LAB odds on to gain Rutherglen and the LDs Mid-Beds – politicalbetting.com
LAB odds on to gain Rutherglen and the LDs Mid-Beds – politicalbetting.com
It is early days so far in the Rutherglen by-election but punters have already made their minds up – Labour is the very tight odds on favorite to take the seat from the SNP.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1689306849835724801?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0TbAn6JfD0
In Mid Bedfordshire the gap between lab and ld is a bit larger still, so sure lab won't want to give a clear run and should not, but that may not matter.
Probe into London Conservatives reignites City Hall selection row
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/conservative-party-london-mayoral-selection-susan-hall-uxbridge-b1099551.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66447938
https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1689388040307789824
Russian officer "Colonel Shuvalov" described on Telegram how it is encouraged to fabricate reports about destroyed Ukrainian equipment by filming strikes on different days using various weapons and equipment. This is done to please the upper leadership since everyone benefits from positive reports and inflated numbers. It's a long post but worth reading (source: https://t.me/shouvalov/33)
Far from the first report of this practice.
The right doesn't have much to say for young people here, but does appeal in other parts of the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown
There is a real shortage of starter homes. But they always build supposedly large "executive" homes (the ones where the rooms are tiny anyway because fuck you). Their profit margin is the only priority, not what the community needs.
In 2019 he came second, ahead of Labour. If these charges go anywhere - and it should be remembered on a previous occasion criminal charges against him were dropped when it turned out they had been invented by his political opponents - where those votes go might be of crucial importance.
Ukraine has much the same motivations, but a different set of incentives.
In the book, Soviet military leadership prepares for war by (re)asserting discipline in the army. This includes shooting some fairly senior officers for falsifying reports.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
The only people for whom falling house prices are bad news are those who, by accident or design, have ended up with houses as an investment vehicle rather than somewhere to live.
Mr. Royale, the first Moghal emperor was a competent man called Babur. His son Humayun was weak and ineffective. His grandson Akbar the Great was the best of them.
Not too dissimilar to Edwards I-III. Patterns appear all over the place, but they only matter if there's an underlying meaning.
Next time around might be different, it depends how much the Conservatives try to eat their own face and whether Labour copes with an inheritance that isn't golden (as 1997 was).
They will at the very least be left alone, and maybe even get a pat on the back, whereas telling uncomfortable truths, sadly, normally leads to the messenger being shot.
Many organisations work like this: the politics and culture comes from the top and only there can it be addressed.
In a war where you're really winning the facts speak for themselves.
That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.
That's not to say that policy should avoid falling house prices to protect this specific small group of people, but I do think there will be some losers from falling house prices that it is possible to have some sympathy for.
Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.
I think that pattern-matching by humans is a very useful trait, though we have a tendency to overfit our mental models, which is why we've ended up with so many superstitions.
But the recent political governing durations is not likely to be one where there is an underlying mechanism. Each election is so very different from the ones before.
I'm simply arguing for different perspectives and thus an open mind.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
Which could point to Jacinda not being woke enough for the young.
I do like "Lee Anderthal".
Also, spotted this morning. A bit close for comfort.
You may be discounting other factors and events that you are currently blind to (along with everyone else) and be a poor forecaster of how you yourself may feel about that in future.
The one rule that does hold true and immutable* of course is that the Tories and Labour will be forever swapping power between them.
(*until it doesn't)
More rising cost of living, declining public hospitals, rising social inequality and crime according to my NZ relatives. It is always the incumbent that gets blamed for these things, and NZ Labour has been in power for 2 terms.
Right now the country is pissed off with the Tories.
That's not going to magically vanish the day they leave Downing Street.
Over time the electorate stops being angry with the old government/stops associating the opposition with the old government, and becomes angry with the new one, but that takes time normally.
If Labour somehow in five years piss the electorate off more than they're pissed off with the Tories then the Tories could win again, but that is less probable than the alternative currently.
If a government has been in power a long time then any resentment against it builds up more and takes longer to dissipate. And the Government can more credibly blame their predecessor for problems and say things like "they had 13/18 years to fix it" etc . . . which then gets turned against them a decade down the line when they're the ones who've now had a long time in power.
If so, the total supporting the right doesn't really vary much across the ages: 18-34 = 52.6%; 35-54 = 49.2%; 55+ = 52.3%
Still unusual though.
So if it wasn't for the SDP then Thatcher's landslide could have been even bigger had there been a forced choice.
Other than that, good point.
And yes, a Starmer government is likely to disappoint. It will be touch and go how far his government can point to "see, it was worth it" improvements by 2028/9.
But the other question is whether the Conservatives can be clear-headed enough to dump the nutters after a 2024/5 defeat. (Where's the nutter threshold, anyway? If you get rid of all the nutters, what's left?) The record of recent history says no- since members elected party leaders in the big two, the response to defeat has been to double down on comfort zoning (Foot, Hague and IDS, EdM and Corbyn). And whilst there are voices trying to describe youth-friendly right (mainly Build More Bloody Houses), they're not at the centre of the conversation.
So the short term prognosis is that Conservatives will win again when they really want to win again. Other recent data points: Blair, Cameron, Starmer. That process might be quick, but it will be a surprise if it is.
And this isn't helped as Tory members are more likely to choose someone from the illiberal right of the party if they lose badly with Sunak/Hunt in charge. The political direction they take means they are less likely to be given the benefit of the doubt by the public.
Of course governments lose popularity so it's quite possible Labour screw things up sufficiently to lose power after 5 years.
There's a balance to be had of course - reforms that benefit the country long-term will lose you voters in the short-term. I'd rather Labour make serious improvements in 5 years than offer managed decline with odd bits of populist policy over 10.
The interview is interesting in that he is focusing on Sir Kid Starver's policies being basically the same as the Tories. The iron fiscal discipline imposed by Labour may not be doing them much harm in England but in Scotland there is a fantasist choice.
Reuters:
For the first time in decades, foreign and defence policy are in the electoral spotlight in New Zealand, as opinion surveys show public concern about the security environment and the major parties wrestle with how to respond to an assertive China.
The first part of the country’s defence review, released last week, said that New Zealand's military capabilities had fallen behind and that its geographical isolation was no longer a security guarantee.
With a general election on Oct. 14, there is no clear path on how the country should respond - a quandary that experts say has voters closely considering external issues, uncommon in New Zealand politics since the 1980s.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealand-defence-security-become-election-issues-amid-chinas-pacific-push-2023-08-10/
Kiwis are of course Chinese gooseberries
Agree entirely about maligning. Seriously competent folk who could live in periglacial conditions.
PS TBF it's not at all clear from that piece that Mr Yousaf was actually in Ru'glen when he was interviewed, so your inference might be (uncharacteristically) off?
It is the same today. A lot of posters here polarise and reduce everything to either Sunak-Johnson-Truss or Starmer. Devil or the deep blue sea? A lot of people say "Neither, thank you very much".
But Sunak isn't doing that. His agenda is pure managed decline, which won't win the next election but he's wasting any opportunity the Tories have remaining to actually get anything done.
But the claim I was responding to was blaming the SDP for Labour's defeat/Thatcher winning. That's just not true though, since the polls show that forced choice those voters would have broken for the Tories.
Its arrogance in the extreme for Labour supporters to just add SDP/Lib Dem voters to their column and claim them as a unified "progressive" or "anti-Tory" force. Lib Dem/SDP voters are their own voters making their own choice, and there's no entitlement by Labour or anyone else to them.
Especially for @Leon : boost for flint-knapping, inter alia.
So what else can he do? Shout at Labour as being regressive. Hope that makes people look past the corruption.
Anti-corruption figure killed days before election amid sharp rise in violent and organised crime
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/10/ecuador-presidential-candidate-fernando-villavicencio-killed
In a general election, Labour have a decent chance in Mid Beds on national swing and the Lib Dems probably wouldn't bother much with the seat.
In a by election, LibDems can throw one of their limited number of sinks at the place and they win.
The only other stuff I could find was that they are having a severe cost-of-loving crisis, like us. So just punishing the incumbent perhaps, which explains the swing to the Greens too.
Lesson for UK Labour might be to be hawkish on Ukraine and focus on cost-of-living domestically.
Don't you remember?
You're right about the "I am going to die, and that mans you can't kill me" trope- Mr Zellaby in the Midwich Cuckoos and all that. Major did it to a degree, so did Brown.
I'm not seeing it from Sunak- climbdowns on housing, fantasy politics on Abroad, budget plans for 2025+ that simply don't add up. Is the aim to squeeze a win and worry about the consequences then, or just to smear metaphorical shit on the walls of Number Ten?
I think a) and b) were more significant than the Falklands or the SDP (and, of course, they gave rise to the SDP in the first place).