead. Were you making a humorous point?
Though that was much more about Labour increasing their support over the campaign than it was May losing support.
Maybe. But anecdotally (I know, I know...) I know a lot of Tory voters who say that re-electing the current Government is clearly, definitively, a bad idea, but nobody else seems to offer much, so they are DEFINITELY not going to vote. It's not the usual sort of "dunno really, will decide on the day" attitude that tends to lead to swingback. Some will clearly drift back all the same, but some will also vote for an alternative if one of the Opposition parties does offer something positive.
Yep. Tory voters stay at home when they don't want their government to carry on but can't stomach voting for someone else. They stayed home by their millions in 1992.
Are you sure? 1997, perhaps?
Wasn't 1992 Conservatives the highest number of votes ever won by any party in any election ever in UK?
Yep, I was thinking 1997 and for whatever reason typed 1992.
Labour has come to I think a sensible and moderate compromise on trans rights.
That's good but I still doubt many people care enough about trans issues to change their vote in either direction. Some people care an awful lot but were their votes up for grabs?
Comments
But I still think he will be PM after the next GE
The Tories, as has been said more than once, need an outright majority and that is not likely. They are uncoalitionable.
The more the country see him during the election campaign these figures will improve as the country loves a lawyer.
They are facing the same dilemma as I am - long time Tory voter, disgusted by the Boris era, hence left the party, and now facing either Sunak's Cons or Lab.
And you know what? I would have difficulty in voting Lab because I really don't think they like me.
I went to see my 93-year old mother the other day and her copy of the Times was open showing a picture of one Tony Blair. I asked her what she was reading (she is at the stage of remembering her maths tutor at school but not what she had for breakfast that day) and she replied that Tony Blair succeeded because he convinced people that his Labour Party didn't hate them and wanted to provide politics for all. A simple premise but one that I don't think your Party has followed for some time.
If true, and assuming no Lab2Con switchers, the CON vote would drop from 13,966,454 to 5,449,918, a loss of 8.5 million votes. That's appalling.
If that's true and there's no swingback and it's replicated at GE2024 then LabMaj is nailed on.
I have bet on a Majority and also on most seats. I expect both to come good, but I would not be amazed if only the second did.
It is very, very far from a ringing endorsement for Labour, but very, very much still in their favour.
It was a “battered deep fried cheese and smoked sausage sandwich”. I thought they were joking about the deep fried and battered bit
Or it would be something tempura-ish? I dunno. I just wanted a sandwich so maybe I let my hopes get the better of me
It was like a piece of massively over battered cod in a rubbish fish and chip shop, but inside it there wasn’t fish there was almost raw chewy dough and inside THAT was nasty cheese and a couple of small pieces of smoked sausage. All so hot it burned the mouth. Served with a hideously sweet
tartare sauce???
It’s actually quite hard to make a sandwich that is simultaneously ugly, disgusting, tasteless, weird, absurdly unhealthy and causes you pain if you try to eat it
Has anyone had a worse sandwich than that? THIS, my friends, is the political question of the day
But they're unlikely to be within the narrow window that presented such a golden opportunity (That they were always going to inevitably squander) with May again.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-matt-healy-s-tone-deaf-attempt-to-support-lgbtq-rights-is-a-lesson-for-white-saviours-everywhere/ar-AA1ehrOg?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=c4ff0c9bb9a44af081c8cbdcb3b31974&ei=10
After a long day of travel, jetlag and little sleep, I feel like shit.
Welcome to the jet-set!
Laters...
While the Labour by-election win was the biggest majority ever overturned in such a contest, the Lib Dem result is bigger overall, shifting 19,000 blue majority to 11,000 votes to the good for the yellows.
The urge to get rid of Conservatives was very strong in both seats. It is worth remembering Labour start a long way back but regular 20 point poll leads would take a Theresa Mayesque electoral campaign to overcome.
Have also had ham sandwiches where the ham was a bit off. Those are rank.
- Yes, some of the ex-Con DKs will return but so will some of the ex-Lab DKs.
- A lot of the ex-Con DKs will have been first-time Con voters or motivated by Brexit and/or Corbyn. These will be a lot harder for the Tories to get back than the ex-Lab DKs. The comparison here is with 1992/97, when the Lab vote only went up by 2m but the Con one dropped by 5m.
- Anti-Con tactical voting will be much more of a thing than it was in 2019.
- 12% of the 2019 Con vote going direct to Lab is huge by the standards of the last decade.
- Can Con squeeze Reform? Maybe, to some extent, but (a) much of that vote will be so disillusioned that they'll vote RefUK anyway - see 2015 - and (b) Labour has its own Green / LD vote to squeeze.
- Scotland. Lab/SNP seats will be critical and, obviously, won't show up in the Con numbers.
You might not like Sunak or Hunt but they at least have a grip on the importance of stabilising the value of the pound and our national solvency more broadly.
That said, the DUP don't really need a deal. They have the direct rule from London they've always wanted.
Here's some ACTUAL TESTIMONY from Joseph Ziegler that
@jeddrosche somehow failed to mention: There are emails in the case file abt 6A problems and Trump's influence and THAT's why they didn't charge the case.
Wonder why Jedd left that out?
...I wonder why Jedd left out that Shapley didn't become a "whistleblower" until he had to turn over the emails he had failed to turn over in March 2022?
Again, Shapley's own testimony.
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1683812944394457089
On the "liking" point, I think that there are few people left in Labour who hate anyone very much, but there's a broad failure to understand why anyone would still vote Tory - we can see why one might be a fan of Thatcher or indeed Boris, but currently the Government just seem a fag-end administration with no particular appeal. Most Labour people have a personal priority - the NHS, childcare, the environment, etc. - and you'd be right to think they will want to prioritise their favourite cause rather than simply governing dispassionately for all. But Starmer does get it - he's not at all interested in being the champion of a few causes at the expense of the wider common interest. I'm not sure he positively likes you, but you're safe against vindictive policies.
Starmer is trying to heed your advice and follow Blair's mid-90s playbook. Albeit with less charisma so he's not hitting the same heights in the opinion polls.
But comparing the actual vote counts from 1992 and 1997 is probably the best data we have;
Conservatives went from 14 million to 9.6 million, so down 4.4 million votes.
Labour went from 11.6 million to 13.5 million, so up 1.9 million votes.
Some of that difference is probably in the 0.8 million people who voted for the Referendum party, but there must also have been a chunk of Con to "see if there's anything good on the telly" party switching.
In the case of BBB2, it was snooker, Top Gear and a Horizon about hot air balloons.
And then when the election rolls round, its on the news all the time, they suddenly start to notice a bit, and maybe the opposition isn't quite as attractive as they thought, and maybe "free owls for all" isn't believable, and some of them do what they said they wouldn't, and vote for the bloody government again.
Did Cameron blow a big lead? Did May? Or were those leads built on sand?
tweetsXs:-I'm pleased that we have now fulfilled our pledge to make sure every state school in England has a defibrillator
https://twitter.com/GillianKeegan/status/1683750449168412673
Good news but are schoolchildren really keeling over with heart attacks on a daily basis, or even an annual basis? From what the news would have you believe, bleeding control kits for stab victims would be a better investment. Or give them both.
And even if you believe it all, as soon as one oldie Cons drops off the perch then a previous youngie Lab becomes an old Cons voter and a hitherto not old enough to vote teen becomes a Lab young voter and equilibrium is maintained.
Its back to the link on posted on the last thread giving the example of £250m throw at bin collection, but nobody knows if it was a good idea, if it was well spent, how effective it was, could that money have been spent elsewhere.
But good try
Tory former minister and chair of Climate Change Committee condemns ‘absolutely unacceptable’ attacks on Labour stance
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/labour-urged-to-work-with-tories-to-counter-ignorant-climate-policy-attacks
@kateferguson4
·
47m
William Hague says both parties must fight the next election with a promise of hope…
I’ve spoken to quite a few MPs who think it will actually be fought on the opposite - fear
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1683808289333682176
===
Personally, I think it will be worst and most negative, snarky and downright aggressive election in a long time.
Tories will throw the kitchen sink at Labour out of a raging at the dying of the light and Lab are gearing up to throw the dirt back imho.
So if 31% not voting became 25%, how many seats would the Tories automatically lose with their vote doing down by that kind of number?
It’s almost bound to be stale and bad
The latter. Starmer would prefer the SNP to bring down a Labour minority government as they did in 1979. So he can afford to face down the SNP because that outcome would be electorally beneficial for Labour in Scotland.
Lay it on. Squeeze some fresh lemon. Crack some kampot pepper
Honestly, it changes a very average £4 sandwich into something glorious. But you do have to spend another £3-4
But I’d rather pay £7 for a fantastic sandwich than £4 for something deeply mediocre. Life is short
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-66287208
...At least 34 people have been killed in Algeria and thousands evacuated after wildfires broke out across the country.
Of those killed, ten were soldiers who were battling the fires in Bejaia, the Algerian defence ministry said.
Outbreaks of 97 wildfires were recorded across 16 provinces affecting forest, crops and farmland on Monday.
Northern Algeria has been experiencing a record heatwave in recent days, with temperatures reaching 48C.
And temperatures in several regions in North Africa are up to 7C higher than normal for the time of year...
I recall someone driving a Landrover recently visited a school unexpectedly "after a medical episode" !
BHF:
https://www.bhf.org.uk/how-you-can-help/how-to-save-a-life/defibrillators
I would find the idea of voting Tory these days completely alien because most days one of them is in the press saying how much people like me are a problem. The woke blob, metropolitan liberals, remoaners, Londoners more broadly. Why would I vote for a party who profess to hate my type?
The SNP - particularly their footsoldiers - are at Corbyn levels in their sneering at "yoons" or the English, but then they want or don't need them as voters. They just need fellow pro-indy travellers.
The Lib Dems try to be nicey-nicey with everyone, and it's easier now than it was in the aftermath of the referendum, but there are still large swathes of the population who think the Lib Dems hold them in contempt for voting Brexit.
Starmer is attempting to avoid looking like he hates any groups in society, except of course his own far Left. I suspect there will be residual suspicion among traditionalist voters that he thinks they are all racist transphobic bigots though.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jul/25/bbc-apologises-lgbtq-rights-question-morocco-captain-womens-world-cup
So under FPTP a huge factor will be tactical voting as it was then.
If 2019 Tory voters now DK return to the Tories it could still be a hung parliament in England
How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is not available?
How many of them die/do not recover if a defibrillator is available?
It's worth bearing in mind that 30%+ of the electorate don't vote in any given election. Everyone knows people who think it's a waste of time, they're all the same, etc. Nobody feels odd or extreme if they decide not to vote.
They might be disingenuous wins, but a win is a win.
Labour needs to find the backbone to defend its policies and to explain them. The Tories might have more trouble then.
Wasn't 1992 Conservatives the highest number of votes ever won by any party in any election ever in UK?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26386373/
Can't speak for the review, but Resuscitation is a pukka journal - they've published me*, several times!
(not open access, unless I find an archive copy)
*on second thoughts, maybe they're not...
ETA: Authors' accepted copy: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282044437_Out-of-hospital_Cardiac_Arrest_in_Schools_A_Systematic_Review
(Researchgate make it look like you need to register/log in to download, but just close the login dialogue and the file downloads)
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/35/13/868/633740
Edit: crude enough for a sniff test - about 2K [edit] deaths in English schools, about 25K schools - so better than one in ten chance of a particular kit being used.
Corbyn should have stuck the boot in against corruption, lies, the private schools, the City, and the ruling class generally, but he's too nice. "Tories like fighting in the gutter because that's where they belong, takers of Russian money that they are." But of course he didn't say that. He tried "They go low, we go high".
The next election will be just as nasty, perhaps not so personalised nasty, given the way Sunak's and Starmer's respective brands have been positioned, but it's not even clear they'll still be the leaders.
Re. Sunak, there could be 18 months to go and there are bound to be some more by-elections.
To put it very crudely, the Carlton Club or men in grey suits or association of constituency chairmen after taking phone calls from Jacob, or however we are supposed to frame it, may well decide that they want to honkify the senior rank of the visible party to win votes and if they do it could be back to hedge fund work for Sunak. Indeed. And they can say any old sh** to win an election and not let it affect what they do afterwards - international commitments on green, deals signed, mustn't welsh on them, and so on. They're politicians after all.
There is the question about out of hours/out of term time. Some standardisation in location and access would make these most useful.
I've also wondered about rates of vandalism/theft for AEDs.