A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com

System

A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com

Every poll which showed a drop in lead was reported like this. pic.twitter.com/6zzrd6Zu1q

Read the full story here

Fishing

I remember similar grasping at straws in the Guardian before 2010 too. Of course Labour denied Cameron the overall majority that at one stage looked inevitable, as the Conservatives failed to do to Blair. So recent history is ambiguous.

ydoethur

Nothing by Sam Freedman is worth going through

More seriously, yes, I remember the headlines before 1997. He could have added the New Statesman on 1st May - 'Dry Land But Probably Not A Landslide.'

He could also however have considered the poll slumps from January to May 2010, which everyone dismissed as noise but turned out to be true. And my memory of that time is that people were even more fed up with Brown than they were with Sunak. Sunak's feeble and despised, but Brown was a figure of fun too.

Fishing

This is an improbably riveting documentary about Paraguay in about 1970 by the way,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67DE3bQ9RBs&t=1566s

Seems like a very quirky country.

Peter_the_Punter

So Sam Freedman has figured that the Tories are going to get mullahed, and he's found yet another reason to believe that.

He must be quite some journalistic talent.




Was nobody first this morning? Maye it's 'cos the clocks went back.

ydoethur

Peter_the_Punter said:

So Sam Freedman has figured that the Tories are going to get mullahed, and he's found yet another reason to believe that.

He must be quite some journalistic talent.




Was nobody first this morning? Maye it's 'cos the clocks went back.

Well, he certainly isn't an administrative or educationalist talent.

That said, he's had an enormous impact on education, just mostly to make things worse.

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

Nothing by Sam Freedman is worth going through

More seriously, yes, I remember the headlines before 1997. He could have added the New Statesman on 1st May - 'Dry Land But Probably Not A Landslide.'

He could also however have considered the poll slumps from January to May 2010, which everyone dismissed as noise but turned out to be true. And my memory of that time is that people were even more fed up with Brown than they were with Sunak. Sunak's feeble and despised, but Brown was a figure of fun too.

That still isn’t the worst general election prediction the New Statesman have ever published.

Don’t think it has been linked on PB before.

'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

Nothing by Sam Freedman is worth going through

More seriously, yes, I remember the headlines before 1997. He could have added the New Statesman on 1st May - 'Dry Land But Probably Not A Landslide.'

He could also however have considered the poll slumps from January to May 2010, which everyone dismissed as noise but turned out to be true. And my memory of that time is that people were even more fed up with Brown than they were with Sunak. Sunak's feeble and despised, but Brown was a figure of fun too.

That still isn’t the worst general election prediction the New Statesman have ever published.

Don’t think it has been linked on PB before.

'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

You're right, I've never seen that before. Who wrote it? Some idiot who never made it?

BartholomewRoberts

I think there's a bit of a myth about 1997 that just because it went so badly for the Tories, that matters didn't improve, that the improving economy didn't help, and that 'holding off' until the last minute made no difference.

The reality is that the polls did narrow, considerably, between late 1995 and election day in 1997. Not enough to change the course of the election overall, but had the election been in 1995 or 1996 instead then there's every chance there'd have been even more of a dockside hooker/stepmom night for the Tories.

There is no reason that 1997 isn't the floor of the worst result the Tories could have. Its simply the worst result the Tories have had so far.

ydoethur

BartholomewRoberts said:

I think there's a bit of a myth about 1997 that just because it went so badly for the Tories, that matters didn't improve, that the improving economy didn't help, and that 'holding off' until the last minute made no difference.

The reality is that the polls did narrow, considerably, between late 1995 and election day in 1997. Not enough to change the course of the election overall, but had the election been in 1995 or 1996 instead then there's every chance there'd have been even more of a dockside hooker/stepmom night for the Tories.

There is no reason that 1997 isn't the floor of the worst result the Tories could have. Its simply the worst result the Tories have had so far.

1906 was worse, in terms of seat share (not in percentage of the vote). Indeed, the then party leader and until two months before, Prime Minister lost his own seat in the debacle.

squareroot2

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

Nothing by Sam Freedman is worth going through

More seriously, yes, I remember the headlines before 1997. He could have added the New Statesman on 1st May - 'Dry Land But Probably Not A Landslide.'

He could also however have considered the poll slumps from January to May 2010, which everyone dismissed as noise but turned out to be true. And my memory of that time is that people were even more fed up with Brown than they were with Sunak. Sunak's feeble and despised, but Brown was a figure of fun too.

That still isn’t the worst general election prediction the New Statesman have ever published.

Don’t think it has been linked on PB before.

'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

One wonders what will happen to the SNP after the deleted WhatsApp debacle.
The arms of the law grow ever closer.
The Party could be eviscerated.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d03c7004-7686-11ee-9496-ba645d21d0d9?shareToken=b7df344cf68585a6dfa6c0bca0ef45a1

Alanbrooke

Russia decides it has been missing pogroms.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/29/anti-israel-mob-airport-plane-dagestan-russia-makhachkala/

Foxy

This "doom loop" in public services is part of the reason for a lack of recovery for the Tories.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/30/uk-public-services-policy-institute-for-government-report

Not that we have seen anything from Labour that will break the cycle.

It is perfectly possible for the polls to get even worse for Sunak. Even Tory voters don't think he is achieving anything.

Heathener

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Heathener

p.s. I had lunch with another tory member friend yesterday and he was talking about the Labour Government. It wasn't 'if' but 'when'. LIke my Surrey tory, he was fairly relaxed about the prospect but making sure he protects his assets in advance as best he can.

Of course, that may simply be reaction to the opinion polls but I do sense the same mood as 1996. Everyone knows what's going to happen.

And remember the country was in decent shape in 1996. This time it's pretty dire.

Alanbrooke

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

Heathener

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

You are of course entitled to your view but it's based on nothing but conjecture so 'unlikely' is entirely subjective and has little or no basis in fact.

They are just as 'likely' to do relatively well, as Blair did because they have a much lower benchmark from which to begin so the adage 'things can only get better' may well this time be the case.

TimS

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

OnlyLivingBoy

1997 carries a sense of inevitability now that it certainly didn't at the time, as those of us who were there at the time will remember only too well. 1992 was fresh in everyone's mind, and we didn't believe the message in the polls. One reason that the result was such pure, unbridled joy was that we didn't expect it. Portillo losing his seat? We had to pinch ourselves. What a night that was.

DavidL

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

Alanbrooke

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

You are of course entitled to your view but it's based on nothing but conjecture so 'unlikely' is entirely subjective and has little or no basis in fact.

They are just as 'likely' to do relatively well, as Blair did because they have a much lower benchmark from which to begin so the adage 'things can only get better' may well this time be the case.

LOL, "conjecture"

Your post was based on chat with a bloke down the pub and described by yourself as subjective,

I am pointing to the poor state of government finances which to quote Liam Byrne means there is no money. There is also no growth plan so I fail to see how Starmer can do that much. I am not that concerned on a Labour govt as they will essentially run this govts policies. Labour will be restricted by cash bar a bit of dabbling to make it look as if it is doing something. It can have more fun on its social engineering side of the equation since this costs less. And ultimately I think thats what we will see if they get in.

TimS

Morning Storm Ciaran update, by major model:

GFS: currently looking like whizzing through the channel with most impacts on the French side, including Jersey and Guernsey.

UKMO: zips through channel too but strongest winds also touching far South East coast of England

GEM: severe impact on South Coast and IoW early Thursday. This model looks nasty.

ECMWF (yesterday’s run): similar to GFS, France gets the brunt.

ICON: clipping the far SE.

Most models show this as a coastal event with not much getting far inland, wind wise. Huge rainfall amounts, also concentrated on the coast.

Alanbrooke

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

TheScreamingEagles

Always said Red Bull fans were utter wankers just like Max Verstappen as Red Bull fans attack fans of other teams.

https://x.com/laurabarr39/status/1718754018049028193?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g

TheScreamingEagles

OnlyLivingBoy said:

1997 carries a sense of inevitability now that it certainly didn't at the time, as those of us who were there at the time will remember only too well. 1992 was fresh in everyone's mind, and we didn't believe the message in the polls. One reason that the result was such pure, unbridled joy was that we didn't expect it. Portillo losing his seat? We had to pinch ourselves. What a night that was.

As my friend’s father says 1987 was just as equally traumatic.

The media said Labour ran the best campaign and the exit poll said hung parliament then we ended up with a Tory majority of 102.

squareroot2

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

The Tories need 10 yrs as a de minimus in Opposition just to let people forget about the stench... post Boris.

TimS

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

Labour would take a 2010 result if it means being in government for the next 13 years, especially if they don’t have to deal with another Brexit and a pandemic during that time.

Alanbrooke

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

The one I fully support is housing so I remain intrigued where he plans to put these. If he knows he will have to declare it pre election and probably take a hit in the relevant places. If he doesnt he will lose at least 2 years getting moving and wont build any houses.

noneoftheabove

The desperate search for comparison to a previous GE is all a bit illogical I'm afraid. We have only a small sample to pick from and the next one is clearly exceptional in several ways. The best guides are polls and household finances.

DavidL

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

Heathener

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

El_Capitano

Heathener said:

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

I’m not entirely sure they will come back. 90% chance they will. But there’s a 10% chance they’ll suffer the fate of the old Liberals, or more recently, the PS in France. No one has a guaranteed right to the voters’ affections, even under FPTP.

Alanbrooke

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

Labour would take a 2010 result if it means being in government for the next 13 years, especially if they don’t have to deal with another Brexit and a pandemic during that time.

They probably wont. The last 5 years have been unfortunate years to be in government with three big hits Covid, cost of living and now Middle East. All of this has required almost war time management of the economy as the debt spiralled up. So maybe we should look at 1945 when the government did all the hard yards but lost because people wanted food on the table and houses.

Monksfield

On topic. The media desire for a horse race is always strong.

Heathener

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

Indeed.

It is, as you say, deluded of @Alanbrooke

In some ways it's the last vestige that tories can cling to. They know they've lost. Now they're left saying that Labour will either do nothing significant, or make a complete mess of it.

They're capable of the latter but we had all this in 1997.

Foxy

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

Indeed it is pretty clear that the Tory party will pick a leader from its right wing fringe. Even a dull and timid Starmer government will be in for a decade before the Tories pick a leader with a plan that will capture centrist voters.

Alanbrooke

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

RochdalePioneers

I know we keep reading that Starmer hasn't yet convinced people. Its true. Like John Major before him there is a warm and interesting personality which seems unwilling to become visible beyond the bland.

However. I'm not sure that matters any more. The public mind has been made up on the Tories. Repeatedly. And on Sunak. With a similar view of the previous idiots plural.

Even if the Tories chop Sunak down and replace him with stop laughing at the back, there's no reason to believe that Tory fortunes will miraculously recover.

When one party is egregiously bad, it doesn't matter that much what the other party is like. Boris delivered an 80 seat majority and a red wall demolition due to fear of Corbyn. Fear of Tory is here, and I don't see how it goes away.

I know that the few remaining PB Tory Ultras insist that the country isn't broken and that services haven't crumbled away to crisis level. But in the real world they have, and the more that they deny reality the more determined people are to vote them out.

Sunak had one possible play - accept the mess, blame his predecessors and drive a quick plan to show rapid improvements. I think thats what his conference speech was supposed to do. But it has totally failed. Instead of accepting the mess and driving improvements, they send Coffey out to blame the wrong type of rain.

Heathener

Monksfield said:

On topic. The media desire for a horse race is always strong.

Very very true. A slam dunk election is, to quote Mike Smithson on the US '24 election, 'boring'.

However, this will be a seachange election and for me that's the most exciting part. People are extremely angry. And that 'bloke down the pub' is always worth listening to, even if he is in fact a card carrying member of the tory party and you're in a cafe.

Listen to ordinary people (subjective) and it confirms what the national opinion polls are saying (objective): the tories are in for a shellacking.

Nigelb

Pitching for Putin's vote.

“Does that mean if Russia attacks my country you will not be there?”

“That’s right, that’s what it means, I will not protect you.”

[cheers]
https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1718817018562871306

Nigelb

Not convinced this is the best look for the new Speaker.

The NRA is out with a new ad tonight featuring new Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.

In the ad, Johnson says he opposes background checks and waiting periods to purchase firearms.
https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1718793662652637638

Alanbrooke

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

Monksfield

Foxy said:

This "doom loop" in public services is part of the reason for a lack of recovery for the Tories.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/30/uk-public-services-policy-institute-for-government-report

Not that we have seen anything from Labour that will break the cycle.

It is perfectly possible for the polls to get even worse for Sunak. Even Tory voters don't think he is achieving anything.

This is why I think there is political room for Starmer to be genuinely radical. And yet the Labour party doesn’t seem to get it. The country as a whole is in a much worse place than it was in 1997 and fixing health, social care, infrastructure at local and national level is vital. That needs more than Blairism redux.

Heathener

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

Foxy

Nigelb said:

Pitching for Putin's vote.

“Does that mean if Russia attacks my country you will not be there?”

“That’s right, that’s what it means, I will not protect you.”

[cheers]
https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1718817018562871306

Trump was referring to Canada in that speech.

President Trump is going to be the most isolationist President for a century. That is probably better than him pursuing an actively destructive foreign policy.

Nigelb

AI does maths.

FormalGeo: The First Step Toward Human-like IMO-level Geometric Automated Reasoning
https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18021

SouthamObserver

I still tend towards Labour most seats but no overall majority, or small overall majority at best, on the basis that 1997 was the exception rather than the rule. The other turnovers after long periods of one party rule - 1964 and 2010 - were far less conclusive.

But I do remember the pre-1997 Tory denialism very well. As the Tories are considered the natural party of government by most of those involved in politics and the media on all sides, looking for reasons why they won’t lose or, if they do, will soon be back is entirely understandable.

However, the Tories seem to have changed. They’ve lost sight of pragmatism and the importance of quiet competence. That’s why I’m far from convinced that should they lose at the next GE they won’t be out of power for quite a while.

There were things they could point to and that most voters could relate to that happened between 1979 and 1997 that changed the country for the better. There were things Labour could point to for 1997 to 2010. I see next to nothing on the positive side for 2010 to 2023. Combine that with a leader who the members love but the more centrist electorate don’t, and it’s going to be a problem.

Monksfield

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

When you get down to it the Tories are *for* what Liz Truss offered. Leavened with some Faragism. Your problem is that beyond a dying generation, the country basically disagrees.

Foxy

With the SNP simultaneously collapsing in internal funds brought on by the fatigue and failures of government too, Starmer is a very lucky general indeed.

Alanbrooke

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

Sorting out a busted flush in his own party is housekeeping. On most of the major issues he has pronounced he has subsequently backed off - let's watch Gaza.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

Nigelb

This is China, so it's officially sanctioned antisemitism.

A wave of antisemitic comments is sweeping across Chinese social media, with searches and mentions of the phrase “anti-Jew” skyrocketing on WeChat and news story comments attacking anyone defending Israeli actions and levelling threats at Jews.
https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/1718802650035269765

Heathener

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

Indeed it is pretty clear that the Tory party will pick a leader from its right wing fringe. Even a dull and timid Starmer government will be in for a decade before the Tories pick a leader with a plan that will capture centrist voters.

Yes, with apologies to @noneoftheabove , the reason we study history is that it does tend to repeat itself.

After 1979, Labour lurched to the Left with an unelectable neo-trotskyite Michael Foot.

After 1997, the Conservatives lurched to the right in not such an extreme way but William Hague wasn't at his finest, and Michael Howard likewise hardly appealed to the centre ground of British politics.

It will be interesting to see what they do. If they go for someone like Braverman, Badenoch, or Patel then they're going to lose the next election too.

Wilderness years ahead. No wonder the likes of Jeremy Hunt want to jump now.

murali_s

TimS said:

Morning Storm Ciaran update, by major model:

GFS: currently looking like whizzing through the channel with most impacts on the French side, including Jersey and Guernsey.

UKMO: zips through channel too but strongest winds also touching far South East coast of England

GEM: severe impact on South Coast and IoW early Thursday. This model looks nasty.

ECMWF (yesterday’s run): similar to GFS, France gets the brunt.

ICON: clipping the far SE.

Most models show this as a coastal event with not much getting far inland, wind wise. Huge rainfall amounts, also concentrated on the coast.

Comprehensive summary Tim. The latest ECMWF (0z) does take the low a tad further north. Still looks awful for coastal towns on the South coast.

Alanbrooke

Monksfield said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

When you get down to it the Tories are *for* what Liz Truss offered. Leavened with some Faragism. Your problem is that beyond a dying generation, the country basically disagrees.

At present I dont see the country agreeing on very much. I can undersand Labourites getting nervous as the election approaches since main policies are just not being the Tories. However this country has flipped numerous times in my life and will do so again. In all likelihood to Labour in the next 12months. D

Heathener

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

That doesn't make it right, or clever, to slur anyone with nicknames, even if they are a politician. I'd say the same thing about people for example who use Sunak's height pejoratively.

This site is better without stooping to silly insults, even if we don't personally like that politician.

murali_s

Alanbrooke said:

Monksfield said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

When you get down to it the Tories are *for* what Liz Truss offered. Leavened with some Faragism. Your problem is that beyond a dying generation, the country basically disagrees.

At present I dont see the country agreeing on very much. I can undersand Labourites getting nervous as the election approaches since main policies are just not being the Tories. However this country has flipped numerous times in my life and will do so again. In all likelihood to Labour in the next 12months. D

But then the Tories need to reinvent themselves or else it’s game over. Some of the vote splits by demographics are awful for the Conservative Party.

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

We know the Tories are adrift and clueless, since they are proving it on government.
Your attempts to predict the future are really no more objective than Heathener's.

Alanbrooke

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

That doesn't make it right, or clever, to slur anyone with nicknames, even if they are a politician. I'd say the same thing about people for example who use Sunak's height pejoratively.

This site is better without stooping to silly insults, even if we don't personally like that politician.

It's also better when we dont have childish acts of closing off things we dont like. Starmer and his team are quite capable of silly insults and personal attacks - "Tory scum". Maybe he should start by putting his own house in order, Im sure the rest of us will follow his lead

Alanbrooke

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

We know the Tories are adrift and clueless, since they are proving it on government.
Your attempts to predict the future are really no more objective than Heathener's.

Yes thats true, its called opinion. Do you have one ? Maybe you should express it.

TheScreamingEagles

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

That doesn't make it right, or clever, to slur anyone with nicknames, even if they are a politician. I'd say the same thing about people for example who use Sunak's height pejoratively.

This site is better without stooping to silly insults, even if we don't personally like that politician.

Absolutely. You wouldn’t see a thread writer belittling Sunak’s height in a thread header.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/06/13/rishi-sunak-looks-like-a-homunculus-this-may-stymie-his-leadership-ambitions/

Nigelb

Taiwan’s Vice President
@ChingteLai, a leading candidate in the 2024 race, marched in the Taipei Pride Parade on Saturday. Accompanied by his
@DPPonline comrades, Lai has became the highest ranking Taiwanese official to be part of Asia’s largest LGBT gathering.
https://twitter.com/joyuwang/status/1718211372373397862

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

That doesn't make it right, or clever, to slur anyone with nicknames, even if they are a politician. I'd say the same thing about people for example who use Sunak's height pejoratively.

This site is better without stooping to silly insults, even if we don't personally like that politician.

Absolutely. You wouldn’t see a thread writer belittling Sunak’s height in a thread header.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/06/13/rishi-sunak-looks-like-a-homunculus-this-may-stymie-his-leadership-ambitions/

Just as well Miss H wasnt here in Indyref times.

TheScreamingEagles

So I’ve got two threads lined up.

1) Why Starmer was always nailed onto win the next general election

2) Labour majority? You’re having a laugh.

Scott_xP

Nigelb said:

Pitching for Putin's vote.

“Does that mean if Russia attacks my country you will not be there?”

“That’s right, that’s what it means, I will not protect you.”

[cheers]
https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1718817018562871306

@BidenHQ
Trump gets the name of the city he’s in wrong, forcing someone on stage to apparently whisper in his ear where he actually is: “You’re in Sioux City, Mr. President”
https://x.com/BidenHQ/status/1718723159355019558?s=20

TheScreamingEagles

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

That doesn't make it right, or clever, to slur anyone with nicknames, even if they are a politician. I'd say the same thing about people for example who use Sunak's height pejoratively.

This site is better without stooping to silly insults, even if we don't personally like that politician.

Absolutely. You wouldn’t see a thread writer belittling Sunak’s height in a thread header.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/06/13/rishi-sunak-looks-like-a-homunculus-this-may-stymie-his-leadership-ambitions/

Just as well Miss H wasnt here in Indyref times.

There’s something fishy about every SNP First Minister.

Salmond.

Sturgeon.

Current FM is MSP for Pollok.

Very fishy.

SouthamObserver

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

Pitching for Putin's vote.

“Does that mean if Russia attacks my country you will not be there?”

“That’s right, that’s what it means, I will not protect you.”

[cheers]
https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1718817018562871306

Trump was referring to Canada in that speech.

President Trump is going to be the most isolationist President for a century. That is probably better than him pursuing an actively destructive foreign policy.

If isolationism means withdrawing support for Ukraine, then it will be immensely destructive and will run directly contrary to UK interests. It beggars belief that we, along with other European countries, seem to have done nothing about planning for his return - or the election of any other Republican isolationist. It is an extraordinary failure of leadership to assume the US will always be there when every indication coming out of Washington DC and beyond is that if the GOP takes the White House, it won’t be.

It’s also bizarre that the Republicans themselves cannot see (or, more accurately, refuse to acknowledge) the strong ties that exist between Putin, Iran and Hamas. If you really want to help Israel, you stick with Ukraine, a country that backs Israel, that is led by a Jewish President and where Jewish people do not need to fear pogroms.

Foxy

SouthamObserver said:

I still tend towards Labour most seats but no overall majority, or small overall majority at best, on the basis that 1997 was the exception rather than the rule. The other turnovers after long periods of one party rule - 1964 and 2010 - were far less conclusive.

But I do remember the pre-1997 Tory denialism very well. As the Tories are considered the natural party of government by most of those involved in politics and the media on all sides, looking for reasons why they won’t lose or, if they do, will soon be back is entirely understandable.

However, the Tories seem to have changed. They’ve lost sight of pragmatism and the importance of quiet competence. That’s why I’m far from convinced that should they lose at the next GE they won’t be out of power for quite a while.

There were things they could point to and that most voters could relate to that happened between 1979 and 1997 that changed the country for the better. There were things Labour could point to for 1997 to 2010. I see next to nothing on the positive side for 2010 to 2023. Combine that with a leader who the members love but the more centrist electorate don’t, and it’s going to be a problem.

Afurther bit of luck heading for the lucky general will be the timing of economic recovery. That isn't going to happen in the next year, but almost certainly will in the following 5 years. It will just be the economic cycle turning, but governments get the credit.

TheScreamingEagles

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

That doesn't make it right, or clever, to slur anyone with nicknames, even if they are a politician. I'd say the same thing about people for example who use Sunak's height pejoratively.

This site is better without stooping to silly insults, even if we don't personally like that politician.

Absolutely. You wouldn’t see a thread writer belittling Sunak’s height in a thread header.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/06/13/rishi-sunak-looks-like-a-homunculus-this-may-stymie-his-leadership-ambitions/

Just as well Miss H wasnt here in Indyref times.

Such innocent times.

IanB2

Alanbrooke said:

Monksfield said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

When you get down to it the Tories are *for* what Liz Truss offered. Leavened with some Faragism. Your problem is that beyond a dying generation, the country basically disagrees.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.D

That depends more on how quickly the Tories move through the five stages of grief, and particularly on how long they remain in denial. HY's predictions based on his inside knowledge suggest this may take some years.

OldKingCole

Good morning everybody.
On topic, there is an article in the Guardian this morning, expressing concern about Muslim voters and their dissatisfaction with labours stand of a Gaza. And I must say I have some sympathy with that.

Alanbrooke

murali_s said:

Alanbrooke said:

Monksfield said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

When you get down to it the Tories are *for* what Liz Truss offered. Leavened with some Faragism. Your problem is that beyond a dying generation, the country basically disagrees.

At present I dont see the country agreeing on very much. I can undersand Labourites getting nervous as the election approaches since main policies are just not being the Tories. However this country has flipped numerous times in my life and will do so again. In all likelihood to Labour in the next 12months. D

But then the Tories need to reinvent themselves or else it’s game over. Some of the vote splits by demographics are awful for the Conservative Party.

You seem to think governments are here for ever. Theyre not. Few UK governments go beyond 12 years. Nor is the population static. Over time generations disagree with each other and political parties take sides on the disagreement. UK politics tends to be one party or the other, the only way this will meaningfully change is if we adopt PR.

williamglenn

https://x.com/abdbozkurt/status/1718274691494715763

Foxy

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

That doesn't make it right, or clever, to slur anyone with nicknames, even if they are a politician. I'd say the same thing about people for example who use Sunak's height pejoratively.

This site is better without stooping to silly insults, even if we don't personally like that politician.

Absolutely. You wouldn’t see a thread writer belittling Sunak’s height in a thread header.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/06/13/rishi-sunak-looks-like-a-homunculus-this-may-stymie-his-leadership-ambitions/

Just as well Miss H wasnt here in Indyref times.

There’s something fishy about every SNP First Minister.

Salmond.

Sturgeon.

Current FM is MSP for Pollok.

Very fishy.

No plaice for them at the GE though.

IanB2

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

That doesn't make it right, or clever, to slur anyone with nicknames, even if they are a politician. I'd say the same thing about people for example who use Sunak's height pejoratively.

This site is better without stooping to silly insults, even if we don't personally like that politician.

Absolutely. You wouldn’t see a thread writer belittling Sunak’s height in a thread header.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/06/13/rishi-sunak-looks-like-a-homunculus-this-may-stymie-his-leadership-ambitions/

Just as well Miss H wasnt here in Indyref times.

There’s something fishy about every SNP First Minister.

Salmond.

Sturgeon.

Current FM is MSP for Pollok.

Very fishy.

No plaice for them at the GE though.

Brill

Ghedebrav

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

That doesn't make it right, or clever, to slur anyone with nicknames, even if they are a politician. I'd say the same thing about people for example who use Sunak's height pejoratively.

This site is better without stooping to silly insults, even if we don't personally like that politician.

Absolutely. You wouldn’t see a thread writer belittling Sunak’s height in a thread header.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/06/13/rishi-sunak-looks-like-a-homunculus-this-may-stymie-his-leadership-ambitions/

Just as well Miss H wasnt here in Indyref times.

There’s something fishy about every SNP First Minister.

Salmond.

Sturgeon.

Current FM is MSP for Pollok.

Very fishy.

No plaice for them at the GE though.

Depends on the scale of the swing.

Benpointer

OldKingCole said:

Good morning everybody.
On topic, there is an article in the Guardian this morning, expressing concern about Muslim voters and their dissatisfaction with labours stand of a Gaza. And I must say I have some sympathy with that.

They’re not going to bent more satisfied with the Tories’ stance though, are they?

Sean_F

Alanbrooke said:

murali_s said:

Alanbrooke said:

Monksfield said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

When you get down to it the Tories are *for* what Liz Truss offered. Leavened with some Faragism. Your problem is that beyond a dying generation, the country basically disagrees.

At present I dont see the country agreeing on very much. I can undersand Labourites getting nervous as the election approaches since main policies are just not being the Tories. However this country has flipped numerous times in my life and will do so again. In all likelihood to Labour in the next 12months. D

But then the Tories need to reinvent themselves or else it’s game over. Some of the vote splits by demographics are awful for the Conservative Party.

You seem to think governments are here for ever. Theyre not. Few UK governments go beyond 12 years. Nor is the population static. Over time generations disagree with each other and political parties take sides on the disagreement. UK politics tends to be one party or the other, the only way this will meaningfully change is if we adopt PR.

The Conservatives could vanish, but they'd be replaced by another party on the centre right. The right-left divide is fundamental in almost every democracy.

Foxy

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/abdbozkurt/status/1718274691494715763

"We, as the Turkish nation, are the only people on earth who have not committed racism throughout history,”

claims Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1717929334843830455?t=fkVUlIBpYVtKQlYvJNySDA&s=19

Armenians, Kurds, Assyrian Christians, Pontine Greeks, and a number of others may disagree somewhat.

Alanbrooke

Sean_F said:

Alanbrooke said:

murali_s said:

Alanbrooke said:

Monksfield said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

When you get down to it the Tories are *for* what Liz Truss offered. Leavened with some Faragism. Your problem is that beyond a dying generation, the country basically disagrees.

At present I dont see the country agreeing on very much. I can undersand Labourites getting nervous as the election approaches since main policies are just not being the Tories. However this country has flipped numerous times in my life and will do so again. In all likelihood to Labour in the next 12months. D

But then the Tories need to reinvent themselves or else it’s game over. Some of the vote splits by demographics are awful for the Conservative Party.

You seem to think governments are here for ever. Theyre not. Few UK governments go beyond 12 years. Nor is the population static. Over time generations disagree with each other and political parties take sides on the disagreement. UK politics tends to be one party or the other, the only way this will meaningfully change is if we adopt PR.

The Conservatives could vanish, but they'd be replaced by another party on the centre right. The right-left divide is fundamental in almost every democracy.

Yes agreed. However I think we are gong through one of those periods of whats left and whats right are evolving. The lines are fuzzy atm

Sean_F

In my view, a Labour win at the next GE is pretty much a done deal.

It's perhaps surprising that this government has lasted so long. The whole post 2008 period has somewhat resembled the 1918-45 period, a time of low growth, high anxiety, and frequent external shocks - albeit the earlier period was much harsher than now. Although, come to think of it, the Conservatives did hold power for most of that period.

Labour and Starmer are not popular, which suggests that their support could fall sharply after 2025. As against that, they should benefit from decent economic growth. As against that, they face the fundamental problem that increasing spending on public services doesn't seem to make them any better. And, plenty of external dangers lurk, which are not the fault of any government, but the government gets the blame anyway.

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

We know the Tories are adrift and clueless, since they are proving it on government.
Your attempts to predict the future are really no more objective than Heathener's.

Yes thats true, its called opinion. Do you have one ? Maybe you should express it.

I've countered your assertion that Labour has 'no policies' before.
Clearly a waste of my time.

Fishing

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

Labour governments only work politically when the private sector coughs up money for them to steal and waste, as it did in the 90s and early 2000s, thanks ironically to the legacy of Conservative economic policies. As that's unlikely, as the country is much less cohesive and as he has no charisma or vision, beyond getting and staying in power, I think it is highly likely that you're right.

Nigelb

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

They do have quite a few policies, but they’re not being aired much in the press because most are not controversial. Media like controversial policies. The only ones with the potential to stir up major argument are on house building.

I know I my area (tax) there are a number of reforms on the table. Nothing radical like hiking the basic rate or merging NI, but nor were there in 1996.

So far pretty similar to Blair/Brown pre 97 I’d say.

Well I rarely see them and the few I have have been less than convincing or inconsequential,

[...]

I 'just' remember all this guff before May 1979. People were saying that things wouldn't change that much, that the country's problems meant there was only limited room for anything different.

Maybe, but Thatcher had a steel in her soul that Starmer doesnt. Sir wibble will take his lawyerly approach to life and not push things through.

Like he hasn't dealt decisively with the Labour Left you mean? I think you underestimate him for reasons that seem to be more to do with wanting him to fail than looking at the facts dispassionately.

But calling him 'wibble' demeans yourself, especially as someone who writes threads for this site. You should do better than this.

As for your second point I'm Irish and have a different value system to you. #Diversity.

That doesn't make it right, or clever, to slur anyone with nicknames, even if they are a politician. I'd say the same thing about people for example who use Sunak's height pejoratively.

This site is better without stooping to silly insults, even if we don't personally like that politician.

Absolutely. You wouldn’t see a thread writer belittling Sunak’s height in a thread header.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/06/13/rishi-sunak-looks-like-a-homunculus-this-may-stymie-his-leadership-ambitions/

Just as well Miss H wasnt here in Indyref times.

There’s something fishy about every SNP First Minister.

Salmond.

Sturgeon.

Current FM is MSP for Pollok.

Very fishy.

No plaice for them at the GE though.

Floundering.

Malmesbury

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/abdbozkurt/status/1718274691494715763

"We, as the Turkish nation, are the only people on earth who have not committed racism throughout history,”

claims Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1717929334843830455?t=fkVUlIBpYVtKQlYvJNySDA&s=19

Armenians, Kurds, Assyrian Christians, Pontine Greeks, and a number of others may disagree somewhat.

I wonder - does anyone see a future where Turkey gets all self absorbed in the wrongness of the Ottoman Empire?

Or will the GA Henty version of their National Story march on and on?

Sean_F

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/abdbozkurt/status/1718274691494715763

"We, as the Turkish nation, are the only people on earth who have not committed racism throughout history,”

claims Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1717929334843830455?t=fkVUlIBpYVtKQlYvJNySDA&s=19

Armenians, Kurds, Assyrian Christians, Pontine Greeks, and a number of others may disagree somewhat.

Erdogan would say they were all rebels and traitors, justly punished.

Alanbrooke

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

And yet, as I have pointed out before, the government has changed twice in my adult life time, in 1997 and 2010. One of the other things I remember from 1997 is Tories deluding themselves that the new Labour government would rapidly fall apart and things would be back to "normal" soon enough.

Whilst I agree that disillusionment will set in for the new government many of those in Ministerial positions in Westminster will never be in power again. They should think about that and try and do something useful in their remaining months.

I dont think Labour can do that much so the fear factor isnt there to support Sunak. I think this could be more like 2010. I remember on PB.com the conservative posters went from nailed on 12 months out to what ? as the results came in. Cameron had a massive mountain to climb but never fully convinced the electorate. I think Starmer is in a similar position.

I don't disagree with that. Starmer is probably even less scary than Blair and Brown appeared at the time. Their policies, such as they are, are tinkering at the edges, a billion here raised by X and a billion there raised by Y. In the scheme of a public sector consuming £800bn a year already they are meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the Tories will be back any time soon. They have got to find another Cameron or another Boris electorally: someone who can reach beyond the base and bring in significant numbers of the uncommitted. I don't see anyone in their party that even has the first clue how to do that.

The Tories have no more any policies than Labour. They need to start by deciding what they are for. But the 5 year 10 year debate in my view comes down the to size of majority a Labour Govt will have, I cant see there being much good news in a first term so if its a small majority a disillusioned electorate may quickly change their minds. If its a larger majority they will probably hang on for two terms.

We know the Tories are adrift and clueless, since they are proving it on government.
Your attempts to predict the future are really no more objective than Heathener's.

Yes thats true, its called opinion. Do you have one ? Maybe you should express it.

I've countered your assertion that Labour has 'no policies' before.
Clearly a waste of my time.

Ive asked for your opinion not Labours.

If youre saying your opinions are Labours then perhaps you could put some links up or even better run an article for the editorial team and give us a break from Gaza.

Seriously.

Sean_F

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/abdbozkurt/status/1718274691494715763

"We, as the Turkish nation, are the only people on earth who have not committed racism throughout history,”

claims Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1717929334843830455?t=fkVUlIBpYVtKQlYvJNySDA&s=19

Armenians, Kurds, Assyrian Christians, Pontine Greeks, and a number of others may disagree somewhat.

I wonder - does anyone see a future where Turkey gets all self absorbed in the wrongness of the Ottoman Empire?

Or will the GA Henty version of their National Story march on and on?

It's only in Western countries that people get concerned about imperial history. In places like China, Iran, or Turkey, or Russia, it's seen as glorious.

JosiasJessop

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/abdbozkurt/status/1718274691494715763

"We, as the Turkish nation, are the only people on earth who have not committed racism throughout history,”

claims Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1717929334843830455?t=fkVUlIBpYVtKQlYvJNySDA&s=19

Armenians, Kurds, Assyrian Christians, Pontine Greeks, and a number of others may disagree somewhat.

I wonder - does anyone see a future where Turkey gets all self absorbed in the wrongness of the Ottoman Empire?

Or will the GA Henty version of their National Story march on and on?

We have one poster on here who appears to think the Ottoman Empire was a-okay...

Foxy

Sean_F said:

In my view, a Labour win at the next GE is pretty much a done deal.

It's perhaps surprising that this government has lasted so long. The whole post 2008 period has somewhat resembled the 1918-45 period, a time of low growth, high anxiety, and frequent external shocks - albeit the earlier period was much harsher than now. Although, come to think of it, the Conservatives did hold power for most of that period.

Labour and Starmer are not popular, which suggests that their support could fall sharply after 2025. As against that, they should benefit from decent economic growth. As against that, they face the fundamental problem that increasing spending on public services doesn't seem to make them any better. And, plenty of external dangers lurk, which are not the fault of any government, but the government gets the blame anyway.

Actually from 1933 to 1939 Britain had a booming economy.

Benpointer

Fishing said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

Labour governments only work politically when the private sector coughs up money for them to steal and waste, as it did in the 90s and early 2000s, thanks ironically to the legacy of Conservative economic policies. As that's unlikely, as the country is much less cohesive and as he has no charisma or vision, beyond getting and staying in power, I think it is highly likely that you're right.

Wishful Tory thinking.

Edit: If the private sector is coughing up the money how can it be stolen?

Stuartinromford

BartholomewRoberts said:

I think there's a bit of a myth about 1997 that just because it went so badly for the Tories, that matters didn't improve, that the improving economy didn't help, and that 'holding off' until the last minute made no difference.

The reality is that the polls did narrow, considerably, between late 1995 and election day in 1997. Not enough to change the course of the election overall, but had the election been in 1995 or 1996 instead then there's every chance there'd have been even more of a dockside hooker/stepmom night for the Tories.

There is no reason that 1997 isn't the floor of the worst result the Tories could have. Its simply the worst result the Tories have had so far.

Depends which polls you looked at.

There was a massive difference between different firms, the sort that makes People Polling vs. Opinium look like complete consensus;



All those red dots below the line were ICM, who were experimenting with Shy Tory adjustments. The red dots at the top were Gallup who didn't.

The difference was huge; Gallup we're getting scores in the ballpark L55C25 one year out, whereas ICM were about L45C30.

The Gallup series (and others using similar approaches) did show quite a lot of swing back in the last year. ICM didn't really, and they got the answer basically right from quite a long way out.

TLDR: Some polls did show the Conservatives clawing back support. But they were probably duff polls and I don't think anyone polls like that now.

Two other exhibits for the collection. I'm sure I remember a Boris Johnson column in the Telegraph where he tried the "Labour's vote didn't actually go up" excuse after one of the by election tonkings (memorable because he used the phrase "It don't mean a thing of it ain't got that swing"). And the Daily Mail front page on 1 May 1997, "THE GREAT DON'T KNOW FACTOR".

Alanbrooke

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

In my view, a Labour win at the next GE is pretty much a done deal.

It's perhaps surprising that this government has lasted so long. The whole post 2008 period has somewhat resembled the 1918-45 period, a time of low growth, high anxiety, and frequent external shocks - albeit the earlier period was much harsher than now. Although, come to think of it, the Conservatives did hold power for most of that period.

Labour and Starmer are not popular, which suggests that their support could fall sharply after 2025. As against that, they should benefit from decent economic growth. As against that, they face the fundamental problem that increasing spending on public services doesn't seem to make them any better. And, plenty of external dangers lurk, which are not the fault of any government, but the government gets the blame anyway.

Actually from 1933 to 1939 Britain had a booming economy.

True, but wasnt there a north south split in this ? The south had a lot of the light\future industries such as cars and aerospace, the north heavy industries. The Jarrow March was 1936 and The road to Wigan Pier was 1937.

Nigelb

Best national anthem, example 899...
https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1718780761870864629

NickPalmer

Sean_F said:

In my view, a Labour win at the next GE is pretty much a done deal.

It's perhaps surprising that this government has lasted so long. The whole post 2008 period has somewhat resembled the 1918-45 period, a time of low growth, high anxiety, and frequent external shocks - albeit the earlier period was much harsher than now. Although, come to think of it, the Conservatives did hold power for most of that period.

Labour and Starmer are not popular, which suggests that their support could fall sharply after 2025. As against that, they should benefit from decent economic growth. As against that, they face the fundamental problem that increasing spending on public services doesn't seem to make them any better. And, plenty of external dangers lurk, which are not the fault of any government, but the government gets the blame anyway.

Minimal expectations have their advantages, though I don't advocate total timidity. On the Conservatives, I think they've moved beyond the point where people are reluctant to give them another 5 years - the idea just seems to many floating voters to be ridiculous. Sunak's best shot is probably a massive reshuffle, to give his "change" and "Fresh start" image a chance.

JosiasJessop

So... rumours that a new east-west highway will be 'proposed' (Cambridge to Oxford, presumably...), which was cancelled a handful of years ago. And the East-West rail project will be scrapped to Cambridge.

If true, it looks like the Tories are going very much for a 'we luv tarmac' election.

And I hope the nimbys in villages like Haslingfield have a six-lane motorway driven past their homes...

https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295877582762269

OldKingCole

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

In my view, a Labour win at the next GE is pretty much a done deal.

It's perhaps surprising that this government has lasted so long. The whole post 2008 period has somewhat resembled the 1918-45 period, a time of low growth, high anxiety, and frequent external shocks - albeit the earlier period was much harsher than now. Although, come to think of it, the Conservatives did hold power for most of that period.

Labour and Starmer are not popular, which suggests that their support could fall sharply after 2025. As against that, they should benefit from decent economic growth. As against that, they face the fundamental problem that increasing spending on public services doesn't seem to make them any better. And, plenty of external dangers lurk, which are not the fault of any government, but the government gets the blame anyway.

Actually from 1933 to 1939 Britain had a booming economy.

For some. And those at the bottom had been there since 1920 or so.
I’ve a hazy memory that the Army Education Corps had a considerable effect on the 1945 election.

Alphabet_Soup

BBC have found an interesting
image to illustrate a headline about extremism.

londonpubman

JosiasJessop said:

So... rumours that a new east-west highway will be 'proposed' (Cambridge to Oxford, presumably...), which was cancelled a handful of years ago. And the East-West rail project will be scrapped to Cambridge.

If true, it looks like the Tories are going very much for a 'we luv tarmac' election.

And I hope the nimbys in villages like Haslingfield have a six-lane motorway driven past their homes...

https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295877582762269

East West rail was never going to get to Cambridge. I will be surprised if Bicester to Bletchley ever opens!

Pulpstar

Fishing said:

Alanbrooke said:

Heathener said:

A Labour win. I've never been more certain from a betting pov on anything.

What hopes the tories had were dashed by the lunacy of Liz Truss. The already tarnished brand was finally trashed.

They will come back, I'm equally sure. But when? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? That's really the only debating point left now, not because we should close down discussion but because a Labour win is nailed on.

Personally, and this bit is much more subjective / spiritual ... I think they have lost it for a generation so the defeat will be like 1979 and 1997. But that bit is uncertain. If Labour stuff it up, which they are perfectly capable of doing and / or world events overwhelm them, and IF the tories come to their senses and appoint someone who isn't a nasty, then they could come back much sooner.

Unlikely

If they win labour will get a 6 month holiday and then they will start to watch the polls head south. Labour has no policies in the air atm and being all things to all voters only works for an election. After that people start to get disappointed when their problems havent gone away

Labour governments only work politically when the private sector coughs up money for them to steal and waste, as it did in the 90s and early 2000s, thanks ironically to the legacy of Conservative economic policies. As that's unlikely, as the country is much less cohesive and as he has no charisma or vision, beyond getting and staying in power, I think it is highly likely that you're right.

Is it a Labour Gov't that's upped corporation tax from 19 -> 25% ? The augmented profits cap of £50 -> 250k is far too low to not catch plenty of UK SMEs too.

Nigelb

Councils in England facing bankruptcy as lack of housing pushes up costs
Budgets could be overwhelmed as evictions and rising mortgage rates cause homelessness to surge
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/30/councils-in-england-facing-bankruptcy-as-lack-of-housing-pushes-up-costs

Sean_F

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

In my view, a Labour win at the next GE is pretty much a done deal.

It's perhaps surprising that this government has lasted so long. The whole post 2008 period has somewhat resembled the 1918-45 period, a time of low growth, high anxiety, and frequent external shocks - albeit the earlier period was much harsher than now. Although, come to think of it, the Conservatives did hold power for most of that period.

Labour and Starmer are not popular, which suggests that their support could fall sharply after 2025. As against that, they should benefit from decent economic growth. As against that, they face the fundamental problem that increasing spending on public services doesn't seem to make them any better. And, plenty of external dangers lurk, which are not the fault of any government, but the government gets the blame anyway.

Actually from 1933 to 1939 Britain had a booming economy.

That's true, but much of that was catch up, from the Depression. Real wages only passed their level of 1920 in 1937.