Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Why I have doubts about Labour winning a majority – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,916
edited September 2023 in General
Why I have doubts about Labour winning a majority – politicalbetting.com

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,434
    1st time 1st
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    Second

    Marr’s latest video for the NS makes some interesting points
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 667
    So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...

    George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited September 2023
    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    p.s. Starmer isn't as popular as Blair (yet) but the last four years have been a far greater cock-up than 1992-7. The economy is in far worse state than 1997 and unlike John Major before him, Rishi Sunak has never won anything.

    I could go on in this vein. We need some threads putting the extensive reasons why Labour are likely to win an outright majority!
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,300
    Penddu2 said:

    So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...

    George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...

    I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the Try is like the Home Run: something valued by spectators more than the score book.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    Uxbridge is the warning, there is no way Labour should have lost that.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 667
    rcs1000 said:

    Penddu2 said:

    So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...

    George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...

    I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the Try is like the Home Run: something valued by spectators more than the score book.
    Tries are what the punters are paying to see. And the score 'book' says they are worth 5 or 7 points.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,003
    edited September 2023
    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    So you’re all fart and no follow through.

    Plus if we accept your premise that 2017 is the baseline we should use well Labour ended on 262 seats which means they would need 64 net gains for a majority.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited September 2023

    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    So you’re all fart and no follow through.

    Plus if we accept your premise that 2017 is the baseline we should use well Labour ended on 262 seats which means they would need 66 net gains for a majority.
    No I'm busy with other things.

    I'm not dissing your arguments. It's just that they represent about 20% of the overall and this site badly needs the other 80% to be put. Otherwise it's unbalanced and, for a betting site, that's not good.

    You're right about the 66 gains though. I was thinking of % swing.

    By the way ... Scotland.

    Scotland
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,143
    edited September 2023
    Penddu2 said:

    So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...

    George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...

    Thanks for your tips, Penndu. I ducked the England/Argentina one so finished comfortably up on the day.

    Argentina were indeed woeful but I think we have to see what England do with 15 men before jumping to conclusions about them.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    @TSE I'm in the middle of editing a 140,000 word manuscript or I might offer.

    If I get this finished then in a fortnight or so I might offer an article. Honoured to be asked to be honest.

    xx
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    Uxbridge is the warning, there is no way Labour should have lost that.
    I agree but we're also in great danger of extrapolating the local ulez issue onto a national one.

    The greater warning is arguably not psephological. It's more a warning to Labour in government about what happens when centrist metropolitan lefties forget their core vote. You'd have thought with Brexit they might have learned. Beware of Labour Londoners!
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 667

    Penddu2 said:

    So my prediction of Argentina comfortably beating England did not turn out - England were poor as expected but Argentina were surprisingly worse...

    George Ford spared Englands blushes but note - another red card and another tryless performance. The top seeds wont be losing any sleep after watching that...

    Thanks for your tips, Penndu. I ducked the England/Argentina one so finished comfortably up on the day.

    Argentina were indeed woeful but I think we have to see what England do with 15 men before jumping to conclusions about them.
    They always start with 15 men.....just dont seem able to keep them...
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited September 2023
    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    Uxbridge is the warning, there is no way Labour should have lost that.
    I agree but we're also in great danger of extrapolating the local ulez issue onto a national one.

    The greater warning is arguably not psephological. It's more a warning to Labour in government about what happens when centrist metropolitan lefties forget their core vote. You'd have thought with Brexit they might have learned. Beware of Labour Londoners!
    No, that doesn’t wash.

    According to your thesis the government is so discredited with everyone you meet that its overwhelming defeat is nailed on.

    There is no way that a peripheral issue like ULEZ - that affects relatively few people and was forced on outer London by the Tories in the first place - should have derailed a significant Labour win there, and allow the representative of said government to claim the seat, when along with the rest of us its voters have a list of grievances a mile long.

    That it did, should make any sensible person stop and think.
  • Options
    I've just seen a rather extraordinary advert

    Dove 72+hr protection deodorant

    SEVENTY TWO HOURS?!?!

    And a PLUS for those who want more than three days without washing

    This leaves me with so many very unpleasant questions that I never wanted to ask

    The only thing it might answer is who washes their towel just once a year
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194

    I've just seen a rather extraordinary advert

    Dove 72+hr protection deodorant

    SEVENTY TWO HOURS?!?!

    And a PLUS for those who want more than three days without washing

    This leaves me with so many very unpleasant questions that I never wanted to ask

    The only thing it might answer is who washes their towel just once a year

    Probably 72 hours provided you stay in bed the whole time, and lie really still
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    Uxbridge is the warning, there is no way Labour should have lost that.
    I agree but we're also in great danger of extrapolating the local ulez issue onto a national one.

    The greater warning is arguably not psephological. It's more a warning to Labour in government about what happens when centrist metropolitan lefties forget their core vote. You'd have thought with Brexit they might have learned. Beware of Labour Londoners!
    No, that doesn’t wash.

    According to your thesis the government is so discredited with everyone you meet that its overwhelming defeat is nailed on.

    There is no way that a peripheral issue like ULEZ - that affects relatively few people and was forced on outer London by the Tories in the first place - should have derailed a significant Labour win there, and allow the representative of said government to claim the seat, when along with the rest of us its voters have a list of grievances a mile long.

    That it did, should make any sensible person stop and think.
    You don't live in London though, do you?

    My brother does and he is very angry about ulez. If you lived there you would know this. My brother says he will never again vote for Sadiq Khan. I mention this because the mainstay of your premise is wrong. It might affect relatively few people but in reality it has affected virtually all people living in outer London.

    Labour had a swing of there of iirc 6.5%

    On the same night at Selby they had a swing of 23%

    Local factor
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    I disagree with @Heathener that we can ignore the 2019 result because it gives a lot of Tories the advantage of incumbency. Public money has been pouring into their offices and staff now for 4 years and it will have some effect, even with the boundary changes.

    It also puts the Labour challenge into perspective. Blair started off close in terms of seats and won big. Cameron, like Starmer, started over 100 seat short and didn’t quite make it. Winning 123 extra seats is hard, really hard. The red wall will produce some easy wins as will Scotland but there is still a long way to go.
    It may well happen. The government looks hapless and SKS doesn’t scare people like Corbyn. It is time for a change. But personally I think it’s going to be close.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    Uxbridge is the warning, there is no way Labour should have lost that.
    I agree but we're also in great danger of extrapolating the local ulez issue onto a national one.

    The greater warning is arguably not psephological. It's more a warning to Labour in government about what happens when centrist metropolitan lefties forget their core vote. You'd have thought with Brexit they might have learned. Beware of Labour Londoners!
    No, that doesn’t wash.

    Lol

    I love it when the brain plays tricks on us like this. ;)
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    DavidL said:

    I disagree with @Heathener that we can ignore the 2019 result because it gives a lot of Tories the advantage of incumbency. Public money has been pouring into their offices and staff now for 4 years and it will have some effect, even with the boundary changes.

    It also puts the Labour challenge into perspective. Blair started off close in terms of seats and won big. Cameron, like Starmer, started over 100 seat short and didn’t quite make it. Winning 123 extra seats is hard, really hard. The red wall will produce some easy wins as will Scotland but there is still a long way to go.
    It may well happen. The government looks hapless and SKS doesn’t scare people like Corbyn. It is time for a change. But personally I think it’s going to be close.

    Hi David.

    I'm not really saying that we should 'ignore' it. That would be exaggerated.

    I'm merely suggesting, for I believe sound reasons, that it's a shaky foundation and that the June 2017 is a safer benchmark of the last true General Election. December 2019 was an aberration. An unusual set of circumstances leading to a unique sole-issue Get Brexit Done vote, galvanised by Boris who reached parts no other has or can.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005
    edited September 2023
    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    Thing is, the actual evidence (when you burrow into it) has 2017 as the outlier and 2019 as the reversion to the mean.

    If you take May’s polling in April 2017 as being accurate, 2019 is about what you would expect not the next election but the one after that to look like.

    2017 can then be explained by the ineptitude of May’s campaign. And 2019 as the backwash.

    If you want to force the analysis on to more favourable terms for your thesis you could point out 2019 was essentially a 1992 style result, with 1992 being affected by early tactical voting.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited September 2023
    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    Uxbridge is the warning, there is no way Labour should have lost that.
    I agree but we're also in great danger of extrapolating the local ulez issue onto a national one.

    The greater warning is arguably not psephological. It's more a warning to Labour in government about what happens when centrist metropolitan lefties forget their core vote. You'd have thought with Brexit they might have learned. Beware of Labour Londoners!
    No, that doesn’t wash.

    According to your thesis the government is so discredited with everyone you meet that its overwhelming defeat is nailed on.

    There is no way that a peripheral issue like ULEZ - that affects relatively few people and was forced on outer London by the Tories in the first place - should have derailed a significant Labour win there, and allow the representative of said government to claim the seat, when along with the rest of us its voters have a list of grievances a mile long.

    That it did, should make any sensible person stop and think.
    You don't live in London though, do you?

    My brother does and he is very angry about ulez. If you lived there you would know this. My brother says he will never again vote for Sadiq Khan. I mention this because the mainstay of your premise is wrong. It might affect relatively few people but in reality it has affected virtually all people living in outer London.

    Labour had a swing of there of iirc 6.5%

    On the same night at Selby they had a swing of 23%

    Local factor
    HY: ”Good evening, Mr/Ms voter, I’m calling round on behalf of the Conservative Party….”

    Voter: ”The Conservatives?! You’ve got to be having a laugh, mate. Brexit’s turned into a fiasco, the economy is going down the toilet, my bills are sky high, my mortgage/rent is almost unaffordable, that Sunak keeps going on about the boats but he can’t stop them coming, that Home Secretary’s a joke; what about the NHS, have you tried to get a doctor’s appointment recently? Those Tory MPs, they’re all at each other’s throats and only in it for themselves, that Johnson was a lying crook, the next PM was an imbecile, now we have the wally in charge - I can’t wait to see them gone and won’t be voting Tory in a million years!”

    HY: ”But what about ULEZ?”

    Voter: ”Oh yeah, ULEZ. Put me down as a definite, then…”
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    And then there's Scotland.

    It's very typical of sassenachs to ignore or overlook what is going on up there.

    Take 30 seats off your 120 @TSE to start with?
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 667
    FWIW my RWC predictions for todays games...
    Japan v Chile - a very easy win for Japan - 20+ pts

    South Africa v Scotland - this one will be very interesting - Scotland are on very good form and this is a must win game for them. But I dont think they will do it. South Africa to win but by 6 pts only with Scotland getting losing bonus point.

    Wales v Fiji - this is very unpredictable - Wales were terrible in 6N but Gatland has now steadied the ship. We never saw a full Wales side in the warm up games and this is first time we will have an almost full side. Fiji are on top form especially after beating England and this game could go either way. But 'in Gatland we trust'. Wales by 5 (or Fiji by 5....or....??).
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    Anyway, editing beckons so gtg.

    I'm putting part of a lengthy line of reasoning so keep it civil. This is a betting site and I'm pretty convinced of my arguments. But not conclusively so.



  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    I disagree with @Heathener that we can ignore the 2019 result because it gives a lot of Tories the advantage of incumbency. Public money has been pouring into their offices and staff now for 4 years and it will have some effect, even with the boundary changes.

    It also puts the Labour challenge into perspective. Blair started off close in terms of seats and won big. Cameron, like Starmer, started over 100 seat short and didn’t quite make it. Winning 123 extra seats is hard, really hard. The red wall will produce some easy wins as will Scotland but there is still a long way to go.
    It may well happen. The government looks hapless and SKS doesn’t scare people like Corbyn. It is time for a change. But personally I think it’s going to be close.

    Hi David.

    I'm not really saying that we should 'ignore' it. That would be exaggerated.

    I'm merely suggesting, for I believe sound reasons, that it's a shaky foundation and that the June 2017 is a safer benchmark of the last true General Election. December 2019 was an aberration. An unusual set of circumstances leading to a unique sole-issue Get Brexit Done vote, galvanised by Boris who reached parts no other has or can.

    I certainly agree that Boris was as an exceptional campaigner as he was a poor PM and that the Tories have no one else like him. I agree that thinking that England is as Tory as he made it look would be to exaggerate their strength. That coalition is gone. But I am not seeing much evidence of Labour building the broad coalition that Blair did either. The Tories will lose more than Labour wins. But will be it be enough?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005
    edited September 2023
    Heathener said:

    And then there's Scotland.

    It's very typical of sassenachs to ignore or overlook what is going on up there.

    Take 30 seats off your 120 @TSE to start with?

    @DavidL is a Sassenach?

    Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    And then there's Scotland.

    It's very typical of sassenachs to ignore or overlook what is going on up there.

    Take 30 seats off your 120 @TSE to start with?

    @DavidL is a Sassenach?
    Well I am in Oxford right now 😄
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    The doubts about Labour getting a majority are plain - I think it's about 50/50 as to whether they will achieve it even though they are on track to.

    There are three or four related questions which arise.

    1) Does the country need a clear and strong Labour majority to do the stuff the country needs (Andrew Marr video yesterday) or is a Labour party relying on others better

    2) What happens to America and how do we and the EU respond

    3) What happens if the result is something like Tories and DUP 320 seats, SF and Speaker 8 seats, seven other parties 322 seats

    4) What are the betting implications


    Andrew Marr latest, with slightly apocalyptic tone:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rSstwTur6Y
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited September 2023
    Heathener said:

    Anyway, editing beckons so gtg.

    I'm putting part of a lengthy line of reasoning so keep it civil. This is a betting site and I'm pretty convinced of my arguments. But not conclusively so.



    Younger readers forget how unpopular - even hated - Thatcher’s Tories were during each of their terms in government, yet because the opposition failed to put forward a credible, attractive prospectus, she and they kept getting re-elected, even after she’d gone.

  • Options
    I think this is good analysis as far as it goes and makes a reasonable case against a Labour majority. It is certainly a steep climb that Labour faces after the 2019 defeat, and it is easy to imagine they won't make it.
    I am not wholly convinced, though. My doubts arise because it seems to me that TSE is using data on Labour's strengths relative to 1997 to argue against a 1997-style *seat gain*, when I would think the appropriate argument would be to argue against a 1997-style *majority*. The latter argument I would certainly buy, I think there is little chance Labour wins a three figure majority.
    The key thing here is that Labour did so badly in 2019, as is evident in the top chart. Also, as one sees in the chart, Labour did badly in 2015, largely owing to Scotland. That is why they face this mountain to climb. But surely some of those seat losses will unwind even if Labour were not 10-20 points ahead of the Tories in the polls. Corbyn is gone. We are not "getting Brexit done". And the SNP bubble has burst. So that's maybe 70 seats coming back even if Labour and the Tories were going into the election pretty much level pegging.
    That leaves Labour needing maybe 50 or 60 odd additional seats. Based on polling and net leader satisfaction data that seems achievable. For me, a small but workable Labour majority seems the most likely outcome, although it's not nailed on.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,159
    Uxbridge… Everyone keeps talking about Uxbridge. If Labour replicate the Uxbridge swing nationally, they’ll be very close to an overall majority. Uxbridge was not a disastrous result for Labour: it was a good result that was just short of a win.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194

    Uxbridge… Everyone keeps talking about Uxbridge. If Labour replicate the Uxbridge swing nationally, they’ll be very close to an overall majority. Uxbridge was not a disastrous result for Labour: it was a good result that was just short of a win.

    Yes, but it was also a midterm by-election where the LibDems weren’t even trying. In London. Labour should have won by miles.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited September 2023
    It’s a hot morning for the Budapest half marathon, currently going past my hotel window.


  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005
    edited September 2023

    Uxbridge… Everyone keeps talking about Uxbridge. If Labour replicate the Uxbridge swing nationally, they’ll be very close to an overall majority. Uxbridge was not a disastrous result for Labour: it was a good result that was just short of a win.

    When the SDP replicated the Hillhead swing at the famous 1984 general election, they won a storming victory and redrew the map of British politics for good.
  • Options
    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    Uxbridge is the warning, there is no way Labour should have lost that.
    I agree but we're also in great danger of extrapolating the local ulez issue onto a national one.

    The greater warning is arguably not psephological. It's more a warning to Labour in government about what happens when centrist metropolitan lefties forget their core vote. You'd have thought with Brexit they might have learned. Beware of Labour Londoners!
    No, that doesn’t wash.

    According to your thesis the government is so discredited with everyone you meet that its overwhelming defeat is nailed on.

    There is no way that a peripheral issue like ULEZ - that affects relatively few people and was forced on outer London by the Tories in the first place - should have derailed a significant Labour win there, and allow the representative of said government to claim the seat, when along with the rest of us its voters have a list of grievances a mile long.

    That it did, should make any sensible person stop and think.
    https://fullfact.org/online/ulez-expansion-letter/
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    Uxbridge… Everyone keeps talking about Uxbridge. If Labour replicate the Uxbridge swing nationally, they’ll be very close to an overall majority. Uxbridge was not a disastrous result for Labour: it was a good result that was just short of a win.

    Yes, but it was also a midterm by-election where the LibDems weren’t even trying. In London. Labour should have won by miles.
    It's certainly shows how the Tories could prevent a Labour majority, by weaponising local issues. I think they'll struggle to do that at a GE even with micro targeted local campaign messages, but I'm sure they'll try.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,159
    IanB2 said:

    Uxbridge… Everyone keeps talking about Uxbridge. If Labour replicate the Uxbridge swing nationally, they’ll be very close to an overall majority. Uxbridge was not a disastrous result for Labour: it was a good result that was just short of a win.

    Yes, but it was also a midterm by-election where the LibDems weren’t even trying. In London. Labour should have won by miles.
    A Selby style swing would have been more impressive, yes.

    But then they did achieve a Selby style swing in Selby!
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    All general elections are weird but the election of 2017 - called on the basis of a big Tory win being an absolute banker - was the weirdest of my lifetime.

    IMHO all baselines are off (except the factual one of what happened last time) because we have not had a GE post Brexiting, post Jezza, post Ukraine, post Covid, post SNP self immolation, and post the Boris/Truss/Tory meltdown.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    And then there's Scotland.

    It's very typical of sassenachs to ignore or overlook what is going on up there.

    Take 30 seats off your 120 @TSE to start with?

    @DavidL is a Sassenach?

    Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
    That is possible although it is the top end. Labour’s strength is focused on the central belt whilst the SNP support is pretty even across the country. Labour may well exceed what their polling indicates and the SNP may well under perform if they drop below 35%, which is possible.

    It is worth bearing in mind that the SNP’s last several campaigns have been extremely well funded. Right now they seem to be on their uppers and it is not easy to see where the money is going to come from.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    DavidL said:

    It is worth bearing in mind that the SNP’s last several campaigns have been extremely well funded. Right now they seem to be on their uppers and it is not easy to see where the money is going to come from.

    Sell the campervan...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    Penddu2 said:

    FWIW my RWC predictions for todays games...
    Japan v Chile - a very easy win for Japan - 20+ pts

    South Africa v Scotland - this one will be very interesting - Scotland are on very good form and this is a must win game for them. But I dont think they will do it. South Africa to win but by 6 pts only with Scotland getting losing bonus point.

    Wales v Fiji - this is very unpredictable - Wales were terrible in 6N but Gatland has now steadied the ship. We never saw a full Wales side in the warm up games and this is first time we will have an almost full side. Fiji are on top form especially after beating England and this game could go either way. But 'in Gatland we trust'. Wales by 5 (or Fiji by 5....or....??).

    IANAE on rugby, far from it, but SA seem to me to be fairly serious contenders to win the whole thing. I would like to see Scotland run them that close but I seriously doubt it.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
    We're probably 14 months away from the next GE. At that point in 1982 the Tories were polling ahead of both Labour and the Alliance so I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Labour has a large and well-established lead in the polls which suggests they will probably win more votes than the Tories at the next election. So I'll say it again - if Labour were to win more votes than the Tories, and were starting from a base of zero MPs, would they only win 124 seats?
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    And then there's Scotland.

    It's very typical of sassenachs to ignore or overlook what is going on up there.

    Take 30 seats off your 120 @TSE to start with?

    @DavidL is a Sassenach?

    Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
    That is possible although it is the top end. Labour’s strength is focused on the central belt whilst the SNP support is pretty even across the country. Labour may well exceed what their polling indicates and the SNP may well under perform if they drop below 35%, which is possible.

    It is worth bearing in mind that the SNP’s last several campaigns have been extremely well funded. Right now they seem to be on their uppers and it is not easy to see where the money is going to come from.
    It is possible that two things are occurring in Scotland. The SNP have blown themselves up as absolutely as possible. (That can't be repaired until they see that Kate Forbes is the answer not the problem). And Scots as a whole may decide in the GE that as independence isn't going to happen their interests are best served by a Labour government with lots of Scots Labour MPs. A slightly retro suggestion.

  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556
    I think the key comment in the piece is governments lose elections and I think that is what will happen here. A small, but workable, majority for labour. I don’t get the visceral anger but I think people are tired of the govt. I’ve no confidence labour will be any better but they deserve a chance.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194

    ydoethur said:

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
    We're probably 14 months away from the next GE. At that point in 1982 the Tories were polling ahead of both Labour and the Alliance so I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Labour has a large and well-established lead in the polls which suggests they will probably win more votes than the Tories at the next election. So I'll say it again - if Labour were to win more votes than the Tories, and were starting from a base of zero MPs, would they only win 124 seats?
    It’s a silly premise. Labour doesn’t have zero MPs, and probably wouldn’t be ahead in the polls if it did.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    IanB2 said:

    I've just seen a rather extraordinary advert

    Dove 72+hr protection deodorant

    SEVENTY TWO HOURS?!?!

    And a PLUS for those who want more than three days without washing

    This leaves me with so many very unpleasant questions that I never wanted to ask

    The only thing it might answer is who washes their towel just once a year

    Probably 72 hours provided you stay in bed the whole time, and lie really still
    Not if your bed is anything like mine last night. I have never needed a cool shower more in my life than I did this morning.

    Plus it must be painting a plastic coating onto your pores. Ugh.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588

    ydoethur said:

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
    We're probably 14 months away from the next GE. At that point in 1982 the Tories were polling ahead of both Labour and the Alliance so I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Labour has a large and well-established lead in the polls which suggests they will probably win more votes than the Tories at the next election. So I'll say it again - if Labour were to win more votes than the Tories, and were starting from a base of zero MPs, would they only win 124 seats?
    Yes, as things stand Labour will win by a mile. As things stood in early 2017 T May had an unassailable lead heading towards a win so large she could bet the farm on a big majority.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005

    ydoethur said:

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
    We're probably 14 months away from the next GE. At that point in 1982 the Tories were polling ahead of both Labour and the Alliance so I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Labour has a large and well-established lead in the polls which suggests they will probably win more votes than the Tories at the next election. So I'll say it again - if Labour were to win more votes than the Tories, and were starting from a base of zero MPs, would they only win 124 seats?
    We could be as far as 16 months away from the next general election.

    In February 1982 the split was Con 33 Lab 32 Alliance 34.

    That in itself was a fairly rapid reversal from October/November 1981 where the Alliance was clocking 50%. Indeed, the following month, even before the Falklands War, the Conservatives had retaken the lead.

    Polls often change, and can change very rapidly.

    In January 2009, to extend your analogy, Cameron's Tories had a lead of 44-30 over Labour and that lead was increasing. Didn't help at the general election.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    And then there's Scotland.

    It's very typical of sassenachs to ignore or overlook what is going on up there.

    Take 30 seats off your 120 @TSE to start with?

    @DavidL is a Sassenach?

    Edit - I am also dubious about Labour winning 30 seats in Scotland. That’s over half and while they’ve closed down the SNP they’re still behind in every poll. Twenty would be more plausible, but it’s still a tough ask.
    That is possible although it is the top end. Labour’s strength is focused on the central belt whilst the SNP support is pretty even across the country. Labour may well exceed what their polling indicates and the SNP may well under perform if they drop below 35%, which is possible.

    It is worth bearing in mind that the SNP’s last several campaigns have been extremely well funded. Right now they seem to be on their uppers and it is not easy to see where the money is going to come from.
    It is possible that two things are occurring in Scotland. The SNP have blown themselves up as absolutely as possible. (That can't be repaired until they see that Kate Forbes is the answer not the problem). And Scots as a whole may decide in the GE that as independence isn't going to happen their interests are best served by a Labour government with lots of Scots Labour MPs. A slightly retro suggestion.

    Yes in Scotland we get bombarded with “get the Tories out” by both Labour and the SNP. I think this time, unlike the last 3 elections, Labour will have the more compelling argument in that context.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 5,085
    edited September 2023
    Penddu2 said:

    FWIW my RWC predictions for todays games...
    Japan v Chile - a very easy win for Japan - 20+ pts

    South Africa v Scotland - this one will be very interesting - Scotland are on very good form and this is a must win game for them. But I dont think they will do it. South Africa to win but by 6 pts only with Scotland getting losing bonus point.

    Wales v Fiji - this is very unpredictable - Wales were terrible in 6N but Gatland has now steadied the ship. We never saw a full Wales side in the warm up games and this is first time we will have an almost full side. Fiji are on top form especially after beating England and this game could go either way. But 'in Gatland we trust'. Wales by 5 (or Fiji by 5....or....??).

    There was something in the Ireland game yesterday which made me wonder if they have the right killer mentality to win the World Cup that might seem counterintuitive.

    The clock had hit 80mins and Ireland got possession and all they needed to do was kick the ball out and game over. Instead they kept playing and pushing for a try which they got to ensure they won by over 80 points rather than high 70s. One of the pundits was saying “that just shows the mentality of this team, they just want to score tries”.

    That is fair enough and fine but you had a situation where they had millions of points already, they were playing in baking hot sun and there is every possibility one of their players could have got injured and missed other key group games for absolutely no real benefit.

    A really hard focussed team would have booted that ball out asap and got into the changing rooms to prepare for next match. I don’t know whether it was over exuberance or hubris but they will need to be a lot more pragmatic if they want to win the whole thing.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005
    It is instructive to see the amount of complacency from Labour posters on here. 'We have big leads, they won't be pulled back.'

    Opinion polling is useful for keeping morale up and giving us anoraks lots to talk about, but this far out from a general election (bearing in mind, we don't have even have a reliable steer on the date yet) it's not really useful for predicting the outcome.

    Heck, even Michael Howard managed an 11 point lead in one opinion poll.

    The real issues facing Labour are logistical. How and where does it target its efforts? What topics are going to be most salient (and that will vary by area)? Where and how is Starmer himself going to be most useful and where would it be better to have local politicians front up? What adverts do they want and where do they put them? Labour's advertising team is clearly in very good shape and manipulating social media with genuine elan, which may help with younger voters, but they dominate that demographic already. How do they cut through to voters in middle age which is where the swing is likely to be?

    Resource being finite and the input needed being very large, there is every reason to think that Labour will struggle to gain 124 seats. For me, NOM is the likeliest outcome and Conservatives largest party may well be value.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,536
    ydoethur said:

    Uxbridge… Everyone keeps talking about Uxbridge. If Labour replicate the Uxbridge swing nationally, they’ll be very close to an overall majority. Uxbridge was not a disastrous result for Labour: it was a good result that was just short of a win.

    When the SDP replicated the Hillhead swing at the famous 1984 general election, they won a storming victory and redrew the map of British politics for good.
    Oh if only… Jenkins would have been a great PM.
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
    We're probably 14 months away from the next GE. At that point in 1982 the Tories were polling ahead of both Labour and the Alliance so I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Labour has a large and well-established lead in the polls which suggests they will probably win more votes than the Tories at the next election. So I'll say it again - if Labour were to win more votes than the Tories, and were starting from a base of zero MPs, would they only win 124 seats?
    It’s a silly premise. Labour doesn’t have zero MPs, and probably wouldn’t be ahead in the polls if it did.
    It's a reductio ad absurdum argument so of course is a silly premise. I'm simply pointing out that it makes more sense to map level of support into level of seats, not change in seats.
  • Options
    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    ydoethur said:

    It is instructive to see the amount of complacency from Labour posters on here. 'We have big leads, they won't be pulled back.'

    Opinion polling is useful for keeping morale up and giving us anoraks lots to talk about, but this far out from a general election (bearing in mind, we don't have even have a reliable steer on the date yet) it's not really useful for predicting the outcome.

    Heck, even Michael Howard managed an 11 point lead in one opinion poll.

    The real issues facing Labour are logistical. How and where does it target its efforts? What topics are going to be most salient (and that will vary by area)? Where and how is Starmer himself going to be most useful and where would it be better to have local politicians front up? What adverts do they want and where do they put them? Labour's advertising team is clearly in very good shape and manipulating social media with genuine elan, which may help with younger voters, but they dominate that demographic already. How do they cut through to voters in middle age which is where the swing is likely to be?

    Resource being finite and the input needed being very large, there is every reason to think that Labour will struggle to gain 124 seats. For me, NOM is the likeliest outcome and Conservatives largest party may well be value.

    The political implications of NOM are going to keep some journalists in employment if the polls falter at all. Brief summary:

    10 parties won at least 1 seat last time. Plus 1 Speaker. 8 don't vote: 7 SF + 1 Speaker. Only the DUP (8 seats) have more than a 0% chance of keeping the Tories in power after the 2024 GE.

    In a close election a Labour government could need up to 6 other parties to stay in government: LD, Green, SNP, PC, SDLP, Alliance.

    Assuming SF get 7 again, 322 seats are needed for a majority of 2.

  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Anyway, editing beckons so gtg.

    I'm putting part of a lengthy line of reasoning so keep it civil. This is a betting site and I'm pretty convinced of my arguments. But not conclusively so.



    Younger readers forget how unpopular - even hated - Thatcher’s Tories were during each of their terms in government, yet because the opposition failed to put forward a credible, attractive prospectus, she and they kept getting re-elected, even after she’d gone.

    IMV it was rather different, although I was young at the time. There were some very noisy people who vociferously hated Thatcher. Many were in the media, because the hatred became trendy (*)

    And whilst others may not have liked her, that's very different from hate. And others may have been repelled by the hatred enough to support her.

    (*) hatred becoming trendy is a bad thing IMO.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    It is instructive to see the amount of complacency from Labour posters on here. 'We have big leads, they won't be pulled back.'

    Opinion polling is useful for keeping morale up and giving us anoraks lots to talk about, but this far out from a general election (bearing in mind, we don't have even have a reliable steer on the date yet) it's not really useful for predicting the outcome.

    Heck, even Michael Howard managed an 11 point lead in one opinion poll.

    The real issues facing Labour are logistical. How and where does it target its efforts? What topics are going to be most salient (and that will vary by area)? Where and how is Starmer himself going to be most useful and where would it be better to have local politicians front up? What adverts do they want and where do they put them? Labour's advertising team is clearly in very good shape and manipulating social media with genuine elan, which may help with younger voters, but they dominate that demographic already. How do they cut through to voters in middle age which is where the swing is likely to be?

    Resource being finite and the input needed being very large, there is every reason to think that Labour will struggle to gain 124 seats. For me, NOM is the likeliest outcome and Conservatives largest party may well be value.

    If you want to make the case against a Labour majority on the basis that its poll lead is fragile and will be reduced during a GE campaign I find that a lot more convincing than this argument about seat gains, ignoring the low base.
    I don't think I'm being complacent. I don't think a Labour majority is nailed on. But right now polling seems quite stable, the public seem sick of the government and ready to give Labour a go. So a Labour majority is the most likely outcome IMHO.
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning.

    What we (this site) could really do with is a well-reasoned extensive article or articles as to why Labour are likely to win a majority.* It's all rather lop-sided at the top at the moment, despite the voting intention opinion polling, which is the baseline for any betting, giving Labour convincing leads and the Conservatives languishing in the 20's.

    As you know, I don't believe that the starting point of 202 MPs is legitimate. The 2019 'Get Brexit Done' vote was an abnormal, atypical, General Election so it's a fallacy to use that, and the subsequent required seat gain, as a benchmark. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that the 2019 Cons voters who so dramatically followed Boris' Brexit Bandwagon are going to return to the fold, or indeed any fold. This is all the more true given the mess up of Brexit and polling which consistently now demonstrates my point that Brexit voting no longer equates to party allegiance.

    It can be argued that Labour need a net gain of just c. 30 seats from the last true General Election in June 2017 in order to win an outright majority.

    (*And no, I'm not going to write it. Too much else to do.)

    Uxbridge is the warning, there is no way Labour should have lost that.
    I agree but we're also in great danger of extrapolating the local ulez issue onto a national one.

    The greater warning is arguably not psephological. It's more a warning to Labour in government about what happens when centrist metropolitan lefties forget their core vote. You'd have thought with Brexit they might have learned. Beware of Labour Londoners!
    No, that doesn’t wash.

    According to your thesis the government is so discredited with everyone you meet that its overwhelming defeat is nailed on.

    There is no way that a peripheral issue like ULEZ - that affects relatively few people and was forced on outer London by the Tories in the first place - should have derailed a significant Labour win there, and allow the representative of said government to claim the seat, when along with the rest of us its voters have a list of grievances a mile long.

    That it did, should make any sensible person stop and think.

    And yet on the same day Labour gained Selby in one of the party’s greatest ever by-election victories. So why is Uxbridge more significant?

    That said, I have always been in the Labour most seats, small majority if everything goes right, camp. I see 1997 as the exception, not the rule. Governments that have been in power for a long time are generally tough to shift. And we still have tax cuts to come in this Parliament.

  • Options
    ULEZ or not, the Tories should be hoping Sadiq Khan retains the mayoralty. Months of blithering incompetence and dogwhistle prejudice from Mayor Susan Hall would not do good things for the image of the Conservatives, and hence Sunak’s chances in a General Election.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,159
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
    We're probably 14 months away from the next GE. At that point in 1982 the Tories were polling ahead of both Labour and the Alliance so I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Labour has a large and well-established lead in the polls which suggests they will probably win more votes than the Tories at the next election. So I'll say it again - if Labour were to win more votes than the Tories, and were starting from a base of zero MPs, would they only win 124 seats?
    It’s a silly premise. Labour doesn’t have zero MPs, and probably wouldn’t be ahead in the polls if it did.
    But the point holds that you get a majority by winning 326 seats. That’s always the case, regardless of how many seats you won last time. It may be misleading to focus on the second-order variable of gains needed.

    This is the UK, not the US. There isn’t some massive incumbency effect.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    While the runners are away further up the river, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Seeking something, anything, to cheer themselves up, some Tories believe that they still have a few trump cards in their hand. Dog-eared political playbooks from past elections suggest to them that immigration can be weaponised to their advantage.

    For 13 years, Tory leaders have promised to curb immigration and then presided over the opposite, a crowd-pleaser neither with those who wanted the numbers down nor with those who thought the targets were stupid. That is one reason to think that there is now more risk to them than reward in trying to use it as an electoral weapon.

    More warnings to the Tories are to be found in insightful new polling and analysis that will be published this week by the thinktank British Future. Its findings strongly suggest that immigration is no longer a trump card for the Conservatives.

    It is another rule of competitive politics that you should try to reduce the attention paid to your failures, not attract more of it. The scheme to deport asylum seekers to Africa has so far brought satisfaction only to the Rwandan government, which is better off to the tune of £140m from the British taxpayer before a flight has taken off. The Home Office’s own assessment reckons the bill will be £169,000 per person deported (the true figure will be higher) and that “it is not possible to estimate” whether it will have any deterrent effect on those desperate enough to imperil themselves by crossing the world’s busiest shipping lane.

    If the Conservatives seek to make a big issue of immigration at the election, they will be focusing attention on an area where they have relentlessly broken their promises, visibly failed and are deeply mistrusted. That doesn’t look like a winning card.

  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,159

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,760
    ydoethur said:

    It is instructive to see the amount of complacency from Labour posters on here. 'We have big leads, they won't be pulled back.'

    Opinion polling is useful for keeping morale up and giving us anoraks lots to talk about, but this far out from a general election (bearing in mind, we don't have even have a reliable steer on the date yet) it's not really useful for predicting the outcome.

    Heck, even Michael Howard managed an 11 point lead in one opinion poll.

    The real issues facing Labour are logistical. How and where does it target its efforts? What topics are going to be most salient (and that will vary by area)? Where and how is Starmer himself going to be most useful and where would it be better to have local politicians front up? What adverts do they want and where do they put them? Labour's advertising team is clearly in very good shape and manipulating social media with genuine elan, which may help with younger voters, but they dominate that demographic already. How do they cut through to voters in middle age which is where the swing is likely to be?

    Resource being finite and the input needed being very large, there is every reason to think that Labour will struggle to gain 124 seats. For me, NOM is the likeliest outcome and Conservatives largest party may well be value.

    A good analysis. I am still on with a 20 seat majority for the Tories.

    Why? Because Labour have no positive prospectus, whilst the Conservatives are very much steady as she goes, and keeping Tory voters happy even if everyone else is unhappy.

    As to personalities, Sunak comes across as a really great guy, whilst Starmer comes across as rude, aloof and unpleasant. Surpassed only by the foul mouthed Rayner.

    For those of us who would like to see this gravy train hit the buffers, it won't. Much like 1992, trebles all round at the Con. Club.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited September 2023

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
    We're probably 14 months away from the next GE. At that point in 1982 the Tories were polling ahead of both Labour and the Alliance so I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Labour has a large and well-established lead in the polls which suggests they will probably win more votes than the Tories at the next election. So I'll say it again - if Labour were to win more votes than the Tories, and were starting from a base of zero MPs, would they only win 124 seats?
    It’s a silly premise. Labour doesn’t have zero MPs, and probably wouldn’t be ahead in the polls if it did.
    But the point holds that you get a majority by winning 326 seats. That’s always the case, regardless of how many seats you won last time. It may be misleading to focus on the second-order variable of gains needed.

    This is the UK, not the US. There isn’t some massive incumbency effect.
    But a lot of the statistical analysis tends to assume people switch from one party to the other.

    Whereas it is human nature not to want to admit that you were wrong. And in practice it’s common for people who supported the government last time to think, “they can stuff it this time, I’m not going to bother” and for people who stayed at home last time to think “maybe I will turn out and give the other lot a chance this time”. Both lost in the data because the overall number of abstainers stays the same. Both of which put a lag on swing.

    It’s a reason why governments that just scrape in can often get a decent majority if they wait a while and then try again.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,620
    Taz said:

    I think the key comment in the piece is governments lose elections and I think that is what will happen here. A small, but workable, majority for labour. I don’t get the visceral anger but I think people are tired of the govt. I’ve no confidence labour will be any better but they deserve a chance.

    They will deserve a chance when they show a convincing vision of how the country will be better under them, and propose realistic means of achieving it.

    They have not done so, perhaps apart from housing (which every government promises and fails to improve), and until they do, they don't deserve anything at all.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
    We're probably 14 months away from the next GE. At that point in 1982 the Tories were polling ahead of both Labour and the Alliance so I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Labour has a large and well-established lead in the polls which suggests they will probably win more votes than the Tories at the next election. So I'll say it again - if Labour were to win more votes than the Tories, and were starting from a base of zero MPs, would they only win 124 seats?
    It’s a silly premise. Labour doesn’t have zero MPs, and probably wouldn’t be ahead in the polls if it did.
    But the point holds that you get a majority by winning 326 seats. That’s always the case, regardless of how many seats you won last time. It may be misleading to focus on the second-order variable of gains needed.

    This is the UK, not the US. There isn’t some massive incumbency effect.
    There can be. North Norfolk springs to mind. As does Ynys Mon, which last unseated a sitting MP in 1950.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,474
    edited September 2023
    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    I disagree with @Heathener that we can ignore the 2019 result because it gives a lot of Tories the advantage of incumbency. Public money has been pouring into their offices and staff now for 4 years and it will have some effect, even with the boundary changes.

    It also puts the Labour challenge into perspective. Blair started off close in terms of seats and won big. Cameron, like Starmer, started over 100 seat short and didn’t quite make it. Winning 123 extra seats is hard, really hard. The red wall will produce some easy wins as will Scotland but there is still a long way to go.
    It may well happen. The government looks hapless and SKS doesn’t scare people like Corbyn. It is time for a change. But personally I think it’s going to be close.

    Hi David.

    I'm not really saying that we should 'ignore' it. That would be exaggerated.

    I'm merely suggesting, for I believe sound reasons, that it's a shaky foundation and that the June 2017 is a safer benchmark of the last true General Election. December 2019 was an aberration. An unusual set of circumstances leading to a unique sole-issue Get Brexit Done vote, galvanised by Boris who reached parts no other has or can.

    Any point on any chart that leads to Oceania's victory over Eastasia will do until suddenly its war against Eurasia and a rethink is required.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    I disagree with @Heathener that we can ignore the 2019 result because it gives a lot of Tories the advantage of incumbency. Public money has been pouring into their offices and staff now for 4 years and it will have some effect, even with the boundary changes.

    It also puts the Labour challenge into perspective. Blair started off close in terms of seats and won big. Cameron, like Starmer, started over 100 seat short and didn’t quite make it. Winning 123 extra seats is hard, really hard. The red wall will produce some easy wins as will Scotland but there is still a long way to go.
    It may well happen. The government looks hapless and SKS doesn’t scare people like Corbyn. It is time for a change. But personally I think it’s going to be close.

    Hi David.

    I'm not really saying that we should 'ignore' it. That would be exaggerated.

    I'm merely suggesting, for I believe sound reasons, that it's a shaky foundation and that the June 2017 is a safer benchmark of the last true General Election. December 2019 was an aberration. An unusual set of circumstances leading to a unique sole-issue Get Brexit Done vote, galvanised by Boris who reached parts no other has or can.

    Any point on any chart that leads to Oceanias victory over East Asia will do until suddenly its war against Eurasia
    By the way, I have bad news about your sugar ration.
  • Options

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
    The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
    We're probably 14 months away from the next GE. At that point in 1982 the Tories were polling ahead of both Labour and the Alliance so I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Labour has a large and well-established lead in the polls which suggests they will probably win more votes than the Tories at the next election. So I'll say it again - if Labour were to win more votes than the Tories, and were starting from a base of zero MPs, would they only win 124 seats?
    We could be as far as 16 months away from the next general election.

    In February 1982 the split was Con 33 Lab 32 Alliance 34.

    That in itself was a fairly rapid reversal from October/November 1981 where the Alliance was clocking 50%. Indeed, the following month, even before the Falklands War, the Conservatives had retaken the lead.

    Polls often change, and can change very rapidly.

    In January 2009, to extend your analogy, Cameron's Tories had a lead of 44-30 over Labour and that lead was increasing. Didn't help at the general election.

    Labour got 29.7% in 2010, so basically didn’t move in 17 months. However, they did very well in Scotland so managed to hold onto far more seats than the vote share would have suggested. The Tory percentage was corroded by the LibDems, who got over 23% of the national vote share, but were polling in the mid-teens in January 2009.

    I don’t see the LDs taking votes from Labour next time, so the Tories need to win Labour switchers back. That is very tough to do, though not impossible. Scotland could well help Labour again, though.

    But all of it has to be seen in the context of over 100 Labour gains to get a majority of one. That is a huge ask.

  • Options

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
    The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year

    No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.

  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,760

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    You look at an appallingly immoral Patel/Braverman policy from a very sunny disposition.

    I suppose if it helps the good guys (Conservatives) who are up against the bad guys (everyone else) win an election perhaps the British reputation for fairness is a price worth paying.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005

    ydoethur said:

    It is instructive to see the amount of complacency from Labour posters on here. 'We have big leads, they won't be pulled back.'

    Opinion polling is useful for keeping morale up and giving us anoraks lots to talk about, but this far out from a general election (bearing in mind, we don't have even have a reliable steer on the date yet) it's not really useful for predicting the outcome.

    Heck, even Michael Howard managed an 11 point lead in one opinion poll.

    The real issues facing Labour are logistical. How and where does it target its efforts? What topics are going to be most salient (and that will vary by area)? Where and how is Starmer himself going to be most useful and where would it be better to have local politicians front up? What adverts do they want and where do they put them? Labour's advertising team is clearly in very good shape and manipulating social media with genuine elan, which may help with younger voters, but they dominate that demographic already. How do they cut through to voters in middle age which is where the swing is likely to be?

    Resource being finite and the input needed being very large, there is every reason to think that Labour will struggle to gain 124 seats. For me, NOM is the likeliest outcome and Conservatives largest party may well be value.

    If you want to make the case against a Labour majority on the basis that its poll lead is fragile and will be reduced during a GE campaign I find that a lot more convincing than this argument about seat gains, ignoring the low base.
    I don't think I'm being complacent. I don't think a Labour majority is nailed on. But right now polling seems quite stable, the public seem sick of the government and ready to give Labour a go. So a Labour majority is the most likely outcome IMHO.
    Most of these leads will not be reduced 'during an election campaign.' Cameron's had actually been reducing for some time beforehand, for example.

    Come back to me with a poll from three months before the election and with rare exceptions (2017, again) I'll take it as a good indicator of the result.

    The snag here is we don't actually know when the election will be. Logic says in May, but logic and politicians are strangers to each other when eight months more of power is available by delaying.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,694
    edited September 2023
    Morning all. More DfE competence on display, I see.

    (I hadn't actually realised HMG were so involved in selecting sites - I 'd thought it was local initiative. Old shops sounded to me very like local initiative and not central government.)

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/10/uk-government-did-not-carry-out-detailed-surveys-before-it-bought-free-schools-sites

    'The government failed to carry out detailed surveys that would reveal problems such as asbestos and unstable concrete before buying up sites for its flagship free schools, an Observer investigation has found.

    Free schools were launched by Michael Gove in 2010 with the promise that they would transform education in England. More than 650 are currently open. Gove made much of the fact that ministers would be tearing up planning laws to enable groups of teachers, parents and charities to set up schools in old offices, shops and houses.

    However, documents seen by the Observer reveal that in some cases there was such haste to open large numbers of these new schools that the government agency tasked with buying the sites purchased “unsuitable” disused buildings without first undertaking the detailed surveys that experts insist are essential.

    This led to some refurbishments running millions of pounds over budget while thousands of other state schools struggled with leaking, decaying buildings in urgent need of repair following the government’s axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010. '

    PS And yes, some have RAAC.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    The Rwanda deal is for 1,000 deportees over a 5 year period. At the moment arrivals are 2-3 hundred a day. The deal is not for "tens of thousands".

  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,617
    Morning all!

    Yesterday I had, for the first time for years, an electoral communication from the Labour Party. In my inbox.
    I pointed out that it was actually irrelevant, because it related to a neighbouring MP, and actually got a chatbot reply.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,760

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
    The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year
    It's an appalling policy BigG. It's immoral and a nasty "virtue signal" for racists rather than a practical policy to resolve a problem.

    Your team win the next election, but they don't deserve to.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005
    Carnyx said:

    Morning all. More DfE competence on display, I see.

    (I hadn't actually realised HMG were so involved in selecting sites - I 'd thought it was local initiative. Old shops sounded to me very like local initiative and not central government.)

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/10/uk-government-did-not-carry-out-detailed-surveys-before-it-bought-free-schools-sites

    'The government failed to carry out detailed surveys that would reveal problems such as asbestos and unstable concrete before buying up sites for its flagship free schools, an Observer investigation has found.

    Free schools were launched by Michael Gove in 2010 with the promise that they would transform education in England. More than 650 are currently open. Gove made much of the fact that ministers would be tearing up planning laws to enable groups of teachers, parents and charities to set up schools in old offices, shops and houses.

    However, documents seen by the Observer reveal that in some cases there was such haste to open large numbers of these new schools that the government agency tasked with buying the sites purchased “unsuitable” disused buildings without first undertaking the detailed surveys that experts insist are essential.

    This led to some refurbishments running millions of pounds over budget while thousands of other state schools struggled with leaking, decaying buildings in urgent need of repair following the government’s axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010. '

    PS And yes, some have RAAC.

    One reason why BSF was scrapped was so Gove could devote money to his free school and academies programme.

    As with many of Gove's initiatives, it was the right decision to scrap BSF and yet the utterly wrong decision in what to do next.
  • Options

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
    Also, there's a boring but important bit of dishonesty here. There's a massive difference between sending someone to Rwanda while they are processed for entry to your country and sending them there full stop.

    Form last year:

    Under the British system, applicants whose claims for asylum are successful will be told to stay in Rwanda. Austria said that under its proposal successful claimants would be welcome to return to the EU.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4ded2c24-e72b-11ec-9b02-3f136f233710?shareToken=3991a7244e7e00e2b4fed9088b59e04d

    On topic. It does still seem absurd for Labour to bounce back from the 2019 disaster so quickly. But there are 650 seats, and someone has to win in each of them. And unless Lib Dems can start winning seats without a massive local "Winning Here" campaign, that's either the red or blue teams.

    If there are 100 Libs/Scots/NIites (and that's pretty optimistic for Lib Dems and SNP, about 40 each), that leaves 550. So you need about 225 Conservatives to deny Labour a majority. Right now, it's not easy to see them doing that well.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,159
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    One simple counter to TSE's argument is the following thought experiment. Imagine that Labour had stood no candidates in 2019 so were starting from a base of zero seats and went into the next election 10 or 15 points ahead of the Tories. Is it reasonable to think they would win fewer than 124 seats? That is the logic of his argument.

    You mean, like the SDP?
    We're probably 14 months away from the next GE. At that point in 1982 the Tories were polling ahead of both Labour and the Alliance so I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Labour has a large and well-established lead in the polls which suggests they will probably win more votes than the Tories at the next election. So I'll say it again - if Labour were to win more votes than the Tories, and were starting from a base of zero MPs, would they only win 124 seats?
    It’s a silly premise. Labour doesn’t have zero MPs, and probably wouldn’t be ahead in the polls if it did.
    But the point holds that you get a majority by winning 326 seats. That’s always the case, regardless of how many seats you won last time. It may be misleading to focus on the second-order variable of gains needed.

    This is the UK, not the US. There isn’t some massive incumbency effect.
    But a lot of the statistical analysis tends to assume people switch from one party to the other.

    Whereas it is human nature not to want to admit that you were wrong. And in practice it’s common for people who supported the government last time to think, “they can stuff it this time, I’m not going to bother” and for people who stayed at home last time to think “maybe I will turn out and give the other lot a chance this time”. Both lost in the data because the overall number of abstainers stays the same. Both of which put a lag on swing.

    It’s a reason why governments that just scrape in can often get a decent majority if they wait a while and then try again.
    I would like to speculate that voters are more likely to change these days than they once were. Polling in many parts of the world shows big swings these days, e.g. in the Netherlands. I think it’s to do with social media and changes in traditional party identification.

    People don’t like to admit they’re wrong, but also it’s not hard to come up with a reason why your vote in 2024 should be different from your vote in 2019. Brexit has happened. It’s a different Labour leader. It’s a twice different Conservative leader. No-one is getting the option to vote again for a Johnsonian government or a Corbynite one.
  • Options

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
    The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year

    No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.

    Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda

    Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    It is instructive to see the amount of complacency from Labour posters on here. 'We have big leads, they won't be pulled back.'

    Opinion polling is useful for keeping morale up and giving us anoraks lots to talk about, but this far out from a general election (bearing in mind, we don't have even have a reliable steer on the date yet) it's not really useful for predicting the outcome.

    Heck, even Michael Howard managed an 11 point lead in one opinion poll.

    The real issues facing Labour are logistical. How and where does it target its efforts? What topics are going to be most salient (and that will vary by area)? Where and how is Starmer himself going to be most useful and where would it be better to have local politicians front up? What adverts do they want and where do they put them? Labour's advertising team is clearly in very good shape and manipulating social media with genuine elan, which may help with younger voters, but they dominate that demographic already. How do they cut through to voters in middle age which is where the swing is likely to be?

    Resource being finite and the input needed being very large, there is every reason to think that Labour will struggle to gain 124 seats. For me, NOM is the likeliest outcome and Conservatives largest party may well be value.

    If you want to make the case against a Labour majority on the basis that its poll lead is fragile and will be reduced during a GE campaign I find that a lot more convincing than this argument about seat gains, ignoring the low base.
    I don't think I'm being complacent. I don't think a Labour majority is nailed on. But right now polling seems quite stable, the public seem sick of the government and ready to give Labour a go. So a Labour majority is the most likely outcome IMHO.
    Most of these leads will not be reduced 'during an election campaign.' Cameron's had actually been reducing for some time beforehand, for example.

    Come back to me with a poll from three months before the election and with rare exceptions (2017, again) I'll take it as a good indicator of the result.

    The snag here is we don't actually know when the election will be. Logic says in May, but logic and politicians are strangers to each other when eight months more of power is available by delaying.
    Sunak will not go to the country before he absolutely has to or if he thinks he’ll win. For me, January 2025 is very underpriced. It would be a terrible time to hold a GE and would probably make a Tory defeat worse, but if you are set to lose why not delay it for as long as possible? Sunak is not a great political strategist and has no discernible, May-like affection for the Conservative party, so why wouldn’t he hold on for as long as possible?

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,288
    edited September 2023

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
    The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year

    No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.

    Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda

    Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
    They may be looking at Rwanda as a destination from which to process asylum claims. But that is not the UK Rwanda policy. If it were, there would be no issue about withdrawing from the ECHR. Remember - as EU member states, Italy, Austria and Denmark cannot do that.

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,694
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Morning all. More DfE competence on display, I see.

    (I hadn't actually realised HMG were so involved in selecting sites - I 'd thought it was local initiative. Old shops sounded to me very like local initiative and not central government.)

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/10/uk-government-did-not-carry-out-detailed-surveys-before-it-bought-free-schools-sites

    'The government failed to carry out detailed surveys that would reveal problems such as asbestos and unstable concrete before buying up sites for its flagship free schools, an Observer investigation has found.

    Free schools were launched by Michael Gove in 2010 with the promise that they would transform education in England. More than 650 are currently open. Gove made much of the fact that ministers would be tearing up planning laws to enable groups of teachers, parents and charities to set up schools in old offices, shops and houses.

    However, documents seen by the Observer reveal that in some cases there was such haste to open large numbers of these new schools that the government agency tasked with buying the sites purchased “unsuitable” disused buildings without first undertaking the detailed surveys that experts insist are essential.

    This led to some refurbishments running millions of pounds over budget while thousands of other state schools struggled with leaking, decaying buildings in urgent need of repair following the government’s axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010. '

    PS And yes, some have RAAC.

    One reason why BSF was scrapped was so Gove could devote money to his free school and academies programme.

    As with many of Gove's initiatives, it was the right decision to scrap BSF and yet the utterly wrong decision in what to do next.
    Still trying to get used to the idea of a cutting-edge school built in some old shopping centre without, presumably, any playground, let alone playing fields ...
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    It is instructive to see the amount of complacency from Labour posters on here. 'We have big leads, they won't be pulled back.'

    Opinion polling is useful for keeping morale up and giving us anoraks lots to talk about, but this far out from a general election (bearing in mind, we don't have even have a reliable steer on the date yet) it's not really useful for predicting the outcome.

    Heck, even Michael Howard managed an 11 point lead in one opinion poll.

    The real issues facing Labour are logistical. How and where does it target its efforts? What topics are going to be most salient (and that will vary by area)? Where and how is Starmer himself going to be most useful and where would it be better to have local politicians front up? What adverts do they want and where do they put them? Labour's advertising team is clearly in very good shape and manipulating social media with genuine elan, which may help with younger voters, but they dominate that demographic already. How do they cut through to voters in middle age which is where the swing is likely to be?

    Resource being finite and the input needed being very large, there is every reason to think that Labour will struggle to gain 124 seats. For me, NOM is the likeliest outcome and Conservatives largest party may well be value.

    If you want to make the case against a Labour majority on the basis that its poll lead is fragile and will be reduced during a GE campaign I find that a lot more convincing than this argument about seat gains, ignoring the low base.
    I don't think I'm being complacent. I don't think a Labour majority is nailed on. But right now polling seems quite stable, the public seem sick of the government and ready to give Labour a go. So a Labour majority is the most likely outcome IMHO.
    Most of these leads will not be reduced 'during an election campaign.' Cameron's had actually been reducing for some time beforehand, for example.

    Come back to me with a poll from three months before the election and with rare exceptions (2017, again) I'll take it as a good indicator of the result.

    The snag here is we don't actually know when the election will be. Logic says in May, but logic and politicians are strangers to each other when eight months more of power is available by delaying.
    Sunak will not go to the country before he absolutely has to or if he thinks he’ll win. For me, January 2025 is very underpriced. It would be a terrible time to hold a GE and would probably make a Tory defeat worse, but if you are set to lose why not delay it for as long as possible? Sunak is not a great political strategist and has no discernible, May-like affection for the Conservative party, so why wouldn’t he hold on for as long as possible?

    The obvious answer is that if he goes next May he spreads the resource Labour and indeed the Lib Dems need to utilise even thinner. They will be fighting a multiplicity of local councils as well as a general election. Moreover, it allows him to fight an election on as many local issues as possible.

    Now, against that he has the same problem himself - but, with the advantage of incumbency of MPs and probably a lack of interest in local government (which is falling apart on his watch anyway) it seems a reasonable gamble to take.

    However, as you note, he is not a good strategist and this may not occur to him.

    In fact, his past record suggests the best argument he will see for holding it in May is that it will be much cheaper.
  • Options

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
    The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year

    No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.

    Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda

    Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
    They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.

    That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.

    Isn't he?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Morning all. More DfE competence on display, I see.

    (I hadn't actually realised HMG were so involved in selecting sites - I 'd thought it was local initiative. Old shops sounded to me very like local initiative and not central government.)

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/10/uk-government-did-not-carry-out-detailed-surveys-before-it-bought-free-schools-sites

    'The government failed to carry out detailed surveys that would reveal problems such as asbestos and unstable concrete before buying up sites for its flagship free schools, an Observer investigation has found.

    Free schools were launched by Michael Gove in 2010 with the promise that they would transform education in England. More than 650 are currently open. Gove made much of the fact that ministers would be tearing up planning laws to enable groups of teachers, parents and charities to set up schools in old offices, shops and houses.

    However, documents seen by the Observer reveal that in some cases there was such haste to open large numbers of these new schools that the government agency tasked with buying the sites purchased “unsuitable” disused buildings without first undertaking the detailed surveys that experts insist are essential.

    This led to some refurbishments running millions of pounds over budget while thousands of other state schools struggled with leaking, decaying buildings in urgent need of repair following the government’s axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010. '

    PS And yes, some have RAAC.

    One reason why BSF was scrapped was so Gove could devote money to his free school and academies programme.

    As with many of Gove's initiatives, it was the right decision to scrap BSF and yet the utterly wrong decision in what to do next.
    Still trying to get used to the idea of a cutting-edge school built in some old shopping centre without, presumably, any playground, let alone playing fields ...
    Well, the latter became the reality for quite a lot of maintained schools under Labour anyway, so I don't think that's quite the killer objection it should be.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,364

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    Maybe other countries are suggesting nonsensical "solutions" to immigration. The UK government doesn't have a monopoly.

    Rwanda still isn't a serious immigration policy.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,005

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
    The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year

    No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.

    Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda

    Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
    They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.

    That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.

    Isn't he?
    He is as honest as the day is long. He's a personal friend of Dominic Cummings. A man who claimed he drove the length of England while ill with covid because he couldn't get childcare in London and drove to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight.

    The day in question is Midwinter's Day at the North Pole.
  • Options
    boulay said:

    Penddu2 said:

    FWIW my RWC predictions for todays games...
    Japan v Chile - a very easy win for Japan - 20+ pts

    South Africa v Scotland - this one will be very interesting - Scotland are on very good form and this is a must win game for them. But I dont think they will do it. South Africa to win but by 6 pts only with Scotland getting losing bonus point.

    Wales v Fiji - this is very unpredictable - Wales were terrible in 6N but Gatland has now steadied the ship. We never saw a full Wales side in the warm up games and this is first time we will have an almost full side. Fiji are on top form especially after beating England and this game could go either way. But 'in Gatland we trust'. Wales by 5 (or Fiji by 5....or....??).

    There was something in the Ireland game yesterday which made me wonder if they have the right killer mentality to win the World Cup that might seem counterintuitive.

    The clock had hit 80mins and Ireland got possession and all they needed to do was kick the ball out and game over. Instead they kept playing and pushing for a try which they got to ensure they won by over 80 points rather than high 70s. One of the pundits was saying “that just shows the mentality of this team, they just want to score tries”.

    That is fair enough and fine but you had a situation where they had millions of points already, they were playing in baking hot sun and there is every possibility one of their players could have got injured and missed other key group games for absolutely no real benefit.

    A really hard focussed team would have booted that ball out asap and got into the changing rooms to prepare for next match. I don’t know whether it was over exuberance or hubris but they will need to be a lot more pragmatic if they want to win the whole thing.
    Worse, it cost me £14.

    Grrrr....
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736
    To look at the prospects of a Labour majority from a different perspective it is useful to look at their target seats.

    https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

    Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%)
    should mean Tories out of power.

    Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.

    Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.





  • Options

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
    The wider issue is that EU countries are actively looking at the Rwanda policy, and not just Italy but Austria and Denmark with the subject due to be on the agenda when Italy chair the G7 next year and at the European Political Community Summit which they also host next year

    No, they’re not looking at the Rwanda policy. They’re looking at processing asylum claims in third countries. That is very different.

    Actually Italy Austria and Denmark are looking at Rwanda

    Now I know even by quoting Sky's report would be a trigger event for some but then it is a news story whether you agree with 8t or not
    They are looking at something involving Rwanda, but a different policy. You do understand the difference between processing people in Rwanda and just leaving them there, I'm sure.

    That Rishi Sunak is trying to elide the two is a great shame, because he's meant to be better than that. Less dishonest.

    Isn't he?
    I am not arguing the details but just quoting a Sky report (also covered in other media outlets) that support for a Rwanda style policy is actively being discussed in the EU
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    edited September 2023

    Good morning

    Interesting reporting by Sky News re Rwanda policy:-

    The UK is leading the way with its Rwanda deportation scheme as other European countries look at "similar solutions" to tackle illegal immigration, the prime minister has said.

    Rishi Sunak also said he discussed illegal immigration during a "meeting and a drink" with Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni as world leaders attend the G20 summit in Delhi. Mr Sunak said they discussed how they can "work together" to tackle the "shared challenge" of illegal immigration in Europe.

    The Conservative government wants to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 6,000 miles away from the UK to Rwanda as part of a £120m deal agreed with the east African country in 2022.Critics have claimed the policy breaks international human rights laws, and no one has been sent to the country yet after ongoing legal challenges in the courts.

    Mr Sunak has said he will do "whatever is necessary" to get the removal flights going after a Court of Appeal ruling in June said the scheme is unlawful.

    Speaking about the Rwanda policy to reporters in Delhi, Mr Sunak said on Saturday: "I've always said that this is a global issue, this issue of illegal migration. It is only growing in importance and will require global coordination to resolve. I have said Britain would be tough but fair, and where Britain leads others will follow. We have been willing to take bold and radical action to tackle this problem.

    "I said that other countries would look at similar solutions, and you can start to see that they are with the news from Austria this week, and more broadly across Europe.

    "You can just see this issue growing and growing in salience, and I think that we have been out in front leading the conversation on this and the need to look at this differently and look at radical solutions."

    Mr Sunak's comments come after Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer raised the possibility of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda, where their cases for asylum cases would be processed. Gerhard Karner, Austria's interior minister, has called for the EU to introduce "asylum procedures in safe third countries" and referred to a model "Denmark and Great Britain are also following".

    “I had a drink with Meloni, a fascist, and she thought it was a good idea” isn’t exactly a persuasive argument that you’ve got a good policy.
    Also, there's a boring but important bit of dishonesty here. There's a massive difference between sending someone to Rwanda while they are processed for entry to your country and sending them there full stop.

    Form last year:

    Under the British system, applicants whose claims for asylum are successful will be told to stay in Rwanda. Austria said that under its proposal successful claimants would be welcome to return to the EU.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4ded2c24-e72b-11ec-9b02-3f136f233710?shareToken=3991a7244e7e00e2b4fed9088b59e04d

    On topic. It does still seem absurd for Labour to bounce back from the 2019 disaster so quickly. But there are 650 seats, and someone has to win in each of them. And unless Lib Dems can start winning seats without a massive local "Winning Here" campaign, that's either the red or blue teams.

    If there are 100 Libs/Scots/NIites (and that's pretty optimistic for Lib Dems and SNP, about 40 each), that leaves 550. So you need about 225 Conservatives to deny Labour a majority. Right now, it's not easy to see them doing that well.
    SNP+LD+NI totalled 77 seats last time. It would struggle to get to 100 this time.

    A key figure is 322. This is needed by any grouping for a majority of 2 if SF get 7, as before + 1 Speaker.

    This renders a Labour led government very likely. Tories+ DUP (worked well last time didn't it) need 322. That's 314 Tories. If they lose 52/3 seats Tories are out.

    If that happened, politics would become frenetic of course.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,694
    edited September 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Morning all. More DfE competence on display, I see.

    (I hadn't actually realised HMG were so involved in selecting sites - I 'd thought it was local initiative. Old shops sounded to me very like local initiative and not central government.)

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/10/uk-government-did-not-carry-out-detailed-surveys-before-it-bought-free-schools-sites

    'The government failed to carry out detailed surveys that would reveal problems such as asbestos and unstable concrete before buying up sites for its flagship free schools, an Observer investigation has found.

    Free schools were launched by Michael Gove in 2010 with the promise that they would transform education in England. More than 650 are currently open. Gove made much of the fact that ministers would be tearing up planning laws to enable groups of teachers, parents and charities to set up schools in old offices, shops and houses.

    However, documents seen by the Observer reveal that in some cases there was such haste to open large numbers of these new schools that the government agency tasked with buying the sites purchased “unsuitable” disused buildings without first undertaking the detailed surveys that experts insist are essential.

    This led to some refurbishments running millions of pounds over budget while thousands of other state schools struggled with leaking, decaying buildings in urgent need of repair following the government’s axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010. '

    PS And yes, some have RAAC.

    One reason why BSF was scrapped was so Gove could devote money to his free school and academies programme.

    As with many of Gove's initiatives, it was the right decision to scrap BSF and yet the utterly wrong decision in what to do next.
    Still trying to get used to the idea of a cutting-edge school built in some old shopping centre without, presumably, any playground, let alone playing fields ...
    Well, the latter became the reality for quite a lot of maintained schools under Labour anyway, so I don't think that's quite the killer objection it should be.
    I was wondering about that too ... but it just seems wrong for someone of my age. LIke doing without cash completely, and, you know, not actually funding schools. Primitive of me, I know. (I did write a letter to object when the local Labour council converted playing fields to council houses, must have been about the same time as the wider trend you mention ...).
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    Foxy said:

    To look at the prospects of a Labour majority from a different perspective it is useful to look at their target seats.

    https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

    Taking Broxtowe at 53rd (majority 4.82%)
    should mean Tories out of power.

    Taking Great Grimsby at 134 doesn't seem improbable. It was Labour held in 2017.

    Taking Mansfield at 200th isn't completely ridiculous. It had a 5000+ Lab majority in 2015.





    Yeah but its Keir Starmer; no policies, no charisma, no vision.

This discussion has been closed.