The polls – December 2023 compared with a year ago – politicalbetting.com

System

The polls – December 2023 compared with a year ago – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

rcs1000

First

londonpubman

CON still top 2 😈

TimS

Labour down
Tories down
SNP down
Lib Dems up
Reform up
Greens flat

AverageNinja

If somebody had said - I did but I am always right - in 2020 that three years later Labour would be 20 points ahead and SKS would almost certainly be PM they'd have put you into a mental asylum.

isam

AverageNinja said:

If somebody had said - I did but I am always right - in 2020 that three years later Labour would be 20 points ahead and SKS would almost certainly be PM they'd have put you into a mental asylum.

Hey that’s no kind of language, some people suffer with their mental health! Be kind!

rcs1000

AverageNinja said:

If somebody had said - I did but I am always right - in 2020 that three years later Labour would be 20 points ahead and SKS would almost certainly be PM they'd have put you into a mental asylum.

So, when did you get out?

IanB2

Armageddon then, Armageddon now. The just desserts are ordered and merely need to be delivered. Hopefully.

Peter_the_Punter

Labour are in a sweet spot.

If the lead were smaller, they would worry about its erosion before the GE. if it were any bigger, they would worry that it might provoke the Tories into doing something about it (like change leader, or policies, or their PR people). As thing stand, they can simply enjoy running down the clock and with minimal effort cruise towards a return to power.

They won't even need to start trying until much closer to election day, and even then they won't need much in the way of policies. Just 'we're not the other lot' should do it.

Just how lucky can General Starmer get.

stodge

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

IanB2

AverageNinja said:

If somebody had said - I did but I am always right - in 2020 that three years later Labour would be 20 points ahead and SKS would almost certainly be PM they'd have put you into a mental asylum.

Yes, but if somebody had said in May 2017 that Mrs M was going to lose her majority….yet just three weeks later, she did!

IanB2

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

Sunil_Prasannan

Jim_Miller

Off topic, but of interest to many of you:
'New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) has been a thorn in Donald Trump’s side for quite some time. This week, he upped the ante, offering his endorsement for Trump’s 2024 presidential rival — former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley.

In an interview with ABC News’s Jonathan Karl, Sununu offered a prediction about the results of his state’s primary in just over a month.

“She’s gonna win in a landslide,” he said, “and that’s not an exaggeration.”'
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/15/new-hampshire-governors-prediction-haley-landslide-his-state/

Analyst Philip Bump points out that big shifts are common in the weeks before the New Hampshire primary -- and has considerable data to support that conclusion.

Nigelb

Jim_Miller said:

Off topic, but of interest to many of you:
'New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) has been a thorn in Donald Trump’s side for quite some time. This week, he upped the ante, offering his endorsement for Trump’s 2024 presidential rival — former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley.

In an interview with ABC News’s Jonathan Karl, Sununu offered a prediction about the results of his state’s primary in just over a month.

“She’s gonna win in a landslide,” he said, “and that’s not an exaggeration.”'
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/15/new-hampshire-governors-prediction-haley-landslide-his-state/

Analyst Philip Bump points out that big shifts are common in the weeks before the New Hampshire primary -- and has considerable data to support that conclusion.

Hi Jim, regarding your post on the previous thread, I was referring to Youngkin.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4631209#Comment_4631209

(I'd never insult you by suggesting you're a Trump admirer.)

stodge

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Stuartinromford

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

Depends.

If they're in the category where the c in conservative is small, then there's a lot to despair about. One nation wet conservatism has been on life support for a while and the noise from the monitoring machine doesn't sound promising. See the waving through of the Rwanda (whatever you say, Prime Minister) bill this week.

And whilst they remain the main opposition, the position of the Conservative Party is a lot more vulnerable than Labour's state in 2019. They had a plausible front bench in exile. The Conservatives don't, really- hence the need to drape Dave in ermine. And the age profile of every level of conservatism skews much older than in the past. Much older. Unless they snap out of it PDQ in opposition, there's a non trivial risk that there won't be much party to save.

Benpointer

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

dixiedean

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

So who's he going to vote for when the time arrives?
There are millions in a similar place (quite a few on here).
How they jump at the final moment, (or sit on their hands) will be the key determinant.

Edit. I see the point was already just made.

DougSeal

dixiedean said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

So who's he going to vote for when the time arrives?
There are millions in a similar place (quite a few on here).
How they jump at the final moment, (or sit on their hands) will be the key determinant.

Edit. I see the point was already just made.

Probably going for Change UK again myself.

SeaShantyIrish2

Reposting - Am now watching via YT today's blue plate special served up by latest Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry grilling.

Barrister for the Inquiry is quite good. As with other Inquiry lawyers, his manner is polite, restrained, focused, relentless.

In contrast, the solicitor for firm of law-mongers hired by the buffon's then (and now?) the PO is about as hopeless as the local yokel lawyer in "My Cousin Vinnie".

That is, crap. Wouldn't hire him to notarize a pet license, let alone furnish legal advice above AI standard.

Fairliered comment on above:

FR: The Post Office chose lawyers that would make their management look competent by comparison.

SSI - Didn't work, hell no!

Stuartinromford

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

There was a significant chunk of that in 2019, albeit drowned out by the vote against Corbyn.

Heck, had it been a direct head to head vote for Prime Minister, I'd probably have voted Johnson over Corbyn, and hated myself for doing so. (As it was, I was voting in Dewsbury at the time. That would only flip in a Conservative landslide, and I didn't want that...)

Cookie

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

Northern_Al

DougSeal said:

dixiedean said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

So who's he going to vote for when the time arrives?
There are millions in a similar place (quite a few on here).
How they jump at the final moment, (or sit on their hands) will be the key determinant.

Edit. I see the point was already just made.

Probably going for Change UK again myself.

Is Truss standing for them?

DougSeal

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Reposting - Am now watching via YT today's blue plate special served up by latest Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry grilling.

Barrister for the Inquiry is quite good. As with other Inquiry lawyers, his manner is polite, restrained, focused, relentless.

In contrast, the solicitor for firm of law-mongers hired by the buffon's then (and now?) the PO is about as hopeless as the local yokel lawyer in "My Cousin Vinnie".

That is, crap. Wouldn't hire him to notarize a pet license, let alone furnish legal advice above AI standard.

Fairliered comment on above:

FR: The Post Office chose lawyers that would make their management look competent by comparison.

SSI - Didn't work, hell no!

One of the firms used by the PO (although not the one that today’s lawyer was from) is now called Womble Bond Dickinson, which is a disgrace to the good name of Wombles everywhere.

DougSeal

Northern_Al said:

DougSeal said:

dixiedean said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

So who's he going to vote for when the time arrives?
There are millions in a similar place (quite a few on here).
How they jump at the final moment, (or sit on their hands) will be the key determinant.

Edit. I see the point was already just made.

Probably going for Change UK again myself.

Is Truss standing for them?

Her genius knows no bounds. It could well be the vehicle for her comeback.

Sean_F

It looks like the Tories have regained a bit of support from Labour, compared to a year ago, but offset by losses to Reform.

stodge

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

williamglenn

stodge said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

The one thing you could legitimately fear from a Starmer government would be bungled constitutional changes that would be almost impossible to get rid of.

Cleitophon

It seems to me conservative voters across the board spend the most of their time trying to convince themselves reality isn't reality.

The electorate has broadly given up on the conservative brand, the net favourability readings for sunak and key leadership contestants is abysmal, the party is split in too many ways to count (even the brexiteers don't get along with each other), there are multiple competing manifestos floating about and the track record of 13 years in power is absolutely horrendous. Then we haven't begun to address partygate, Truss and the multitude of degenerate MP sex scandals and lobbying and money dealings. The tories are going to split in opposition. There is no way round it. And it will be a good long journey rebranding the party for the soon to be all powerful millenial vote.

nico679

I’m not convinced Tories are going to get hammered at the election .

They will throw everything they have at winning . There will be loads of sweeteners and Labour might become complacent and put out at least one kryptonite policy .

I think the “ its time for a change “ will get them over the line in terms of forming the next government but it will be with a small majority or worse just the largest party and needing the Lib Dems.

OnlyLivingBoy

williamglenn said:

stodge said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

The one thing you could legitimately fear from a Starmer government would be bungled constitutional changes that would be almost impossible to get rid of.

Yeah I can't imagine the Tories doing something like that...

stodge

Sean_F said:

It looks like the Tories have regained a bit of support from Labour, compared to a year ago, but offset by losses to Reform.

That's making quite a lot of assumptions. I'd argue the Conservatives have lost ground to Reform while Labour has lost ground to the LDs and Greens.

As I mentioned in an earlier, the split between Labour/LD/Greens and Con/Reform has remained almost unchanged over the past 12 months.

londonpubman

LAB 340
CON 240
OTH 70 (around 20-25 each for LD and SNP, rest mainly NI)

You heard it here first!

isam

stodge said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

He’s backtracked on almost everything he said to get elected as leader, just as he backtracked on his acceptance of the Brexit result once he got ejected as an MP in 2017. So that’s one thing to fear, that he’ll stay true to form and go back on his word on every policy in the manifesto

For instance he pledged to fight for the right of FOM to get elected as leader, and now he’s equating open door immigration with low wages for the working class

maxh

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the
country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

Hmmm…sadly (as I think your answers were very interesting) the way you answered is probably not typical and so your answers will be lost in translation to coded data. Many, I imagine, will have given more predictable answers to the ‘why’ question (I’m assuming free text) such as something that can be obviously coded as ‘climate change’ or ‘cost of living’.

I used to work in such qualitative analysis and it was frustrating how often genuinely interesting free text answers became just noise as the data were analysed.

ETA: I suspect the lots of similar questions were to do with segmenting your views precisely rather than checking you were paying attention. You can get very, very precise characteristics of respondents if you ask them enough similar questions.

algarkirk

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

Depends.

If they're in the category where the c in conservative is small, then there's a lot to despair about. One nation wet conservatism has been on life support for a while and the noise from the monitoring machine doesn't sound promising. See the waving through of the Rwanda (whatever you say, Prime Minister) bill this week.

And whilst they remain the main opposition, the position of the Conservative Party is a lot more vulnerable than Labour's state in 2019. They had a plausible front bench in exile. The Conservatives don't, really- hence the need to drape Dave in ermine. And the age profile of every level of conservatism skews much older than in the past. Much older. Unless they snap out of it PDQ in opposition, there's a non trivial risk that there won't be much party to save.

This is true, except for the continuing reality that there remains no belief among politicians or the public that there is any alternative to Labour and tory being first and second in general elections.

What is startling is this: In 2019 the Tories got 43.6% of the vote. The low end of current projections is that they will get just over half of that figure (YouGov latest, 22%).

While I don't think that will occur, it absolutely is not impossible; as at the moment in place of trying to do grown up centrist politics which might impress the thoughtful One Nation volk they are trying but failing to do populist politics.

Which keeps reminding believers in simple solutions to complex realities that Reform, by not having to make decisions, do it much more impressively. Hence the high polling for the party no-one has heard of and the desertion of the thoughtful.

isam

isam said:

stodge said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

He’s backtracked on almost everything he said to get elected as leader, just as he backtracked on his acceptance of the Brexit result once he got ejected as an MP in 2017. So that’s one thing to fear, that he’ll stay true to form and go back on his word on every policy in the manifesto

For instance he pledged to fight for the right of FOM to get elected as leader, and now he’s equating open door immigration with low wages for the working class

That’s ‘elected’ as an MP, not ‘ejected’

stodge

isam said:

stodge said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

He’s backtracked on almost everything he said to get elected as leader, just as he backtracked on his acceptance of the Brexit result once he got ejected as an MP in 2017. So that’s one thing to fear, that he’ll stay true to form and go back on his word on every policy in the manifesto

For instance he pledged to fight for the right of FOM to get elected as leader, and now he’s equating open door immigration with low wages for the working class

If you are in a political party, you sign up to the notion of collective responsibility. Have the Conservatives been wholly consistent since 2010? Hardly - you've had huge policy upheavals under Cameron, May, Truss and Johnson before Sunak. We now see for example commitments on house building targets ended by Gove (presumably because they think building houses in rural England is a vote loser) so let's not assume Labour is the only party which routinely changes policy on a whim?

As for what Labour will have in its manifesto, it's as much of a mystery to me as well. I suspect it will be a pretty anodyne document which will give some plenty to complain about and Starmer plenty of room for manoeuvre.

isam

algarkirk said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

Depends.

If they're in the category where the c in conservative is small, then there's a lot to despair about. One nation wet conservatism has been on life support for a while and the noise from the monitoring machine doesn't sound promising. See the waving through of the Rwanda (whatever you say, Prime Minister) bill this week.

And whilst they remain the main opposition, the position of the Conservative Party is a lot more vulnerable than Labour's state in 2019. They had a plausible front bench in exile. The Conservatives don't, really- hence the need to drape Dave in ermine. And the age profile of every level of conservatism skews much older than in the past. Much older. Unless they snap out of it PDQ in opposition, there's a non trivial risk that there won't be much party to save.

This is true, except for the continuing reality that there remains no belief among politicians or the public that there is any alternative to Labour and tory being first and second in general elections.

What is startling is this: In 2019 the Tories got 43.6% of the vote. The low end of current projections is that they will get just over half of that figure (YouGov latest, 22%).

While I don't think that will occur, it absolutely is not impossible; as at the moment in place of trying to do grown up centrist politics which might impress the thoughtful One Nation volk they are trying but failing to do populist politics.

Which keeps reminding believers in simple solutions to complex realities that Reform, by not having to make decisions, do it much more impressively. Hence the high polling for the party no-one has heard of and the desertion of the thoughtful.

I know I am banging the same old drum and no one else here gives it any credence at all, but it amazes me that no one considers the reason the Tories were polling 18% in 2019, are polling 22% now, yet those scores bookended a landslide election victory where they polled 43% might be the lame duck leaders they had either side of the election winner.

Maybe it’s not EVERYTHING, but if it wasn’t for me, readers on here would genuinely think Boris was a drag on them, which defies any sensible reading of the last 5 years of Tory polling

viewcode

londonpubman said:

LAB 340
CON 240
OTH 70 (around 20-25 each for LD and SNP, rest mainly NI)

You heard it here first!

Jeez-Louise, @londonpubman , I thought you were a staunch blue. Still too early to give up, surely?

bookseller

On the subject of the Tories making themselves electable again.

When the Tories came back into power in 2010, Cameron made a big play of environmental issues (I remembered when he 'greened-up' the Tory logo) until his volte face in 2013 with his 'ditch the green crap' comments. Starmer seems to have actively resisted making any meaningful commitments to radical environmental policies (the 'no new oil and gas' commitment being largely symbolic due to scale of Sunak's licences which Labour pledges to keep in place).

One way that the Tories could re-invent themselves whilst in the wilderness is to recommit to a greener policy direction (which may be easier for the Tories than for Labour). But I'm interested in how green issues are playing on the doorstep. In the face of geopolitics and cost-of-living are the bulk of people largely ignoring the environment or is it rumbling under the surface?

londonpubman

viewcode said:

londonpubman said:

LAB 340
CON 240
OTH 70 (around 20-25 each for LD and SNP, rest mainly NI)

You heard it here first!

Jeez-Louise, @londonpubman , I thought you were a staunch blue. Still too early to give up, surely?

I'm still CON! I'm not giving up. I am giving the site the benefit of my considered forecast.

(DYOR 😈)

algarkirk

maxh said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the
country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

Hmmm…sadly (as I think your answers were very interesting) the way you answered is probably not typical and so your answers will be lost in translation to coded data. Many, I imagine, will have given more predictable answers to the ‘why’ question (I’m assuming free text) such as something that can be obviously coded as ‘climate change’ or ‘cost of living’.

I used to work in such qualitative analysis and it was frustrating how often genuinely interesting free text answers became just noise as the data were analysed.

ETA: I suspect the lots of similar questions were to do with segmenting your views precisely rather than checking you were paying attention. You can get very, very precise characteristics of respondents if you ask them enough similar questions.

I am no expert, but surveys of many sorts have a problem. In the nature of things there are some questions where a simple answer correctly encapsulates the actual outcome of a deeply complex process. Voting intention is I suppose for PBers the most obvious. Reasons, motives and intentions are exceedingly complex, but the outcome has to be, no choice, a simple action of voting for X or Y or Z or not voting at all. In this way at least the Curtice exit poll gets it right, but only because of its inherent limitations.

Once you go a small step beyond this to stuff like "what is the biggest issue facing this country today" you only have to ask "In what respect?" and it is obvious that, except when Hitler has just gone to war with you, there is a multitude of true answers and a multitude of true types of answer.

isam

stodge said:

isam said:

stodge said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

He’s backtracked on almost everything he said to get elected as leader, just as he backtracked on his acceptance of the Brexit result once he got ejected as an MP in 2017. So that’s one thing to fear, that he’ll stay true to form and go back on his word on every policy in the manifesto

For instance he pledged to fight for the right of FOM to get elected as leader, and now he’s equating open door immigration with low wages for the working class

If you are in a political party, you sign up to the notion of collective responsibility. Have the Conservatives been wholly consistent since 2010? Hardly - you've had huge policy upheavals under Cameron, May, Truss and Johnson before Sunak. We now see for example commitments on house building targets ended by Gove (presumably because they think building houses in rural England is a vote loser) so let's not assume Labour is the only party which routinely changes policy on a whim?

As for what Labour will have in its manifesto, it's as much of a mystery to me as well. I suspect it will be a pretty anodyne document which will give some plenty to complain about and Starmer plenty of room for manoeuvre.

Yes, but the question was ’’What could anyone seriously fear about a Labour Party led by Starmer?’ not ‘Do all political parties lie to get elected?’

Sir Keir has backtracked on pledges he made ‘As a matter of principle’ yet is treated as if he is the most honest man to walk the earth.

Pre GE17 he said accepting the referendum result was ‘a matter of principle’

Pre GE19 he said a second referendum in which he would campaign for Remain was ‘a really important point of principle’

Pre Lab Leader Election he pledged to fight for the rights of Migrant workers and FOM

Now he’s saying mass immigration lowers wages for the British working class

So the answer to ‘What could anyone seriously fear about a Labour Party led by Starmer?’ is that he could do the complete opposite of what he promised to do in order to get your vote

stodge

isam said:

stodge said:

isam said:

stodge said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

He’s backtracked on almost everything he said to get elected as leader, just as he backtracked on his acceptance of the Brexit result once he got ejected as an MP in 2017. So that’s one thing to fear, that he’ll stay true to form and go back on his word on every policy in the manifesto

For instance he pledged to fight for the right of FOM to get elected as leader, and now he’s equating open door immigration with low wages for the working class

If you are in a political party, you sign up to the notion of collective responsibility. Have the Conservatives been wholly consistent since 2010? Hardly - you've had huge policy upheavals under Cameron, May, Truss and Johnson before Sunak. We now see for example commitments on house building targets ended by Gove (presumably because they think building houses in rural England is a vote loser) so let's not assume Labour is the only party which routinely changes policy on a whim?

As for what Labour will have in its manifesto, it's as much of a mystery to me as well. I suspect it will be a pretty anodyne document which will give some plenty to complain about and Starmer plenty of room for manoeuvre.

Yes, but the question was ’’What could anyone seriously fear about a Labour Party led by Starmer?’ not ‘Do all political parties lie to get elected?’

Sir Keir has backtracked on pledges he made ‘As a matter of principle’ yet is treated as if he is the most honest man to walk the earth.

Pre GE17 he said accepting the referendum result was ‘a matter of principle’

Pre GE19 he said a second referendum in which he would campaign for Remain was ‘a really important point of principle’

Pre Lab Leader Election he pledged to fight for the rights of Migrant workers and FOM

Now he’s saying mass immigration lowers wages for the British working class

So the answer to ‘What could anyone seriously fear about a Labour Party led by Starmer?’ is that he could do the complete opposite of what he promised to do in order to get your vote

I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find examples of Boris Johnson saying one thing and then doing something else.

Fairliered

bookseller said:

On the subject of the Tories making themselves electable again.

When the Tories came back into power in 2010, Cameron made a big play of environmental issues (I remembered when he 'greened-up' the Tory logo) until his volte face in 2013 with his 'ditch the green crap' comments. Starmer seems to have actively resisted making any meaningful commitments to radical environmental policies (the 'no new oil and gas' commitment being largely symbolic due to scale of Sunak's licences which Labour pledges to keep in place).

One way that the Tories could re-invent themselves whilst in the wilderness is to recommit to a greener policy direction (which may be easier for the Tories than for Labour). But I'm interested in how green issues are playing on the doorstep. In the face of geopolitics and cost-of-living are the bulk of people largely ignoring the environment or is it rumbling under the surface?

bookseller said:

On the subject of the Tories making themselves electable again.

When the Tories came back into power in 2010, Cameron made a big play of environmental issues (I remembered when he 'greened-up' the Tory logo) until his volte face in 2013 with his 'ditch the green crap' comments. Starmer seems to have actively resisted making any meaningful commitments to radical environmental policies (the 'no new oil and gas' commitment being largely symbolic due to scale of Sunak's licences which Labour pledges to keep in place).

One way that the Tories could re-invent themselves whilst in the wilderness is to recommit to a greener policy direction (which may be easier for the Tories than for Labour). But I'm interested in how green issues are playing on the doorstep. In the face of geopolitics and cost-of-living are the bulk of people largely ignoring the environment or is it rumbling under the surface?

I suspect that the importance of green issues are age related, but would like to see some polling on the issue. Has there been any?

Peter_the_Punter

Stuartinromford said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

There was a significant chunk of that in 2019, albeit drowned out by the vote against Corbyn.

Heck, had it been a direct head to head vote for Prime Minister, I'd probably have voted Johnson over Corbyn, and hated myself for doing so. (As it was, I was voting in Dewsbury at the time. That would only flip in a Conservative landslide, and I didn't want that...)

Know the feeling, Romford.

I once voted for Johnson. The alternative was Livingstone. Yes, I know it's not much of an excuse but cut me some slack, please.

isam

stodge said:

isam said:

stodge said:

isam said:

stodge said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

He’s backtracked on almost everything he said to get elected as leader, just as he backtracked on his acceptance of the Brexit result once he got ejected as an MP in 2017. So that’s one thing to fear, that he’ll stay true to form and go back on his word on every policy in the manifesto

For instance he pledged to fight for the right of FOM to get elected as leader, and now he’s equating open door immigration with low wages for the working class

If you are in a political party, you sign up to the notion of collective responsibility. Have the Conservatives been wholly consistent since 2010? Hardly - you've had huge policy upheavals under Cameron, May, Truss and Johnson before Sunak. We now see for example commitments on house building targets ended by Gove (presumably because they think building houses in rural England is a vote loser) so let's not assume Labour is the only party which routinely changes policy on a whim?

As for what Labour will have in its manifesto, it's as much of a mystery to me as well. I suspect it will be a pretty anodyne document which will give some plenty to complain about and Starmer plenty of room for manoeuvre.

Yes, but the question was ’’What could anyone seriously fear about a Labour Party led by Starmer?’ not ‘Do all political parties lie to get elected?’

Sir Keir has backtracked on pledges he made ‘As a matter of principle’ yet is treated as if he is the most honest man to walk the earth.

Pre GE17 he said accepting the referendum result was ‘a matter of principle’

Pre GE19 he said a second referendum in which he would campaign for Remain was ‘a really important point of principle’

Pre Lab Leader Election he pledged to fight for the rights of Migrant workers and FOM

Now he’s saying mass immigration lowers wages for the British working class

So the answer to ‘What could anyone seriously fear about a Labour Party led by Starmer?’ is that he could do the complete opposite of what he promised to do in order to get your vote

I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find examples of Boris Johnson saying one thing and then doing something else.

Perhaps. I think he pledged not to put up taxes, then did

But isn’t Boris’s untrustworthyness and tendency to say whatever comes to mind why he’s totally unsuited to high office etc etc? Sir Keir is meant to be better than that not just as bad. Mr Integrity isn’t he?

Cyclefree

Leon asked on a previous thread:

"Is there any other pain we voluntarily revisit? Not sure there is. It makes us feel alive?"

To which the answer is childbirth.

squareroot2

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

dixiedean

londonpubman said:

LAB 340
CON 240
OTH 70 (around 20-25 each for LD and SNP, rest mainly NI)

You heard it here first!

I reckon both Labour and the Tories would take that result if offered it now.

Peter_the_Punter

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Reposting - Am now watching via YT today's blue plate special served up by latest Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry grilling.

Barrister for the Inquiry is quite good. As with other Inquiry lawyers, his manner is polite, restrained, focused, relentless.

In contrast, the solicitor for firm of law-mongers hired by the buffon's then (and now?) the PO is about as hopeless as the local yokel lawyer in "My Cousin Vinnie".

That is, crap. Wouldn't hire him to notarize a pet license, let alone furnish legal advice above AI standard.

Fairliered comment on above:

FR: The Post Office chose lawyers that would make their management look competent by comparison.

SSI - Didn't work, hell no!

Any organisation as hopeless as the Post Office would have difficulty trying to appoint or recruit decent lawyers.

For a start, they wouldn't like the fees they charged, and they would like the advice they would give even less. So they shop around in the bucket shop, hire some cheap and compliant firms and turn them loose,happy in the knowledge that they will win most of the prosecutions they bring through force majeure, or blatant dishonesty, and often both.

Consider what happened when the PO did, under duress, agree to the appointment of a decent firm, Second Sight, to run the rule over the glut of iffy prosecutions the PO was bringing. Very soon, Second Sight began to raise all manner of pertinent questions, not least about the fitness of Horizon for purpose. The PO's response was to ignore its findings, distance itslef from the organisation and eventually dispense with their services.

Something similar would no doubt have happened with any decent law firm if the PO had by accident ever come to appoint one.

Peter_the_Punter

Cyclefree said:

Leon asked on a previous thread:

"Is there any other pain we voluntarily revisit? Not sure there is. It makes us feel alive?"

To which the answer is childbirth.

I'll take your word for it.

Watched it a couple of times. Can't say I fancied it myself.

algarkirk

isam said:

stodge said:

isam said:

stodge said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

He’s backtracked on almost everything he said to get elected as leader, just as he backtracked on his acceptance of the Brexit result once he got ejected as an MP in 2017. So that’s one thing to fear, that he’ll stay true to form and go back on his word on every policy in the manifesto

For instance he pledged to fight for the right of FOM to get elected as leader, and now he’s equating open door immigration with low wages for the working class

If you are in a political party, you sign up to the notion of collective responsibility. Have the Conservatives been wholly consistent since 2010? Hardly - you've had huge policy upheavals under Cameron, May, Truss and Johnson before Sunak. We now see for example commitments on house building targets ended by Gove (presumably because they think building houses in rural England is a vote loser) so let's not assume Labour is the only party which routinely changes policy on a whim?

As for what Labour will have in its manifesto, it's as much of a mystery to me as well. I suspect it will be a pretty anodyne document which will give some plenty to complain about and Starmer plenty of room for manoeuvre.

Yes, but the question was ’’What could anyone seriously fear about a Labour Party led by Starmer?’ not ‘Do all political parties lie to get elected?’

Sir Keir has backtracked on pledges he made ‘As a matter of principle’ yet is treated as if he is the most honest man to walk the earth.

Pre GE17 he said accepting the referendum result was ‘a matter of principle’

Pre GE19 he said a second referendum in which he would campaign for Remain was ‘a really important point of principle’

Pre Lab Leader Election he pledged to fight for the rights of Migrant workers and FOM

Now he’s saying mass immigration lowers wages for the British working class

So the answer to ‘What could anyone seriously fear about a Labour Party led by Starmer?’ is that he could do the complete opposite of what he promised to do in order to get your vote

He is made of exactly the stuff successful politicians have to have - that mixture of the image of principle and the machinations of Machiavelli. IIRC the Economist recently was pointing out that the problem with chaps like Rory Stewart is that their principles are fine but they are no good at the sheer dirtiness of politics.

As we need at least one electable leader and there are no other candidates for electability anywhere in sight, we should be grateful. Hopefully he will want election and reelection, and as he knows you only win from the centre, he can be mostly trusted.

DecrepiterJohnL

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

TimS

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Has anyone actually watched a question of sport in the last 30 years? Since Emlyn Hughes and Bill Beaumont, back in the days when there was limited viewing choice.

JosiasJessop

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Why is QoS expensive? I'd expect it to be quite cheap to make - unless the panelists earn an f'load.

algarkirk

isam said:

algarkirk said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

Depends.

If they're in the category where the c in conservative is small, then there's a lot to despair about. One nation wet conservatism has been on life support for a while and the noise from the monitoring machine doesn't sound promising. See the waving through of the Rwanda (whatever you say, Prime Minister) bill this week.

And whilst they remain the main opposition, the position of the Conservative Party is a lot more vulnerable than Labour's state in 2019. They had a plausible front bench in exile. The Conservatives don't, really- hence the need to drape Dave in ermine. And the age profile of every level of conservatism skews much older than in the past. Much older. Unless they snap out of it PDQ in opposition, there's a non trivial risk that there won't be much party to save.

This is true, except for the continuing reality that there remains no belief among politicians or the public that there is any alternative to Labour and tory being first and second in general elections.

What is startling is this: In 2019 the Tories got 43.6% of the vote. The low end of current projections is that they will get just over half of that figure (YouGov latest, 22%).

While I don't think that will occur, it absolutely is not impossible; as at the moment in place of trying to do grown up centrist politics which might impress the thoughtful One Nation volk they are trying but failing to do populist politics.

Which keeps reminding believers in simple solutions to complex realities that Reform, by not having to make decisions, do it much more impressively. Hence the high polling for the party no-one has heard of and the desertion of the thoughtful.

I know I am banging the same old drum and no one else here gives it any credence at all, but it amazes me that no one considers the reason the Tories were polling 18% in 2019, are polling 22% now, yet those scores bookended a landslide election victory where they polled 43% might be the lame duck leaders they had either side of the election winner.

Maybe it’s not EVERYTHING, but if it wasn’t for me, readers on here would genuinely think Boris was a drag on them, which defies any sensible reading of the last 5 years of Tory polling

This robust analysis misses bits out.

1) Before Boris stepped down the polling was consistently against him - not as awful as now but not good.

2) Boris stepped down because he had lost his own party and the public. He lost it all because of things which would have been very simply avoided to someone who had moral sense, political antennae, and common sense. Many who voted for him expected him to rise to the occasion pf being PM out of pure self interest. The critics who said he could not were right. I and millions of others were wrong.

3) While all politics is relative, the fact that those before and after Boris were and are terrible does not make him good. He did well in GE 2019 because he had not yet trashed his own opportunity, there was no alternative way of doing Brexit (partly because of his own tactics) and no-one wanted the friend of Hamas in Downing Street. (And because Boris was and is a flawed genius)

squareroot2

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

viewcode

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Why is QoS expensive? I'd expect it to be quite cheap to make - unless the panelists earn an f'load.

Weren't panel shows the saviour of telly back in the day? Drag in four comedians who got applauded once in a club, two vaguely recognisable team captains and a ethnic/regional host, pull in a couple of coaches of pensioners, a repetitive feem tune and bobs your uncle. Cheap as chips. If they are axing them they are in trouble... ☹️

JosiasJessop

algarkirk said:

isam said:

algarkirk said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

Depends.

If they're in the category where the c in conservative is small, then there's a lot to despair about. One nation wet conservatism has been on life support for a while and the noise from the monitoring machine doesn't sound promising. See the waving through of the Rwanda (whatever you say, Prime Minister) bill this week.

And whilst they remain the main opposition, the position of the Conservative Party is a lot more vulnerable than Labour's state in 2019. They had a plausible front bench in exile. The Conservatives don't, really- hence the need to drape Dave in ermine. And the age profile of every level of conservatism skews much older than in the past. Much older. Unless they snap out of it PDQ in opposition, there's a non trivial risk that there won't be much party to save.

This is true, except for the continuing reality that there remains no belief among politicians or the public that there is any alternative to Labour and tory being first and second in general elections.

What is startling is this: In 2019 the Tories got 43.6% of the vote. The low end of current projections is that they will get just over half of that figure (YouGov latest, 22%).

While I don't think that will occur, it absolutely is not impossible; as at the moment in place of trying to do grown up centrist politics which might impress the thoughtful One Nation volk they are trying but failing to do populist politics.

Which keeps reminding believers in simple solutions to complex realities that Reform, by not having to make decisions, do it much more impressively. Hence the high polling for the party no-one has heard of and the desertion of the thoughtful.

I know I am banging the same old drum and no one else here gives it any credence at all, but it amazes me that no one considers the reason the Tories were polling 18% in 2019, are polling 22% now, yet those scores bookended a landslide election victory where they polled 43% might be the lame duck leaders they had either side of the election winner.

Maybe it’s not EVERYTHING, but if it wasn’t for me, readers on here would genuinely think Boris was a drag on them, which defies any sensible reading of the last 5 years of Tory polling

This robust analysis misses bits out.

1) Before Boris stepped down the polling was consistently against him - not as awful as now but not good.

2) Boris stepped down because he had lost his own party and the public. He lost it all because of things which would have been very simply avoided to someone who had moral sense, political antennae, and common sense. Many who voted for him expected him to rise to the occasion pf being PM out of pure self interest. The critics who said he could not were right. I and millions of others were wrong.

3) While all politics is relative, the fact that those before and after Boris were and are terrible does not make him good. He did well in GE 2019 because he had not yet trashed his own opportunity, there was no alternative way of doing Brexit (partly because of his own tactics) and no-one wanted the friend of Hamas in Downing Street. (And because Boris was and is a flawed genius)

On Point 2: the same flaws that brought Boris down were all on show during the Garden Bridge debacle: his flagrant breaking of rules, his 'helping' of chums, his attitude of blustering out, rather than confronting, problems. The question was whether he would learn the lessons of that debacle; his refusal to cooperate with the inquiry indicated he would not.

Hence Boris's downfall as PM was scripted-in from the beginning. I very much doubt that he has learnt those lessons now, either.

But I am also unconvinced about Starmer. He was not performing that well before Boris imploded the Conservative Party, and he has been a very lucky general (albeit he perhaps made a little of that luck). We will see. As it looks as though he is going to be PM, I hope he surprises me on the upside.

williamglenn

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It was downhill since David Coleman.

DecrepiterJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Why is QoS expensive? I'd expect it to be quite cheap to make - unless the panelists earn an f'load.

OK. Maybe it is just easy to axe. QoS is mainly a few panellists and the rights to sports clips.

isam

algarkirk said:

isam said:

algarkirk said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

Depends.

If they're in the category where the c in conservative is small, then there's a lot to despair about. One nation wet conservatism has been on life support for a while and the noise from the monitoring machine doesn't sound promising. See the waving through of the Rwanda (whatever you say, Prime Minister) bill this week.

And whilst they remain the main opposition, the position of the Conservative Party is a lot more vulnerable than Labour's state in 2019. They had a plausible front bench in exile. The Conservatives don't, really- hence the need to drape Dave in ermine. And the age profile of every level of conservatism skews much older than in the past. Much older. Unless they snap out of it PDQ in opposition, there's a non trivial risk that there won't be much party to save.

This is true, except for the continuing reality that there remains no belief among politicians or the public that there is any alternative to Labour and tory being first and second in general elections.

What is startling is this: In 2019 the Tories got 43.6% of the vote. The low end of current projections is that they will get just over half of that figure (YouGov latest, 22%).

While I don't think that will occur, it absolutely is not impossible; as at the moment in place of trying to do grown up centrist politics which might impress the thoughtful One Nation volk they are trying but failing to do populist politics.

Which keeps reminding believers in simple solutions to complex realities that Reform, by not having to make decisions, do it much more impressively. Hence the high polling for the party no-one has heard of and the desertion of the thoughtful.

I know I am banging the same old drum and no one else here gives it any credence at all, but it amazes me that no one considers the reason the Tories were polling 18% in 2019, are polling 22% now, yet those scores bookended a landslide election victory where they polled 43% might be the lame duck leaders they had either side of the election winner.

Maybe it’s not EVERYTHING, but if it wasn’t for me, readers on here would genuinely think Boris was a drag on them, which defies any sensible reading of the last 5 years of Tory polling

This robust analysis misses bits out.

1) Before Boris stepped down the polling was consistently against him - not as awful as now but not good.

2) Boris stepped down because he had lost his own party and the public. He lost it all because of things which would have been very simply avoided to someone who had moral sense, political antennae, and common sense. Many who voted for him expected him to rise to the occasion pf being PM out of pure self interest. The critics who said he could not were right. I and millions of others were wrong.

3) While all politics is relative, the fact that those before and after Boris were and are terrible does not make him good. He did well in GE 2019 because he had not yet trashed his own opportunity, there was no alternative way of doing Brexit (partly because of his own tactics) and no-one wanted the friend of Hamas in Downing Street. (And because Boris was and is a flawed genius)

1) The Polling when he left was better than when he took over, and better than it is now
2) He lost the support of his MPs, a lot of whom regret getting rid now. Tory members and 2019 voters still prefer him to any other option according to the betting markets when he looked like running against Sunak ( Boris was odds on) and R&Ws polling
3) Yes I take your point. My contention is that anyone looking on without revisionist history in mind would just see 18%-43%-22% and think “Why’d they get rid of the 43%er?” As I said it’s not EVERYTHING, but people on here literally dismiss it, which I think is weird

All nonsense anyway, it is what it is.

isam

williamglenn said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It was downhill since David Coleman.

Extraordinary!

Tres

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Why is QoS expensive? I'd expect it to be quite cheap to make - unless the panelists earn an f'load.

it was dated 30 years ago - the only reason it's survived so long is precisely because it's cheap to make

TimS

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

TimS

Tres said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Why is QoS expensive? I'd expect it to be quite cheap to make - unless the panelists earn an f'load.

it was dated 30 years ago - the only reason it's survived so long is precisely because it's cheap to make

There are more…questions than answers though.

squareroot2

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Hmm.. block freedom of expression.. nasty....

Sunil_Prasannan

williamglenn said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It was downhill since David Coleman.

I went to school with a David Coleman. Not THE David Coleman, just A David Coleman.

Stuartinromford

JosiasJessop said:

algarkirk said:

isam said:

algarkirk said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

Depends.

If they're in the category where the c in conservative is small, then there's a lot to despair about. One nation wet conservatism has been on life support for a while and the noise from the monitoring machine doesn't sound promising. See the waving through of the Rwanda (whatever you say, Prime Minister) bill this week.

And whilst they remain the main opposition, the position of the Conservative Party is a lot more vulnerable than Labour's state in 2019. They had a plausible front bench in exile. The Conservatives don't, really- hence the need to drape Dave in ermine. And the age profile of every level of conservatism skews much older than in the past. Much older. Unless they snap out of it PDQ in opposition, there's a non trivial risk that there won't be much party to save.

This is true, except for the continuing reality that there remains no belief among politicians or the public that there is any alternative to Labour and tory being first and second in general elections.

What is startling is this: In 2019 the Tories got 43.6% of the vote. The low end of current projections is that they will get just over half of that figure (YouGov latest, 22%).

While I don't think that will occur, it absolutely is not impossible; as at the moment in place of trying to do grown up centrist politics which might impress the thoughtful One Nation volk they are trying but failing to do populist politics.

Which keeps reminding believers in simple solutions to complex realities that Reform, by not having to make decisions, do it much more impressively. Hence the high polling for the party no-one has heard of and the desertion of the thoughtful.

I know I am banging the same old drum and no one else here gives it any credence at all, but it amazes me that no one considers the reason the Tories were polling 18% in 2019, are polling 22% now, yet those scores bookended a landslide election victory where they polled 43% might be the lame duck leaders they had either side of the election winner.

Maybe it’s not EVERYTHING, but if it wasn’t for me, readers on here would genuinely think Boris was a drag on them, which defies any sensible reading of the last 5 years of Tory polling

This robust analysis misses bits out.

1) Before Boris stepped down the polling was consistently against him - not as awful as now but not good.

2) Boris stepped down because he had lost his own party and the public. He lost it all because of things which would have been very simply avoided to someone who had moral sense, political antennae, and common sense. Many who voted for him expected him to rise to the occasion pf being PM out of pure self interest. The critics who said he could not were right. I and millions of others were wrong.

3) While all politics is relative, the fact that those before and after Boris were and are terrible does not make him good. He did well in GE 2019 because he had not yet trashed his own opportunity, there was no alternative way of doing Brexit (partly because of his own tactics) and no-one wanted the friend of Hamas in Downing Street. (And because Boris was and is a flawed genius)

On Point 2: the same flaws that brought Boris down were all on show during the Garden Bridge debacle: his flagrant breaking of rules, his 'helping' of chums, his attitude of blustering out, rather than confronting, problems. The question was whether he would learn the lessons of that debacle; his refusal to cooperate with the inquiry indicated he would not.

Hence Boris's downfall as PM was scripted-in from the beginning. I very much doubt that he has learnt those lessons now, either.

But I am also unconvinced about Starmer. He was not performing that well before Boris imploded the Conservative Party, and he has been a very lucky general (albeit he perhaps made a little of that luck). We will see. As it looks as though he is going to be PM, I hope he surprises me on the upside.

More to it than that, I reckon.

There was a steady swing Con to Lab through 2020, undone by the vaccine bounce. Peak Boris was early Summer 2021.

What impressed me was that Starmer kept buggering on, and stated rolling the stone up the hill again. The threesome of scandals around Christmas 2021 sealed Labour taking the lead and keeping it, but the trend was there beforehand.

(Funnily enough, the same happened to the Conservatives in autumn 1992. Crossover happened around the tone of Black Wednesday, but was on track before that.)

Sunil_Prasannan

squareroot2 said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Hmm.. block freedom of expression.. nasty....

"Woke" just means stuff YOU disagree with?

squareroot2

Tres said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Why is QoS expensive? I'd expect it to be quite cheap to make - unless the panelists earn an f'load.

it was dated 30 years ago - the only reason it's survived so long is precisely because it's cheap to make

No. It survived because it had splendid presenters and excellent Captains. The BBC committed Hari kiri over this programne.. especially booting Sue Barker.. They are bonkers.

TimS

Sunil_Prasannan said:

squareroot2 said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Hmm.. block freedom of expression.. nasty....

"Woke" just means stuff YOU disagree with?

Woke is the late 1990s Linda Barker of political terminology.

Pulpstar

isam said:

algarkirk said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

Depends.

If they're in the category where the c in conservative is small, then there's a lot to despair about. One nation wet conservatism has been on life support for a while and the noise from the monitoring machine doesn't sound promising. See the waving through of the Rwanda (whatever you say, Prime Minister) bill this week.

And whilst they remain the main opposition, the position of the Conservative Party is a lot more vulnerable than Labour's state in 2019. They had a plausible front bench in exile. The Conservatives don't, really- hence the need to drape Dave in ermine. And the age profile of every level of conservatism skews much older than in the past. Much older. Unless they snap out of it PDQ in opposition, there's a non trivial risk that there won't be much party to save.

This is true, except for the continuing reality that there remains no belief among politicians or the public that there is any alternative to Labour and tory being first and second in general elections.

What is startling is this: In 2019 the Tories got 43.6% of the vote. The low end of current projections is that they will get just over half of that figure (YouGov latest, 22%).

While I don't think that will occur, it absolutely is not impossible; as at the moment in place of trying to do grown up centrist politics which might impress the thoughtful One Nation volk they are trying but failing to do populist politics.

Which keeps reminding believers in simple solutions to complex realities that Reform, by not having to make decisions, do it much more impressively. Hence the high polling for the party no-one has heard of and the desertion of the thoughtful.

I know I am banging the same old drum and no one else here gives it any credence at all, but it amazes me that no one considers the reason the Tories were polling 18% in 2019, are polling 22% now, yet those scores bookended a landslide election victory where they polled 43% might be the lame duck leaders they had either side of the election winner.

Maybe it’s not EVERYTHING, but if it wasn’t for me, readers on here would genuinely think Boris was a drag on them, which defies any sensible reading of the last 5 years of Tory polling

He'd have still been in the job had he not been completely addicted to telling lie after lie after lie

Leon

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

bondegezou

TimS said:

Labour down
Tories down
SNP down
Lib Dems up
Reform up
Greens flat

Greens up a little bit.

Cookie

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Why is QoS expensive? I'd expect it to be quite cheap to make - unless the panelists earn an f'load.

OK. Maybe it is just easy to axe. QoS is mainly a few panellists and the rights to sports clips.

It was axed because the BBC doesn't really like that section of its audience which watches QoS, and would rather chase the market share of 'people who don't watch telly'. Because that's the kind of decisions you can make due to the unique way the BBC is funded.

TimS

Leon said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

I’m currently watching Mary Berry’s highland Christmas. Is that woke?

DougSeal

Leon said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

Yeah. Agree. It’s useful. There’s a correlation between (1) those that use the word and (2) reactionary bellends whose viewpoints can be safely disregarded.

TheScreamingEagles

LOLOLOL

The Giuliani jury has awarded Freeman and Moss $148.169 million total in damages.

$16,171,000 for Freeman on defamation
$16,998,000 for Moss on defamation

$20,000,000 for Freeman on emotional distress
$20,000,000 for Moss on emotional distress

$75,000,000 on punitive

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1735773003491786865

Richard_Tyndall

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

I’m currently watching Mary Berry’s highland Christmas. Is that woke?

Men in skirts. Of course it's woke

squareroot2

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

I’m currently watching Mary Berry’s highland Christmas. Is that woke?

Nope

Sunil_Prasannan

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

I’m currently watching Mary Berry’s highland Christmas. Is that woke?

Yep, she should have set it in England!!

Leon

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

I’m currently watching Mary Berry’s highland Christmas. Is that woke?

No

Leon

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

Yeah. Agree. It’s useful. There’s a correlation between (1) those that use the word and (2) reactionary bellends whose viewpoints can be safely disregarded.

You POSTURING POLTROON

bigjohnowls

Council Election post LE 2023 to date

Aggregate Results of the 115 Council By-Elections (for 116 Seats) Since LE2023:

LAB: 40 (-1)
LDM: 33 (+15)
CON: 16 (-15)
GRN: 13 (+4)
IND: 8 (+3)
LOC: 5 (-2)
PLC: 1 (=)
SNP: 0 (-4)

dixiedean

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It was downhill since David Coleman.

I went to school with a David Coleman. Not THE David Coleman, just A David Coleman.

Used to teach a David Brent. And a Shirley Temple.

squareroot2

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

Yeah. Agree. It’s useful. There’s a correlation between (1) those that use the word and (2) reactionary bellends whose viewpoints can be safely disregarded.

You are obviously too young to remember the excellent stuff the BBC used to produce. I justvscroll past most of the output. I have moved to the little that is decent that can be recorded to avoid incessant adverts and trailers.

Sunil_Prasannan

bigjohnowls said:

Council Election post LE 2023 to date

Aggregate Results of the 115 Council By-Elections (for 116 Seats) Since LE2023:

LAB: 40 (-1)
LDM: 33 (+15)
CON: 16 (-15)
GRN: 13 (+4)
IND: 8 (+3)
LOC: 5 (-2)
PLC: 1 (=)
SNP: 0 (-4)

Green Tories a very poor 4th!

Sunil_Prasannan

dixiedean said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It was downhill since David Coleman.

I went to school with a David Coleman. Not THE David Coleman, just A David Coleman.

Used to teach a David Brent. And a Shirley Temple.

I also went to school with a Mark Phillips!

TimS

Cookie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Why is QoS expensive? I'd expect it to be quite cheap to make - unless the panelists earn an f'load.

OK. Maybe it is just easy to axe. QoS is mainly a few panellists and the rights to sports clips.

It was axed because the BBC doesn't really like that section of its audience which watches QoS, and would rather chase the market share of 'people who don't watch telly'. Because that's the kind of decisions you can make due to the unique way the BBC is funded.

Media companies have been annoying people by axing things older people like in favour of incomprehensible stuff to appeal to “youth” since as long as I’ve been noticing. Radio 1 did it every 5 years or so throughout the 80s, 90s and noughties and got loads of shit for it every time.

This is the same old thing. It seems mad when it happens, but looking back imagine if Radio 1 were still like the days of Tony Blackburn. Just one of those things. It’s nothing new. It’s one of the inevitable sadnesses of getting old.

DougSeal

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

Yeah. Agree. It’s useful. There’s a correlation between (1) those that use the word and (2) reactionary bellends whose viewpoints can be safely disregarded.

You POSTURING POLTROON

And you, sir, are a preening popinjay.

Cookie

algarkirk said:

isam said:

stodge said:

isam said:

stodge said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

stodge said:

IanB2 said:

stodge said:

Evening all

I think I said all this in my last contribution so thanks for catching up.

Talking to a despairing ex-Conservative colleague at lunch time, I was able to offer him some hope. Even if it takes two defeats, it's still likely (though not certain) the Conservatives will be the only viable alternative Government.

Opposition to Starmer will emerge, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly. That opposition will be around what the Government does or tries to do rather than re-fighting the battles of 2010-24 (and especially 2016-24) and the Conservatives will need to focus their energies on what the Government is or isn't about rather than what should have happened before. IF the Conservatives remain rooted in and obsessed by rhe battles of their time in Government, opposition to Starmer will default to the LDs, Greens and others.

The world of the mid-2030s will have plenty of challenges and an adroit opposition will have plenty of issues on which to attack the Government but the one thing they can't afford is self-indulgence in opposition otherwise Labour won't be in for 10 years but 15 or perhaps longer.

If he’s an ex-Conservative, he shouldn’t despair, so?

I would describe him as an old-fashioned Conservative who has been repulsed by the move to populism. He is despairing both in terms of a future Labour Government and the continuation of the present administration.

Several of my Conservative friends are in the same mood. I suspect a few will hold their noses and vote Tory nonetheless, some will just sit the election out.

Interestingly, I have just done a really weird yougov which might have been trying to dig into this.
It asked if you considered yourself a Conservative, a Lib, a Lab, etc. After some thought, I answered in the spirit I think the question was intended and put 'Conservative'. It then asked why. After some thought, I answered that it's because despite their many faults they seem the only way of keeping the Labour Party out, and I fear the Labour Party more than I fear any other government.

More interestingly still, it asked what I thought was the biggest issue facing the country today. Again, after some thought, I answered 'our inability to disagree civilly with one another'. Which I think is true; if we can manage to do that, everything else will fall into place.

I can't imagine how they will code this survey.

It also asked lots of questions to prove I was paying attention e.g. really simple questions, the same question worded two simple ways, etc.

I struggle with the notion anyone can "fear" a Labour Government led by Starmer. Apprehension perhaps, frustration maybe but fear, seriously?

I'd have thought five more years of the current Government a greater source of anxiety.

He’s backtracked on almost everything he said to get elected as leader, just as he backtracked on his acceptance of the Brexit result once he got ejected as an MP in 2017. So that’s one thing to fear, that he’ll stay true to form and go back on his word on every policy in the manifesto

For instance he pledged to fight for the right of FOM to get elected as leader, and now he’s equating open door immigration with low wages for the working class

If you are in a political party, you sign up to the notion of collective responsibility. Have the Conservatives been wholly consistent since 2010? Hardly - you've had huge policy upheavals under Cameron, May, Truss and Johnson before Sunak. We now see for example commitments on house building targets ended by Gove (presumably because they think building houses in rural England is a vote loser) so let's not assume Labour is the only party which routinely changes policy on a whim?

As for what Labour will have in its manifesto, it's as much of a mystery to me as well. I suspect it will be a pretty anodyne document which will give some plenty to complain about and Starmer plenty of room for manoeuvre.

Yes, but the question was ’’What could anyone seriously fear about a Labour Party led by Starmer?’ not ‘Do all political parties lie to get elected?’

Sir Keir has backtracked on pledges he made ‘As a matter of principle’ yet is treated as if he is the most honest man to walk the earth.

Pre GE17 he said accepting the referendum result was ‘a matter of principle’

Pre GE19 he said a second referendum in which he would campaign for Remain was ‘a really important point of principle’

Pre Lab Leader Election he pledged to fight for the rights of Migrant workers and FOM

Now he’s saying mass immigration lowers wages for the British working class

So the answer to ‘What could anyone seriously fear about a Labour Party led by Starmer?’ is that he could do the complete opposite of what he promised to do in order to get your vote

He is made of exactly the stuff successful politicians have to have - that mixture of the image of principle and the machinations of Machiavelli. IIRC the Economist recently was pointing out that the problem with chaps like Rory Stewart is that their principles are fine but they are no good at the sheer dirtiness of politics.

As we need at least one electable leader and there are no other candidates for electability anywhere in sight, we should be grateful. Hopefully he will want election and reelection, and as he knows you only win from the centre, he can be mostly trusted.

Reason to fear SKSLab #1: "we want more harder lockdowns".
Reason to fear SKSLab #2: that picture of him and Ange jumping on the George Floyd bandwagon.
Reason to fear SKSLab #3: his decrying the government not joining the EU vaccine scheme.
These are just the first three that apring to mind.

Sure, this government is shit. But SKSLab rarely misses an opportunity to indicate it will, given the chance, be shitter: it attacks it from the wrong side (e.g. lockdown), and rarely takes an opportunity to say it would reverse a bad decision by government (e.g. HS2).
That is why I fear SKSLab. I expect it to make Britain less free, less productive and woker.

OTOH, they have madesome vaguely encouraging noises about housing.

squareroot2

TimS said:

Cookie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Why is QoS expensive? I'd expect it to be quite cheap to make - unless the panelists earn an f'load.

OK. Maybe it is just easy to axe. QoS is mainly a few panellists and the rights to sports clips.

It was axed because the BBC doesn't really like that section of its audience which watches QoS, and would rather chase the market share of 'people who don't watch telly'. Because that's the kind of decisions you can make due to the unique way the BBC is funded.

Media companies having been annoying people by axing things older people like in favour of incomprehensible stuff to appeal to “youth” since as long as I’ve been noticing. Radio 1 did it every 5 years or so throughout the 80s, 90s and noughties and got loads of shit for it every time.

This is the same old thing. It seems mad when it happens, but looking back imagine if Radio 1 were still like the days of Tony Blackburn. Just one of those things. It’s nothing new. It’s one of the inevitable sadnesses of getting old.

If that be the case and they don't want to appeal to the likes of me, why should I have to pay the license fee?

DougSeal

QoS has always been shit. Sorry (not sorry).

TimS

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Nonsense. It's making stupid decisions and axing popular presenters. It's the way the BBC is going. If the license fee went, the BBC would implode. Who would pay to watch the woke shite that is the BBC.

“Woke”

Can we add woke to the Conservative home banishment list along with colour me, says hi and the rest of them?

Woke Shite is an apt description of the BBC right now. Woke stays. Sorry

Yeah. Agree. It’s useful. There’s a correlation between (1) those that use the word and (2) reactionary bellends whose viewpoints can be safely disregarded.

You POSTURING POLTROON

And you, sir, are a preening popinjay.

Mary Berry thinks you’re both mountebanks and milquetoasts.

Leon

This really isn't what we are told to perceive

"The UK economy has outperformed France and Germany since the pandemic and, based on today's PMIs, is currently doing much better as well (composite PMI consistent with growth in Q4 versus a contraction in GER and FRA)."

https://x.com/DanielKral1/status/1735624697105039869?s=20

Andy_JS

nico679 said:

I’m not convinced Tories are going to get hammered at the election .

They will throw everything they have at winning . There will be loads of sweeteners and Labour might become complacent and put out at least one kryptonite policy .

I think the “ its time for a change “ will get them over the line in terms of forming the next government but it will be with a small majority or worse just the largest party and needing the Lib Dems.

I'm pretty sure the Tories will do quite badly, with a drop of at least 10 points in their vote share. I'm not so sure how well Labour will do, and whether they can poll 40%.

TimS

squareroot2 said:

TimS said:

Cookie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

RIP A QUESTION OF SPORT. according to GB breaking news. The BBC were mad to axe Sue Barker

Yet another reason not to pay the BBC license

It is the below-inflation (and pledge-breaking) licence fee increase announced this week that has made the BBC look to axe expensive but failing shows like A Question of Sport. iirc they have a £90 million funding gap to fill.

Why is QoS expensive? I'd expect it to be quite cheap to make - unless the panelists earn an f'load.

OK. Maybe it is just easy to axe. QoS is mainly a few panellists and the rights to sports clips.

It was axed because the BBC doesn't really like that section of its audience which watches QoS, and would rather chase the market share of 'people who don't watch telly'. Because that's the kind of decisions you can make due to the unique way the BBC is funded.

Media companies having been annoying people by axing things older people like in favour of incomprehensible stuff to appeal to “youth” since as long as I’ve been noticing. Radio 1 did it every 5 years or so throughout the 80s, 90s and noughties and got loads of shit for it every time.

This is the same old thing. It seems mad when it happens, but looking back imagine if Radio 1 were still like the days of Tony Blackburn. Just one of those things. It’s nothing new. It’s one of the inevitable sadnesses of getting old.

If that be the case and they don't want to appeal to the likes of me, why should I have to pay the license fee?

You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone. Look through the listings.