Howdy, Stranger!

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

A date with destiny, a place in history? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 4 in General
imageA date with destiny, a place in history? – politicalbetting.com

Is Rishi Sunak using a crystal ball and the dark arts to select his most propitious General Election date?    Maybe.  Or perhaps he is using careful polling and political analysis to plot a comeback-kid route victory?   Then again, he could be playing the Mr. Micawber strategy – something will turn up.  Surely?

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • ChrisChris Posts: 10,932
    Somehow I suspect overtaking the Earl of Chatham doesn't figure prominently among Sunak's priorities.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,504
    I'm not sure about the calculations here - because if the election was held on October 24th there is no way the result would be out before midnight that day so Rishi would still be Prime Minister in the very early hours of Friday October 25th.

    Which means it would be 2 years...
  • isamisam Posts: 40,572
    Rishi’s got a date with Destiny? Doesn’t seem the type to know any strippers. Hope no one tells Mrs Sunak
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654
    eek said:

    I'm not sure about the calculations here - because if the election was held on October 24th there is no way the result would be out before midnight that day so Rishi would still be Prime Minister in the very early hours of Friday October 25th.

    Which means it would be 2 years...

    And it's also possible there might be a coalition with the DUP and LDs. Time to negotiate.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    Theresa May could return as PM and overtake BoJo before the election.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,069
    Why would anyone hang on in this situation, just to climb this leaderboard? Isn’t that the biggest insult, to suggest their motivation here is themself, not party or country? Surely this sort of talk is for fiction books, not reality?

    The only thought on Sunak’s mind and the team of highly paid professionals and scientists around him, is to get the best possible election result from this year and situation.They know the only thing that can possibly do this is to win the battle of the campaigns.
    Picking the most favourable backdrop of news narrative to campaign in front of is not only top most consideration on the list, it is the only consideration on the list, this longest serving lead table 100% does not come into it.

    Do you actually believe this? Do lefty PBers really think Sunak and Tories think in this fictitious way? Are you placing bets believing this?

    Silly, pointless header.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,082
    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    I'm not sure about the calculations here - because if the election was held on October 24th there is no way the result would be out before midnight that day so Rishi would still be Prime Minister in the very early hours of Friday October 25th.

    Which means it would be 2 years...

    And it's also possible there might be a coalition with the DUP and LDs. Time to negotiate.
    Or maybe chance for CON to negotiate with SNP anything is possible 😈
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837

    Why would anyone hang on in this situation, just to climb this leaderboard? Isn’t that the biggest insult, to suggest their motivation here is themself, not party or country? Surely this sort of talk is for fiction books, not reality?

    The only thought on Sunak’s mind and the team of highly paid professionals and scientists around him, is to get the best possible election result from this year and situation.They know the only thing that can possibly do this is to win the battle of the campaigns.
    Picking the most favourable backdrop of news narrative to campaign in front of is not only top most consideration on the list, it is the only consideration on the list, this longest serving lead table 100% does not come into it.

    Do you actually believe this? Do lefty PBers really think Sunak and Tories think in this fictitious way? Are you placing bets believing this?

    Silly, pointless header.

    Now, if it were Boris, I could believe he may be swayed by such things.

    But it's not, because Boris got booted out for being very memorably shite at the job. The exact number of days he was very memorably shite is not memorable.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,316
    Should that be "Rockingham", rather than "Rokinham"?

    Sorry for the quibble, and thanks much for the interesting table.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837

    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    I'm not sure about the calculations here - because if the election was held on October 24th there is no way the result would be out before midnight that day so Rishi would still be Prime Minister in the very early hours of Friday October 25th.

    Which means it would be 2 years...

    And it's also possible there might be a coalition with the DUP and LDs. Time to negotiate.
    Or maybe chance for CON to negotiate with SNP anything is possible 😈
    Will the SNP have any MPs left though? We might have some interesting legal proceedings before the election that affect their ability to make a case to the voters.
  • I don't think that any PM would use longevity as a tool for choosing the GE date.... to me that just isn't a serious analysis. 🤷
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,729
    edited January 28
    Point of order that it would have been Boris's third administration.

    On the substance, over two years does look like the only longevity landmark that may appeal to Sunak's ego.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,744

    I don't think that any PM would use longevity as a tool for choosing the GE date.... to me that just isn't a serious analysis. 🤷

    It's a bit of fun for a Sunday afternoon, sure.

    Though I wonder if the long campaign after Boris's departure was so he could sneak above May in the list.

    The only relevant question once a PM enters the final year is "If I call an election now, am I confident of winning?" If so, call it, if not wait- even if the situation is likely to worsen.

    Hence December 19th, on the basis that even Today's Conservative Party aren't dumb enough to call an election where the campaign will have a Christmas break
  • MattWMattW Posts: 17,732
    FPT:
    IanB2 said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,

    Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.

    Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
    This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
    Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
    I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
    That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
    Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
    The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
    Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.

    Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
    And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
    There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.

    I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.

    We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
    Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.

    Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.

    Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
    Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!

    Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
    Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.

    Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.

    Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.

    To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.

    "Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
    I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them

    The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)

    Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
    But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.

    It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.

    Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.

    That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
    That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.

    Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.

    The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.

    It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
    As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.

    I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.

    One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.

    I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.

    I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.

    Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.

    Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.

    My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.

    So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,768

    Why would anyone hang on in this situation, just to climb this leaderboard? Isn’t that the biggest insult, to suggest their motivation here is themself, not party or country? Surely this sort of talk is for fiction books, not reality?

    The only thought on Sunak’s mind and the team of highly paid professionals and scientists around him, is to get the best possible election result from this year and situation.They know the only thing that can possibly do this is to win the battle of the campaigns.
    Picking the most favourable backdrop of news narrative to campaign in front of is not only top most consideration on the list, it is the only consideration on the list, this longest serving lead table 100% does not come into it.

    Do you actually believe this? Do lefty PBers really think Sunak and Tories think in this fictitious way? Are you placing bets believing this?

    Silly, pointless header.

    Why does Sunak care how many seats the tories have after the election? He will be out of politics the day after. He just wants to be PMOTUK as long as possible without hanging on long enough to trigger a leadership challenge.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 17,732
    About 5th and 6th.

    Nice, provocative header.

    Thanks.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 17,732
    edited January 28
    On Mr Trump and Evangelicals, I had missed the photo from last spring he tweeted of himself praying.

    Quite amusing - it's AI generated and he's like Frodo Baggins in only having nine fingers. He is short one ring finger, which is perhaps why he doesn't feel bound by his marriage.

    Or perhaps he's praying for a miracle.



    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-ai-praying-photo-b2307178.html
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,614
    Chris said:

    Somehow I suspect overtaking the Earl of Chatham doesn't figure prominently among Sunak's priorities.

    There are two pubs called the Earl of Chatham: one in Woolwich and one in Lostwithiel. What are the chances of two pubs called the Rishi Sunak in 250 years time?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837
    MattW said:

    On Mr Trump and Evangelicals, I had missed the photo from last spring he tweeted of himself praying.

    Quite amusing - it's AI generated and he's like Frodo Baggins in only having nine fingers. He is short one ring finger, which is perhaps why he doesn't feel bound by his marriage.

    Or perhaps he's praying for a miracle.



    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-ai-praying-photo-b2307178.html

    As much as he prays, he ain't getting the Precious back...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837
    I note the Icon of the Seas has set sail from Miami. With capacity for 8,000 people, I guess it is going to have constant Covid outbreaks...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,837
    MattW said:

    On Mr Trump and Evangelicals, I had missed the photo from last spring he tweeted of himself praying.

    Quite amusing - it's AI generated and he's like Frodo Baggins in only having nine fingers. He is short one ring finger, which is perhaps why he doesn't feel bound by his marriage.

    Or perhaps he's praying for a miracle.



    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-ai-praying-photo-b2307178.html

    `Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough,' said Gollum
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    i just successfully smuggled ten THC-laced gummy bears into Cambodia

    You can call me MISTER BIG
  • The idea of hanging on for longevity does not seem that daft to me, and certainly not in Sunak's case.

    The PM has enormous power and the position carries great privileges. Not the least of these would be contacts. There would also be quite simply valuable inside knowledge about how things work, and what things are being done, not all of them public knowledge. Kissinger wrote about this in The White House Years. HK exploited his contacts ruthlessly after leaving the White House, and although their value depreciated quickly they certainly enabled him to earn a few dollars before they became worthless.

    Sunak will be in a similar position, albeit on a smaller scale (and I'm not talking about physical height). He will presumably be going back into business. Just think how many Boards and Worthy Institutions would pay good money to have his words of wisdom available exclusively to them. The longer he hangs on, the more he knows, the more his stock is worth.

    I don't think he would hang on wholly for the purpose of longevity, but I do believe it would be a factor. If the polls remain bad, he can pass over May perfectly plausibly, knowing that another five months in the gig will do his personal prospects no harm at all.

    As for the Tory Party, I doubt he gives a monkey's about it. His two predecessors certainly didn't. It chose him to extract the Party from the deep brown stuff which was threatening to subsume it, not because they liked the guy. The date probably won't make much difference anyway. Unless something very strange happens Tory prospects look bleak whatever date he chooses, so why not suit himself?

    He'll go early if the opportunity is there, but otherwise he will be very happy to wait, until October at least.

    Thanks Ben, for a thought-provoking piece, based on a perfectly plausible assumption.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244
    edited January 28
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    IanB2 said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,

    Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.

    Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
    This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
    Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
    I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
    That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
    Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
    The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
    Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.

    Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
    And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
    There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.

    I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.

    We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
    Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.

    Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.

    Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
    Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!

    Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
    Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.

    Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.

    Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.

    To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.

    "Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
    I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them

    The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)

    Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
    But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.

    It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.

    Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.

    That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
    That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.

    Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.

    The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.

    It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
    As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.

    I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.

    One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.

    I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.

    I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.

    Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.

    Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.

    My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.

    So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
    On the pensioners thing it is not the governing taxing workers to support poor pensioners. It is the government taxing workers to support the middles class better off pensioners. Nothing for them can be means tested and anything taxed is met with uproar.

    As someone who complains regulary about generational unfairness (and "in between" the generations) I would be quite happy to see pension credit increasing faster than it has done to support poorer pensioners as long as richer and middle income pensioners pay more.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,219

    Why would anyone hang on in this situation, just to climb this leaderboard? Isn’t that the biggest insult, to suggest their motivation here is themself, not party or country? Surely this sort of talk is for fiction books, not reality?

    The only thought on Sunak’s mind and the team of highly paid professionals and scientists around him, is to get the best possible election result from this year and situation.They know the only thing that can possibly do this is to win the battle of the campaigns.
    Picking the most favourable backdrop of news narrative to campaign in front of is not only top most consideration on the list, it is the only consideration on the list, this longest serving lead table 100% does not come into it.

    Do you actually believe this? Do lefty PBers really think Sunak and Tories think in this fictitious way? Are you placing bets believing this?

    Silly, pointless header.

    I think it would be a calculation if there were anything significant to pass or it's much of a muchness - the two years thing is a perfectly plausible reason to go for November over mid-October.

    Though of course the bigger thing there is the US election. Not sure how you calculate whether that helps or hinders. Trump is so loathed here that leaning into a Trump victory and trying to tie yourselves to that is unlikely to be a good move. But Biden winning would be ridden on by Labour.

    Ultimately, some may decide they are so screwed that trivial considerations do come into it. If they skip May and are still screwed by late summer you might as well string out your premiership a few weeks longer.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    MJW said:

    Why would anyone hang on in this situation, just to climb this leaderboard? Isn’t that the biggest insult, to suggest their motivation here is themself, not party or country? Surely this sort of talk is for fiction books, not reality?

    The only thought on Sunak’s mind and the team of highly paid professionals and scientists around him, is to get the best possible election result from this year and situation.They know the only thing that can possibly do this is to win the battle of the campaigns.
    Picking the most favourable backdrop of news narrative to campaign in front of is not only top most consideration on the list, it is the only consideration on the list, this longest serving lead table 100% does not come into it.

    Do you actually believe this? Do lefty PBers really think Sunak and Tories think in this fictitious way? Are you placing bets believing this?

    Silly, pointless header.

    I think it would be a calculation if there were anything significant to pass or it's much of a muchness - the two years thing is a perfectly plausible reason to go for November over mid-October.

    Though of course the bigger thing there is the US election. Not sure how you calculate whether that helps or hinders. Trump is so loathed here that leaning into a Trump victory and trying to tie yourselves to that is unlikely to be a good move. But Biden winning would be ridden on by Labour.

    Ultimately, some may decide they are so screwed that trivial considerations do come into it. If they skip May and are still screwed by late summer you might as well string out your premiership a few weeks longer.
    The only thing that could help Sunak is if he can provoke Trump into insulting him.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    https://x.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1751619039909048410

    Nancy Pelosi: Protesters calling for a ceasefire in Gaza "is Mr. Putin's message... Make no mistake, this is directly connected to what he would like to see... "
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837

    MJW said:

    Why would anyone hang on in this situation, just to climb this leaderboard? Isn’t that the biggest insult, to suggest their motivation here is themself, not party or country? Surely this sort of talk is for fiction books, not reality?

    The only thought on Sunak’s mind and the team of highly paid professionals and scientists around him, is to get the best possible election result from this year and situation.They know the only thing that can possibly do this is to win the battle of the campaigns.
    Picking the most favourable backdrop of news narrative to campaign in front of is not only top most consideration on the list, it is the only consideration on the list, this longest serving lead table 100% does not come into it.

    Do you actually believe this? Do lefty PBers really think Sunak and Tories think in this fictitious way? Are you placing bets believing this?

    Silly, pointless header.

    I think it would be a calculation if there were anything significant to pass or it's much of a muchness - the two years thing is a perfectly plausible reason to go for November over mid-October.

    Though of course the bigger thing there is the US election. Not sure how you calculate whether that helps or hinders. Trump is so loathed here that leaning into a Trump victory and trying to tie yourselves to that is unlikely to be a good move. But Biden winning would be ridden on by Labour.

    Ultimately, some may decide they are so screwed that trivial considerations do come into it. If they skip May and are still screwed by late summer you might as well string out your premiership a few weeks longer.
    The only thing that could help Sunak is if he can provoke Trump into insulting him.
    Or Putin into invading him...
  • MJW said:

    Why would anyone hang on in this situation, just to climb this leaderboard? Isn’t that the biggest insult, to suggest their motivation here is themself, not party or country? Surely this sort of talk is for fiction books, not reality?

    The only thought on Sunak’s mind and the team of highly paid professionals and scientists around him, is to get the best possible election result from this year and situation.They know the only thing that can possibly do this is to win the battle of the campaigns.
    Picking the most favourable backdrop of news narrative to campaign in front of is not only top most consideration on the list, it is the only consideration on the list, this longest serving lead table 100% does not come into it.

    Do you actually believe this? Do lefty PBers really think Sunak and Tories think in this fictitious way? Are you placing bets believing this?

    Silly, pointless header.

    I think it would be a calculation if there were anything significant to pass or it's much of a muchness - the two years thing is a perfectly plausible reason to go for November over mid-October.

    Though of course the bigger thing there is the US election. Not sure how you calculate whether that helps or hinders. Trump is so loathed here that leaning into a Trump victory and trying to tie yourselves to that is unlikely to be a good move. But Biden winning would be ridden on by Labour.

    Ultimately, some may decide they are so screwed that trivial considerations do come into it. If they skip May and are still screwed by late summer you might as well string out your premiership a few weeks longer.
    The only thing that could help Sunak is if he can provoke Trump into insulting him.
    Or Putin into invading him...
    Please Mark, that's an image I could have done without. :(
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    Leon said:

    i just successfully smuggled ten THC-laced gummy bears into Cambodia

    You can call me MISTER BIG

    Be careful. Just remember what happened to the Brad Davis character in Midnight Express.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,840
    Boris Johnson.

    A tragicomedy about the danger of a lack of self-discipline.

    It could be the light-hearted counter to the full three part tragic drama of Donald Trump.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837

    MJW said:

    Why would anyone hang on in this situation, just to climb this leaderboard? Isn’t that the biggest insult, to suggest their motivation here is themself, not party or country? Surely this sort of talk is for fiction books, not reality?

    The only thought on Sunak’s mind and the team of highly paid professionals and scientists around him, is to get the best possible election result from this year and situation.They know the only thing that can possibly do this is to win the battle of the campaigns.
    Picking the most favourable backdrop of news narrative to campaign in front of is not only top most consideration on the list, it is the only consideration on the list, this longest serving lead table 100% does not come into it.

    Do you actually believe this? Do lefty PBers really think Sunak and Tories think in this fictitious way? Are you placing bets believing this?

    Silly, pointless header.

    I think it would be a calculation if there were anything significant to pass or it's much of a muchness - the two years thing is a perfectly plausible reason to go for November over mid-October.

    Though of course the bigger thing there is the US election. Not sure how you calculate whether that helps or hinders. Trump is so loathed here that leaning into a Trump victory and trying to tie yourselves to that is unlikely to be a good move. But Biden winning would be ridden on by Labour.

    Ultimately, some may decide they are so screwed that trivial considerations do come into it. If they skip May and are still screwed by late summer you might as well string out your premiership a few weeks longer.
    The only thing that could help Sunak is if he can provoke Trump into insulting him.
    Or Putin into invading him...
    Please Mark, that's an image I could have done without. :(
    As could Sunak!
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,069
    edited January 28

    I don't think that any PM would use longevity as a tool for choosing the GE date.... to me that just isn't a serious analysis. 🤷

    It's a bit of fun for a Sunday afternoon, sure.

    Though I wonder if the long campaign after Boris's departure was so he could sneak above May in the list.

    The only relevant question once a PM enters the final year is "If I call an election now, am I confident of winning?" If so, call it, if not wait- even if the situation is likely to worsen.

    Hence December 19th, on the basis that even Today's Conservative Party aren't dumb enough to call an election where the campaign will have a Christmas break
    Okay, just a bit of fun on a Sunday afternoon. I apologise for being grumpy.

    Though another fun header can be the very opposite, can’t it, about political history without self serving clinging on. through such black mirrors we could be even closer to the actual considerations going on, maybe?

    Lord Finkelstein, who advised John Major, has argued 97 was a heavier defeat for hanging on till the bitter end. Learning from history, what can you see in those remaining months that can lead to worse or better results for your party? MarqueeMark seemed to agree with this, Dura Ace and Peter the Punter actually believes Sunak doesn’t care how many seats he leaves the Conservatives with?

    The current Spanish government called one early whilst behind in polls, did that surprise you? they had seemed like moving towards end of their time in power, yet did better than expected, the result surprise you? What if they had waited - like everyone always does, apparently?

    Now the what if. what if previous UK governments hadn’t waited, but called those elections that never were? Autumn 2007? Autumn 1978? and it worked for them like it did in Spain last year? Better results for the government, maybe leading to different political history altogether, like Lady Thatcher never became Primeminister at all?

    what is the science and reason to waiting every single time? Or, instead, looking into the remaining months, what do you see there specifically to help you have a great campaign - for a government it’s getting attention off yourself and onto your opponents, the threat of the new, tap into the universal truth: who really wants change when it’s not absolutely necessary?

    I’m sure the timing in leaders minds, and in the team around them, is based on how can we have great campaign.

    At least it should be?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,758
    Is that a crystal ball? I thought it was a balloon about to be burst.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,840
    I can reassure those PBers worried about everything being broken that ASDA isn't.

    And has carrots on offer at 39p per kilo.

    Now for those bewailing that 'nothing works', or at least that 'nothing works' in the public sector, might I suggest that a misallocation of funds could be playing a part.

    This year the government is going to spend about £1.2 trillion quid:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45814459

    About half of that going on Social Protection and Health and almost all of that going to either the old or the poor.

    So those who want to increase spending on the courts or the passport office then make a case for spending a little less on the ever demanding oldies and poories.

    The problem being that spending money on the courts or the passport office is less of a vote winner.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    edited January 28

    I can reassure those PBers worried about everything being broken that ASDA isn't.

    And has carrots on offer at 39p per kilo.

    Now for those bewailing that 'nothing works', or at least that 'nothing works' in the public sector, might I suggest that a misallocation of funds could be playing a part.

    This year the government is going to spend about £1.2 trillion quid:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45814459

    About half of that going on Social Protection and Health and almost all of that going to either the old or the poor.

    So those who want to increase spending on the courts or the passport office then make a case for spending a little less on the ever demanding oldies and poories.

    The problem being that spending money on the courts or the passport office is less of a vote winner.

    https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2023/12/asda-interest-bill/

    Asda is not broken?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    edited January 28
    ...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,498
    Rishi is unlike many of his recent predecessors in that he has no large blots on his copy book that the public might hold against him. No 3-day week or winter of discontent. No poll tax or Black Wednesday. No Iraq or Global Financial Crisis. No Brexit or failed Brexit. No Partygate or trashing the markets.

    The nearest is Rwanda, which is notable so far for not having happened. Rishi is just disappointing. He was supposed to represent the return of the grown-ups to Downing Street but with the faux Boris act he has chosen (or that was foist on him by CCHQ) he seems less an adult and more a teenage babysitter.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    Three US service members were killed and at least 2 dozen injured in a drone attack on a base in Jordan on the border with Syria, Tower 22. A significant escalation
    https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1751640126155870701
  • Rishi is unlike many of his recent predecessors in that he has no large blots on his copy book that the public might hold against him. No 3-day week or winter of discontent. No poll tax or Black Wednesday. No Iraq or Global Financial Crisis. No Brexit or failed Brexit. No Partygate or trashing the markets.

    The nearest is Rwanda, which is notable so far for not having happened. Rishi is just disappointing. He was supposed to represent the return of the grown-ups to Downing Street but with the faux Boris act he has chosen (or that was foist on him by CCHQ) he seems less an adult and more a teenage babysitter.

    I tend to think of him as a caretaker-manager, but same idea though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    Interesting take on Britain’s productivity gap.

    https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1751643183694647555
    one of the biggest rate limiters to entrepreneurial progress in the uk is cafés closing their doors on weekends at like 3-5pm or not even opening on sunday

    in the states you can be working in a cafe like 24/7

    on the weekend, builders in sf work

    need to start a proper café
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    edited January 28

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    IanB2 said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,

    Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.

    Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
    This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
    Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
    I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
    That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
    Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
    The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
    Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.

    Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
    And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
    There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.

    I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.

    We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
    Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.

    Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.

    Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
    Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!

    Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
    Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.

    Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.

    Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.

    To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.

    "Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
    I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them

    The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)

    Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
    But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.

    It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.

    Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.

    That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
    That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.

    Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.

    The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.

    It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
    As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.

    I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.

    One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.

    I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.

    I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.

    Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.

    Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.

    My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.

    So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
    On the pensioners thing it is not the governing taxing workers to support poor pensioners. It is the government taxing workers to support the middles class better off pensioners. Nothing for them can be means tested and anything taxed is met with uproar.

    As someone who complains regulary about generational unfairness (and "in between" the generations) I would be quite happy to see pension credit increasing faster than it has done to support poorer pensioners as long as richer and middle income pensioners pay more.
    The issue is that the “middle-class pensioners” group is actually really quite small, but they are very much over-represented politically, including on this site and in local politics. Some hypothetical supertax on these people doesn’t raise much.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,970
    edited January 28
    Nigelb said:

    Three US service members were killed and at least 2 dozen injured in a drone attack on a base in Jordan on the border with Syria, Tower 22. A significant escalation
    https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1751640126155870701

    Hmm. That’s not good news as presumably that means an escalation..
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837

    Rishi is unlike many of his recent predecessors in that he has no large blots on his copy book that the public might hold against him. No 3-day week or winter of discontent. No poll tax or Black Wednesday. No Iraq or Global Financial Crisis. No Brexit or failed Brexit. No Partygate or trashing the markets.

    The nearest is Rwanda, which is notable so far for not having happened. Rishi is just disappointing. He was supposed to represent the return of the grown-ups to Downing Street but with the faux Boris act he has chosen (or that was foist on him by CCHQ) he seems less an adult and more a teenage babysitter.

    I tend to think of him as a caretaker-manager, but same idea though.
    Or a supply teacher.

    Who has lost the classroom.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting take on Britain’s productivity gap.

    https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1751643183694647555
    one of the biggest rate limiters to entrepreneurial progress in the uk is cafés closing their doors on weekends at like 3-5pm or not even opening on sunday

    in the states you can be working in a cafe like 24/7

    on the weekend, builders in sf work

    need to start a proper café

    Are UK builders too thick to have lunchboxes?? This guy seems to think so.
  • I don't think we have to look into this too deeply. Mr Sunak is used to everything going his way. Even when he lost the Con leadership poll the fates ordained that his opponent be so hopeless that the Con Party had to beg him to rescue it within a month or two. Of course he believes that ultimately the British people will see what a genius he is. He, like his ex-boss, has a very foolish habit of under-estimating Starmer even as the latter carves him up weekly in PMQs. He also thinks that the public are hanging on his every announcement when, in truth, they stopped listening to anything he said at least six months ago.

    He had his chance. If he had governed well he could have pulled this back. Instead he listened to the numbskulls around him and spent all his time electioneering, hunting wedge issues and trying to appear anti-woke (whatever that is supposed to mean). So out of touch with both the British people and the nation's needs that he has only himself to blame.

    A usually acute poster here questioned why any Reform UK voter would end up in Labour's column. Mr Sunak is reason number one. Most Reform types I know are not fans of Starmer but they actively despise Mr Sunak

    The first paragraph nails it for me. Sunak will carry on because (a) he thinks he is doing a good job, and (b) give people time and they will recognise that.

    The tragedy is that he is so disconnected from lived reality that it is easy for him to believe the paper statistics and political spin. Of course services are good - look how much money he is spending. of course the economy is improving - look at the tax cuts. Of course people will appreciate the extra money for infrastructure and councils and childcare.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,532
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting take on Britain’s productivity gap.

    https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1751643183694647555
    one of the biggest rate limiters to entrepreneurial progress in the uk is cafés closing their doors on weekends at like 3-5pm or not even opening on sunday

    in the states you can be working in a cafe like 24/7

    on the weekend, builders in sf work

    need to start a proper café

    Not heard of Greggs obvs
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,311
    Inflation has fallen significantly under Sunak's government so it is not true to say he has achieved nothing
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting take on Britain’s productivity gap.

    https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1751643183694647555
    one of the biggest rate limiters to entrepreneurial progress in the uk is cafés closing their doors on weekends at like 3-5pm or not even opening on sunday

    in the states you can be working in a cafe like 24/7

    on the weekend, builders in sf work

    need to start a proper café

    Not heard of Greggs obvs
    24/7 Wetherspoons would lead to British start ups taking over the world
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,219

    I don't think that any PM would use longevity as a tool for choosing the GE date.... to me that just isn't a serious analysis. 🤷

    It's a bit of fun for a Sunday afternoon, sure.

    Though I wonder if the long campaign after Boris's departure was so he could sneak above May in the list.

    The only relevant question once a PM enters the final year is "If I call an election now, am I confident of winning?" If so, call it, if not wait- even if the situation is likely to worsen.

    Hence December 19th, on the basis that even Today's Conservative Party aren't dumb enough to call an election where the campaign will have a Christmas break
    Okay, just a bit of fun on a Sunday afternoon. I apologise for being grumpy.

    Though another fun header can be the very opposite, can’t it, about political history without self serving clinging on. through such black mirrors we could be even closer to the actual considerations going on, maybe?

    Lord Finkelstein, who advised John Major, has argued 97 was a heavier defeat for hanging on till the bitter end. Learning from history, what can you see in those remaining months that can lead to worse or better results for your party? MarqueeMark seemed to agree with this, Dura Ace and Peter the Punter actually believes Sunak doesn’t care how many seats he leaves the Conservatives with?

    The current Spanish government called one early whilst behind in polls, did that surprise you? they had seemed like moving towards end of their time in power, yet did better than expected, the result surprise you? What if they had waited - like everyone always does, apparently?

    Now the what if. what if previous UK governments hadn’t waited, but called those elections that never were? Autumn 2007? Autumn 1978? and it worked for them like it did in Spain last year? Better results for the government, maybe leading to different political history altogether, like Lady Thatcher never became Primeminister at all?

    what is the science and reason to waiting every single time? Or, instead, looking into the remaining months, what do you see there specifically to help you have a great campaign - for a government it’s getting attention off yourself and onto your opponents, the threat of the new, tap into the universal truth: who really wants change when it’s not absolutely necessary?

    I’m sure the timing in leaders minds, and in the team around them, is based on how can we have great campaign.

    At least it should be?
    There's an interesting comparison to 2007 in that the best option for the party, and with a chance of winning, wasn't taken as it posed too much risk to the principal. The fact that Brown should have (and maybe initially planned to) have a short, sharp launch and go within six months in the honeymoon period, but bottled it, has become legion.

    If Sunak had actually done that. Come in after Truss. Clear the decks. Promote fresh faces, apologise for Truss and try to fix the most obvious things while doing a policy blitz, putting together his manifesto, and going to the country within 6 months, he might have pulled something out of the bag. As it is, like Brown, it's now all bad options.

    In both cases you have to think one reason that road wasn't taken is due to the personal risk (pretty large in Sunak's case) that the person in charge would be humiliated by losing after 6 months as PM. While going on for 2 years or so proved the worst of all worlds, as it's not long enough to properly fix anything but long enough for people to remember you're not this new face with new ideas, and blame you for said problems.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,970
    HYUFD said:

    Inflation has fallen significantly under Sunak's government so it is not true to say he has achieved nothing

    It’s absolutely true, as it’s been absolutely nothing to do with him 😂
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837

    HYUFD said:

    Inflation has fallen significantly under Sunak's government so it is not true to say he has achieved nothing

    It’s absolutely true, as it’s been absolutely nothing to do with him 😂
    So its rising was nothing to do with him either?

  • eekeek Posts: 24,504
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting take on Britain’s productivity gap.

    https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1751643183694647555
    one of the biggest rate limiters to entrepreneurial progress in the uk is cafés closing their doors on weekends at like 3-5pm or not even opening on sunday

    in the states you can be working in a cafe like 24/7

    on the weekend, builders in sf work

    need to start a proper café

    Last thing you want is a laptop road warrior taking a table for the entire day and only having somrthing like 5 coffees.

    Any coffee shop would prefer to rotate the table hourly or even better every 40 minutes or so.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    MJW said:

    I don't think that any PM would use longevity as a tool for choosing the GE date.... to me that just isn't a serious analysis. 🤷

    It's a bit of fun for a Sunday afternoon, sure.

    Though I wonder if the long campaign after Boris's departure was so he could sneak above May in the list.

    The only relevant question once a PM enters the final year is "If I call an election now, am I confident of winning?" If so, call it, if not wait- even if the situation is likely to worsen.

    Hence December 19th, on the basis that even Today's Conservative Party aren't dumb enough to call an election where the campaign will have a Christmas break
    Okay, just a bit of fun on a Sunday afternoon. I apologise for being grumpy.

    Though another fun header can be the very opposite, can’t it, about political history without self serving clinging on. through such black mirrors we could be even closer to the actual considerations going on, maybe?

    Lord Finkelstein, who advised John Major, has argued 97 was a heavier defeat for hanging on till the bitter end. Learning from history, what can you see in those remaining months that can lead to worse or better results for your party? MarqueeMark seemed to agree with this, Dura Ace and Peter the Punter actually believes Sunak doesn’t care how many seats he leaves the Conservatives with?

    The current Spanish government called one early whilst behind in polls, did that surprise you? they had seemed like moving towards end of their time in power, yet did better than expected, the result surprise you? What if they had waited - like everyone always does, apparently?

    Now the what if. what if previous UK governments hadn’t waited, but called those elections that never were? Autumn 2007? Autumn 1978? and it worked for them like it did in Spain last year? Better results for the government, maybe leading to different political history altogether, like Lady Thatcher never became Primeminister at all?

    what is the science and reason to waiting every single time? Or, instead, looking into the remaining months, what do you see there specifically to help you have a great campaign - for a government it’s getting attention off yourself and onto your opponents, the threat of the new, tap into the universal truth: who really wants change when it’s not absolutely necessary?

    I’m sure the timing in leaders minds, and in the team around them, is based on how can we have great campaign.

    At least it should be?
    There's an interesting comparison to 2007 in that the best option for the party, and with a chance of winning, wasn't taken as it posed too much risk to the principal. The fact that Brown should have (and maybe initially planned to) have a short, sharp launch and go within six months in the honeymoon period, but bottled it, has become legion.

    If Sunak had actually done that. Come in after Truss. Clear the decks. Promote fresh faces, apologise for Truss and try to fix the most obvious things while doing a policy blitz, putting together his manifesto, and going to the country within 6 months, he might have pulled something out of the bag. As it is, like Brown, it's now all bad options.

    In both cases you have to think one reason that road wasn't taken is due to the personal risk (pretty large in Sunak's case) that the person in charge would be humiliated by losing after 6 months as PM. While going on for 2 years or so proved the worst of all worlds, as it's not long enough to properly fix anything but long enough for people to remember you're not this new face with new ideas, and blame you for said problems.
    Sunak could plausibly have made it a post-covid election and tried to contrast his safe pair of hands approach with Starmer's reckless grandstanding.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    edited January 28
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting take on Britain’s productivity gap.

    https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1751643183694647555
    one of the biggest rate limiters to entrepreneurial progress in the uk is cafés closing their doors on weekends at like 3-5pm or not even opening on sunday

    in the states you can be working in a cafe like 24/7

    on the weekend, builders in sf work

    need to start a proper café

    Productivity is: amount of output produced / hours worked.

    Unless the builders are likely to produce dramatically higher output per hour at the weekend, how would this improve productivity?

    (I guess that the economy might benefit as a whole from building work being completed earlier. But if that's the case, then there's clearly a productivity benefitting boost from allowing lots of builders into the country to work.)

    But let's go back to the cafe. The people working in the cafe are minimum wage. By closing at 3-5pm and not working Sundays, they will (mathematically and obviously) be boosting productivity of the economy because they won't be dragging productivity stats down by adding low Value Added economic hours.
  • vinovino Posts: 151
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    IanB2 said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,

    Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.

    Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
    This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
    Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
    I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
    That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
    Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
    The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
    Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.

    Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
    And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
    There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.

    I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.

    We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
    Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.

    Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.

    Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
    Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!

    Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
    Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.

    Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.

    Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.

    To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.

    "Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
    I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them

    The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)

    Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
    But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.

    It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.

    Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.

    That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
    That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.

    Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.

    The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.

    It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
    As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.

    I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.

    One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.

    I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.

    I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.

    Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.

    Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.

    My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.

    So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
    I assume you mean Babbington Colliery not Badminton - Babbington Colliery was just off the M1 on the A610 - It's now Phoenix Park site of the Nottingham Tram.
    Agree entirely with your voting intentions - Tories have lost my vote cos they are incompetent/stupid whilst Labour have lost it due to Brexit Referendum 2.
    Lib Dems no chance.
    I will vote Reform if Nigel takes over otherwise Green or No Vote.
    I know a lot of former Tory voters like you or me.
    FWIW I think Lee Anderson will retain his seat.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting take on Britain’s productivity gap.

    https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1751643183694647555
    one of the biggest rate limiters to entrepreneurial progress in the uk is cafés closing their doors on weekends at like 3-5pm or not even opening on sunday

    in the states you can be working in a cafe like 24/7

    on the weekend, builders in sf work

    need to start a proper café

    Productivity is: amount of output produced / hours worked.

    Unless the builders are likely to produce dramatically higher output per hour at the weekend, how would this improve productivity?

    (I guess that the economy might benefit as a whole from building work being completed earlier. But if that's the case, then there's clearly a productivity benefitting boost from allowing lots of builders into the country to work.)

    But let's go back to the cafe. The people working in the cafe are minimum wage. By closing at 3-5pm and not working Sundays, they will (mathematically and obviously) be boosting productivity of the economy because they won't be dragging productivity stats down by adding low Value Added economic hours.
    I assume they mean builders as in founders rather than actual builders.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    We are clearly spiralling towards WW3

    Eat, drink, and fornicate, my PB friends


    The Next Global War
    How Today’s Regional Conflicts Resemble the Ones That Produced World War II
    By Hal Brands


    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/next-global-war
  • vino said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    IanB2 said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,

    Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.

    Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
    This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
    Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
    I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
    That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
    Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
    The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
    Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.

    Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
    And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
    There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.

    I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.

    We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
    Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.

    Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.

    Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
    Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!

    Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
    Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.

    Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.

    Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.

    To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.

    "Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
    I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them

    The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)

    Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
    But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.

    It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.

    Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.

    That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
    That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.

    Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.

    The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.

    It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
    As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.

    I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.

    One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.

    I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.

    I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.

    Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.

    Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.

    My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.

    So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
    I assume you mean Babbington Colliery not Badminton - Babbington Colliery was just off the M1 on the A610 - It's now Phoenix Park site of the Nottingham Tram.
    Agree entirely with your voting intentions - Tories have lost my vote cos they are incompetent/stupid whilst Labour have lost it due to Brexit Referendum 2.
    Lib Dems no chance.
    I will vote Reform if Nigel takes over otherwise Green or No Vote.
    I know a lot of former Tory voters like you or me.
    FWIW I think Lee Anderson will retain his seat.
    30p Lee for LOTO!!!!
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Leon said:

    We are clearly spiralling towards WW3

    Eat, drink, and fornicate, my PB friends


    The Next Global War
    How Today’s Regional Conflicts Resemble the Ones That Produced World War II
    By Hal Brands


    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/next-global-war

    Phew! Leonadamus has predicted a bad thing. I was worried the bad thing might happen there for a moment. Who can possibly forget the Threads commentary of Autumn ‘22? A classic of the genre.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    America needs to bomb the fuck out of Iran NOW, before they get nukes. Coz once they get nukes, they will launch them at Israel, and that’s World War 3 anyway

    And Iran is mere months from nukes, and already has the missiles to reach as far as eastern Europe

    Might as well get ahead of the curve and flatten Qom
  • vinovino Posts: 151

    vino said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    IanB2 said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,

    Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.

    Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
    This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
    Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
    I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
    That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
    Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
    The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
    Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.

    Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
    And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
    There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.

    I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.

    We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
    Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.

    Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.

    Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
    Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!

    Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
    Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.

    Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.

    Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.

    To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.

    "Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
    I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them

    The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)

    Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
    But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.

    It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.

    Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.

    That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
    That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.

    Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.

    The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.

    It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
    As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.

    I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.

    One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.

    I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.

    I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.

    Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.

    Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.

    My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.

    So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
    I assume you mean Babbington Colliery not Badminton - Babbington Colliery was just off the M1 on the A610 - It's now Phoenix Park site of the Nottingham Tram.
    Agree entirely with your voting intentions - Tories have lost my vote cos they are incompetent/stupid whilst Labour have lost it due to Brexit Referendum 2.
    Lib Dems no chance.
    I will vote Reform if Nigel takes over otherwise Green or No Vote.
    I know a lot of former Tory voters like you or me.
    FWIW I think Lee Anderson will retain his seat.
    30p Lee for LOTO!!!!
    I would bet on that as well.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,382

    Rishi is unlike many of his recent predecessors in that he has no large blots on his copy book that the public might hold against him. No 3-day week or winter of discontent. No poll tax or Black Wednesday. No Iraq or Global Financial Crisis. No Brexit or failed Brexit. No Partygate or trashing the markets.

    The nearest is Rwanda, which is notable so far for not having happened. Rishi is just disappointing. He was supposed to represent the return of the grown-ups to Downing Street but with the faux Boris act he has chosen (or that was foist on him by CCHQ) he seems less an adult and more a teenage babysitter.

    I think, ultimately, he may be looked on not unfavourably. Decent guy who governed responsibly-ish. Not unlike John Major who seems to be respected more than most of his successors.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,149

    Rishi is unlike many of his recent predecessors in that he has no large blots on his copy book that the public might hold against him. No 3-day week or winter of discontent. No poll tax or Black Wednesday. No Iraq or Global Financial Crisis. No Brexit or failed Brexit. No Partygate or trashing the markets.

    The nearest is Rwanda, which is notable so far for not having happened. Rishi is just disappointing. He was supposed to represent the return of the grown-ups to Downing Street but with the faux Boris act he has chosen (or that was foist on him by CCHQ) he seems less an adult and more a teenage babysitter.

    I think, ultimately, he may be looked on not unfavourably. Decent guy who governed responsibly-ish. Not unlike John Major who seems to be respected more than most of his successors.
    Rwanda, ditching the northern leg of HS2, rowing back on Net Zero... I'm not so sure.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Leon said:

    America needs to bomb the fuck out of Iran NOW, before they get nukes. Coz once they get nukes, they will launch them at Israel, and that’s World War 3 anyway

    And Iran is mere months from nukes, and already has the missiles to reach as far as eastern Europe

    Might as well get ahead of the curve and flatten Qom

    Just bombing things, without the threat or realisation of an occupation, rarely, if ever, works. It tends to rally the populace of the bombee against the government of the bomber. The Iranian nukes are so far below rock bombing them will make little or no difference and there may be…issues with occupying Iran.
  • I don't own a cafe, but I do own a shop. We are open only half days on Tuesday and Wednesday, and closed completely Monday and Thursday. Why? Because being open Costs Money. Lights. Heating. Staff costs (not that we have any at the moment but cafes will).

    When you open a new public-facing business you need to build a presence and attract people in. But you also have to balance costs and cash flow. Our business is lucky in that it doesn't need to pay rent. Or bills. Or wages. Yet. And we're still needing to balance revenue potential vs costs.

    My brother once owned a cafe. Costs killed it after the local school banned kids from going out at lunchtime. And in January 2024 so many businesses have had to cope with huge cost inflation which they can't just recover by putting up prices. That is why they aren't open more - they can't afford to be.

    Read up on the SME debt crisis...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473

    MJW said:

    I don't think that any PM would use longevity as a tool for choosing the GE date.... to me that just isn't a serious analysis. 🤷

    It's a bit of fun for a Sunday afternoon, sure.

    Though I wonder if the long campaign after Boris's departure was so he could sneak above May in the list.

    The only relevant question once a PM enters the final year is "If I call an election now, am I confident of winning?" If so, call it, if not wait- even if the situation is likely to worsen.

    Hence December 19th, on the basis that even Today's Conservative Party aren't dumb enough to call an election where the campaign will have a Christmas break
    Okay, just a bit of fun on a Sunday afternoon. I apologise for being grumpy.

    Though another fun header can be the very opposite, can’t it, about political history without self serving clinging on. through such black mirrors we could be even closer to the actual considerations going on, maybe?

    Lord Finkelstein, who advised John Major, has argued 97 was a heavier defeat for hanging on till the bitter end. Learning from history, what can you see in those remaining months that can lead to worse or better results for your party? MarqueeMark seemed to agree with this, Dura Ace and Peter the Punter actually believes Sunak doesn’t care how many seats he leaves the Conservatives with?

    The current Spanish government called one early whilst behind in polls, did that surprise you? they had seemed like moving towards end of their time in power, yet did better than expected, the result surprise you? What if they had waited - like everyone always does, apparently?

    Now the what if. what if previous UK governments hadn’t waited, but called those elections that never were? Autumn 2007? Autumn 1978? and it worked for them like it did in Spain last year? Better results for the government, maybe leading to different political history altogether, like Lady Thatcher never became Primeminister at all?

    what is the science and reason to waiting every single time? Or, instead, looking into the remaining months, what do you see there specifically to help you have a great campaign - for a government it’s getting attention off yourself and onto your opponents, the threat of the new, tap into the universal truth: who really wants change when it’s not absolutely necessary?

    I’m sure the timing in leaders minds, and in the team around them, is based on how can we have great campaign.

    At least it should be?
    There's an interesting comparison to 2007 in that the best option for the party, and with a chance of winning, wasn't taken as it posed too much risk to the principal. The fact that Brown should have (and maybe initially planned to) have a short, sharp launch and go within six months in the honeymoon period, but bottled it, has become legion.

    If Sunak had actually done that. Come in after Truss. Clear the decks. Promote fresh faces, apologise for Truss and try to fix the most obvious things while doing a policy blitz, putting together his manifesto, and going to the country within 6 months, he might have pulled something out of the bag. As it is, like Brown, it's now all bad options.

    In both cases you have to think one reason that road wasn't taken is due to the personal risk (pretty large in Sunak's case) that the person in charge would be humiliated by losing after 6 months as PM. While going on for 2 years or so proved the worst of all worlds, as it's not long enough to properly fix anything but long enough for people to remember you're not this new face with new ideas, and blame you for said problems.
    Sunak could plausibly have made it a post-covid election and tried to contrast his safe pair of hands approach with Starmer's reckless grandstanding.
    Yes that could well have worked. But it would have required Starmer to play ball and do some reckless grandstanding.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 2,941

    I don't own a cafe, but I do own a shop. We are open only half days on Tuesday and Wednesday, and closed completely Monday and Thursday. Why? Because being open Costs Money. Lights. Heating. Staff costs (not that we have any at the moment but cafes will).

    When you open a new public-facing business you need to build a presence and attract people in. But you also have to balance costs and cash flow. Our business is lucky in that it doesn't need to pay rent. Or bills. Or wages. Yet. And we're still needing to balance revenue potential vs costs.

    My brother once owned a cafe. Costs killed it after the local school banned kids from going out at lunchtime. And in January 2024 so many businesses have had to cope with huge cost inflation which they can't just recover by putting up prices. That is why they aren't open more - they can't afford to be.

    Read up on the SME debt crisis...

    When I worked in a shop, third week of Jan was the quietest time, since it's when Christmas credit card bills arrive...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    Houston, we have a problem:

    https://x.com/haadka/status/1751550117575041408

    While speaking to Somalian crowd, US congresswoman Ilhan Omar said

    "As Somalis, one day we will go after our missing territories" in reference to Somali inhibited regions in Kenya and Ethiopia.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 57,808

    Rishi is unlike many of his recent predecessors in that he has no large blots on his copy book that the public might hold against him. No 3-day week or winter of discontent. No poll tax or Black Wednesday. No Iraq or Global Financial Crisis. No Brexit or failed Brexit. No Partygate or trashing the markets.

    The nearest is Rwanda, which is notable so far for not having happened. Rishi is just disappointing. He was supposed to represent the return of the grown-ups to Downing Street but with the faux Boris act he has chosen (or that was foist on him by CCHQ) he seems less an adult and more a teenage babysitter.

    I think, ultimately, he may be looked on not unfavourably. Decent guy who governed responsibly-ish. Not unlike John Major who seems to be respected more than most of his successors.
    Rwanda, ditching the northern leg of HS2, rowing back on Net Zero... I'm not so sure.
    Exactly. It is a catalog of fuck ups frankly done for "strategic" reasons that actually turned out to be will-o-the-wisp.



  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    America needs to bomb the fuck out of Iran NOW, before they get nukes. Coz once they get nukes, they will launch them at Israel, and that’s World War 3 anyway

    And Iran is mere months from nukes, and already has the missiles to reach as far as eastern Europe

    Might as well get ahead of the curve and flatten Qom

    Just bombing things, without the threat or realisation of an occupation, rarely, if ever, works. It tends to rally the populace of the bombee against the government of the bomber. The Iranian nukes are so far below rock bombing them will make little or no difference and there may be…issues with occupying Iran.
    I’m just saying Get A Wiggle On

    WW3 is now inevitable. Let’s make the first real move, so they have to break our serve
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,529
    Don’t know whether Leon realises this (or cares very much) but the Cambodian cricket team is reported as walking off, and conceding, half way through a game against Indonesia.
    There was, according to the BBC, a row over umpiring.
    Cambodia are apparently 44th and Indonesia 55th in the T20 world rankings.

    Ref BBC Sport (Cricket).
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,384
    Netanyahus out of control war and scorched earth policy in Gaza now leading to American casualties and making us all less safe.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    America needs to bomb the fuck out of Iran NOW, before they get nukes. Coz once they get nukes, they will launch them at Israel, and that’s World War 3 anyway

    And Iran is mere months from nukes, and already has the missiles to reach as far as eastern Europe

    Might as well get ahead of the curve and flatten Qom

    Just bombing things, without the threat or realisation of an occupation, rarely, if ever, works. It tends to rally the populace of the bombee against the government of the bomber. The Iranian nukes are so far below rock bombing them will make little or no difference and there may be…issues with occupying Iran.
    I’m just saying Get A Wiggle On

    WW3 is now inevitable. Let’s make the first real move, so they have to break our serve
    Failing to declare war on Russia after they invaded Ukraine is like winning the toss and putting the other side in to bat first.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916

    Don’t know whether Leon realises this (or cares very much) but the Cambodian cricket team is reported as walking off, and conceding, half way through a game against Indonesia.
    There was, according to the BBC, a row over umpiring.
    Cambodia are apparently 44th and Indonesia 55th in the T20 world rankings.

    Ref BBC Sport (Cricket).

    While you are all in your nuclear bomb shelters, tomorrow, I might take in a game
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    nico679 said:

    Netanyahus out of control war and scorched earth policy in Gaza now leading to American casualties and making us all less safe.

    As much as I dislike him, the American casualties are not Bibi's fault.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,384

    nico679 said:

    Netanyahus out of control war and scorched earth policy in Gaza now leading to American casualties and making us all less safe.

    As much as I dislike him, the American casualties are not Bibi's fault.
    The whole area is being de-stabilized. This didn’t happen in a vacuum .
  • isamisam Posts: 40,572
    edited January 28
    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    I don't think that any PM would use longevity as a tool for choosing the GE date.... to me that just isn't a serious analysis. 🤷

    It's a bit of fun for a Sunday afternoon, sure.

    Though I wonder if the long campaign after Boris's departure was so he could sneak above May in the list.

    The only relevant question once a PM enters the final year is "If I call an election now, am I confident of winning?" If so, call it, if not wait- even if the situation is likely to worsen.

    Hence December 19th, on the basis that even Today's Conservative Party aren't dumb enough to call an election where the campaign will have a Christmas break
    Okay, just a bit of fun on a Sunday afternoon. I apologise for being grumpy.

    Though another fun header can be the very opposite, can’t it, about political history without self serving clinging on. through such black mirrors we could be even closer to the actual considerations going on, maybe?

    Lord Finkelstein, who advised John Major, has argued 97 was a heavier defeat for hanging on till the bitter end. Learning from history, what can you see in those remaining months that can lead to worse or better results for your party? MarqueeMark seemed to agree with this, Dura Ace and Peter the Punter actually believes Sunak doesn’t care how many seats he leaves the Conservatives with?

    The current Spanish government called one early whilst behind in polls, did that surprise you? they had seemed like moving towards end of their time in power, yet did better than expected, the result surprise you? What if they had waited - like everyone always does, apparently?

    Now the what if. what if previous UK governments hadn’t waited, but called those elections that never were? Autumn 2007? Autumn 1978? and it worked for them like it did in Spain last year? Better results for the government, maybe leading to different political history altogether, like Lady Thatcher never became Primeminister at all?

    what is the science and reason to waiting every single time? Or, instead, looking into the remaining months, what do you see there specifically to help you have a great campaign - for a government it’s getting attention off yourself and onto your opponents, the threat of the new, tap into the universal truth: who really wants change when it’s not absolutely necessary?

    I’m sure the timing in leaders minds, and in the team around them, is based on how can we have great campaign.

    At least it should be?
    There's an interesting comparison to 2007 in that the best option for the party, and with a chance of winning, wasn't taken as it posed too much risk to the principal. The fact that Brown should have (and maybe initially planned to) have a short, sharp launch and go within six months in the honeymoon period, but bottled it, has become legion.

    If Sunak had actually done that. Come in after Truss. Clear the decks. Promote fresh faces, apologise for Truss and try to fix the most obvious things while doing a policy blitz, putting together his manifesto, and going to the country within 6 months, he might have pulled something out of the bag. As it is, like Brown, it's now all bad options.

    In both cases you have to think one reason that road wasn't taken is due to the personal risk (pretty large in Sunak's case) that the person in charge would be humiliated by losing after 6 months as PM. While going on for 2 years or so proved the worst of all worlds, as it's not long enough to properly fix anything but long enough for people to remember you're not this new face with new ideas, and blame you for said problems.
    Sunak could plausibly have made it a post-covid election and tried to contrast his safe pair of hands approach with Starmer's reckless grandstanding.
    Yes that could well have worked. But it would have required Starmer to play ball and do some reckless grandstanding.

    Such a short memory, as I know only too well

    ‘Johnson Variant’, what a prat







  • I don't think that any PM would use longevity as a tool for choosing the GE date.... to me that just isn't a serious analysis. 🤷

    It's a bit of fun for a Sunday afternoon, sure.

    Though I wonder if the long campaign after Boris's departure was so he could sneak above May in the list.

    The only relevant question once a PM enters the final year is "If I call an election now, am I confident of winning?" If so, call it, if not wait- even if the situation is likely to worsen.

    Hence December 19th, on the basis that even Today's Conservative Party aren't dumb enough to call an election where the campaign will have a Christmas break
    I think the only question worth asking for Sunak is: how do I avoid being the one at the helm for the worst parliamentary election result ever. That is something that sticks as a political epitaph. Put the last two yougovs into electoral calculus and it gives you 38 tory seats. And this is what it adds up to: cutting your losses. If he goes long that will be bad, because the bad polls are widening and there is nothing good on the horison.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Netanyahus out of control war and scorched earth policy in Gaza now leading to American casualties and making us all less safe.

    As much as I dislike him, the American casualties are not Bibi's fault.
    The whole area is being de-stabilized. This didn’t happen in a vacuum .
    No indeed. Hamas may have had something to do with it, for a start.

    What American casualties are these? I haven't heard anything.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Netanyahus out of control war and scorched earth policy in Gaza now leading to American casualties and making us all less safe.

    As much as I dislike him, the American casualties are not Bibi's fault.
    The whole area is being de-stabilized. This didn’t happen in a vacuum .
    Had you not noticed that the destabilisation started when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th? Or if you prefer, we could go back as far as you want, blaming any one of a number of 'sides' that have mucked up the region over the centuries. Including us.

    I can see attacking US troops being popular amongst some of the more deluded friends of Palestine on here; unfortunately, all it does is create another escalation.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Netanyahus out of control war and scorched earth policy in Gaza now leading to American casualties and making us all less safe.

    As much as I dislike him, the American casualties are not Bibi's fault.
    The whole area is being de-stabilized. This didn’t happen in a vacuum .
    It was Hamas that went on a terroristic rape-fest holocaust-krieg, butchering or dismembering every Jew it could find

    And now we are all being sucked into the ensuing war. And you know what, maybe it’s time. Fuck it. Duke it out. Iran has had it coming. I bet we can do them
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    ydoethur said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Netanyahus out of control war and scorched earth policy in Gaza now leading to American casualties and making us all less safe.

    As much as I dislike him, the American casualties are not Bibi's fault.
    The whole area is being de-stabilized. This didn’t happen in a vacuum .
    No indeed. Hamas may have had something to do with it, for a start.

    What American casualties are these? I haven't heard anything.
    "There are conflicting accounts of the location of the drone attack which killed three US servicemen.

    US President Joe Biden says the attack took place in north-east Jordan, close to the Syrian border, suggesting the location was a US base called Tower 22, which is just across the border from the much larger US base at al-Tanf, in south-east Syria."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68121694
  • I think we need to take a moment to laugh at Manchester United.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916
    In all seriousness, I am not sure, in an election year, how Biden can avoid striking Iran directly, now

    Otherwise he looks like a kind of mummified Jimmy Carter
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420

    ydoethur said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Netanyahus out of control war and scorched earth policy in Gaza now leading to American casualties and making us all less safe.

    As much as I dislike him, the American casualties are not Bibi's fault.
    The whole area is being de-stabilized. This didn’t happen in a vacuum .
    No indeed. Hamas may have had something to do with it, for a start.

    What American casualties are these? I haven't heard anything.
    "There are conflicting accounts of the location of the drone attack which killed three US servicemen.

    US President Joe Biden says the attack took place in north-east Jordan, close to the Syrian border, suggesting the location was a US base called Tower 22, which is just across the border from the much larger US base at al-Tanf, in south-east Syria."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68121694
    The extent to which he can be blamed is debatable, but Biden does risk looking like a very weak President going into the election.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 17,732
    A suggestion that the New York DA is preparing to bring forward the Trump Stormy Daniels so-called Hush Money trial to take the time in March onwards which has potentially been vacated by delays to the Georgia Judge Chutkin electection interference case.

    Quite careful commentary from a 30-year employee of the DA's office.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwis6pkk_Sk
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,916

    ydoethur said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Netanyahus out of control war and scorched earth policy in Gaza now leading to American casualties and making us all less safe.

    As much as I dislike him, the American casualties are not Bibi's fault.
    The whole area is being de-stabilized. This didn’t happen in a vacuum .
    No indeed. Hamas may have had something to do with it, for a start.

    What American casualties are these? I haven't heard anything.
    "There are conflicting accounts of the location of the drone attack which killed three US servicemen.

    US President Joe Biden says the attack took place in north-east Jordan, close to the Syrian border, suggesting the location was a US base called Tower 22, which is just across the border from the much larger US base at al-Tanf, in south-east Syria."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68121694
    The extent to which he can be blamed is debatable, but Biden does risk looking like a very weak President going into the election.
    Yes. He could lose the election right here, right now, tonight

    Iran has just hit US troops directly, and killed several and wounded many

    Is America a superpower or not? Does it just meekly accept this, or does it take on the mad mullahs in Tehran?

    If Biden fails, then Trump will exult and taunt, and Trump will have a point. America was not humiliated when Trump was in charge. It’s an unfair point, to an extent, but it will work
  • I think we need to take a moment to laugh at Manchester United.

    Brailsford is in the stand. Good. Watch this shit and plan how you fix it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    I don't think that any PM would use longevity as a tool for choosing the GE date.... to me that just isn't a serious analysis. 🤷

    It's a bit of fun for a Sunday afternoon, sure.

    Though I wonder if the long campaign after Boris's departure was so he could sneak above May in the list.

    The only relevant question once a PM enters the final year is "If I call an election now, am I confident of winning?" If so, call it, if not wait- even if the situation is likely to worsen.

    Hence December 19th, on the basis that even Today's Conservative Party aren't dumb enough to call an election where the campaign will have a Christmas break
    Okay, just a bit of fun on a Sunday afternoon. I apologise for being grumpy.

    Though another fun header can be the very opposite, can’t it, about political history without self serving clinging on. through such black mirrors we could be even closer to the actual considerations going on, maybe?

    Lord Finkelstein, who advised John Major, has argued 97 was a heavier defeat for hanging on till the bitter end. Learning from history, what can you see in those remaining months that can lead to worse or better results for your party? MarqueeMark seemed to agree with this, Dura Ace and Peter the Punter actually believes Sunak doesn’t care how many seats he leaves the Conservatives with?

    The current Spanish government called one early whilst behind in polls, did that surprise you? they had seemed like moving towards end of their time in power, yet did better than expected, the result surprise you? What if they had waited - like everyone always does, apparently?

    Now the what if. what if previous UK governments hadn’t waited, but called those elections that never were? Autumn 2007? Autumn 1978? and it worked for them like it did in Spain last year? Better results for the government, maybe leading to different political history altogether, like Lady Thatcher never became Primeminister at all?

    what is the science and reason to waiting every single time? Or, instead, looking into the remaining months, what do you see there specifically to help you have a great campaign - for a government it’s getting attention off yourself and onto your opponents, the threat of the new, tap into the universal truth: who really wants change when it’s not absolutely necessary?

    I’m sure the timing in leaders minds, and in the team around them, is based on how can we have great campaign.

    At least it should be?
    There's an interesting comparison to 2007 in that the best option for the party, and with a chance of winning, wasn't taken as it posed too much risk to the principal. The fact that Brown should have (and maybe initially planned to) have a short, sharp launch and go within six months in the honeymoon period, but bottled it, has become legion.

    If Sunak had actually done that. Come in after Truss. Clear the decks. Promote fresh faces, apologise for Truss and try to fix the most obvious things while doing a policy blitz, putting together his manifesto, and going to the country within 6 months, he might have pulled something out of the bag. As it is, like Brown, it's now all bad options.

    In both cases you have to think one reason that road wasn't taken is due to the personal risk (pretty large in Sunak's case) that the person in charge would be humiliated by losing after 6 months as PM. While going on for 2 years or so proved the worst of all worlds, as it's not long enough to properly fix anything but long enough for people to remember you're not this new face with new ideas, and blame you for said problems.
    Sunak could plausibly have made it a post-covid election and tried to contrast his safe pair of hands approach with Starmer's reckless grandstanding.
    Yes that could well have worked. But it would have required Starmer to play ball and do some reckless grandstanding.

    Such a short memory, as I know only too well

    ‘Johnson Variant’, what a prat







    What a tw@.

    That's your next PM, right there.

    For those who think they will get something better than Rishi Sunak. Spoiler alert...

  • isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    I don't think that any PM would use longevity as a tool for choosing the GE date.... to me that just isn't a serious analysis. 🤷

    It's a bit of fun for a Sunday afternoon, sure.

    Though I wonder if the long campaign after Boris's departure was so he could sneak above May in the list.

    The only relevant question once a PM enters the final year is "If I call an election now, am I confident of winning?" If so, call it, if not wait- even if the situation is likely to worsen.

    Hence December 19th, on the basis that even Today's Conservative Party aren't dumb enough to call an election where the campaign will have a Christmas break
    Okay, just a bit of fun on a Sunday afternoon. I apologise for being grumpy.

    Though another fun header can be the very opposite, can’t it, about political history without self serving clinging on. through such black mirrors we could be even closer to the actual considerations going on, maybe?

    Lord Finkelstein, who advised John Major, has argued 97 was a heavier defeat for hanging on till the bitter end. Learning from history, what can you see in those remaining months that can lead to worse or better results for your party? MarqueeMark seemed to agree with this, Dura Ace and Peter the Punter actually believes Sunak doesn’t care how many seats he leaves the Conservatives with?

    The current Spanish government called one early whilst behind in polls, did that surprise you? they had seemed like moving towards end of their time in power, yet did better than expected, the result surprise you? What if they had waited - like everyone always does, apparently?

    Now the what if. what if previous UK governments hadn’t waited, but called those elections that never were? Autumn 2007? Autumn 1978? and it worked for them like it did in Spain last year? Better results for the government, maybe leading to different political history altogether, like Lady Thatcher never became Primeminister at all?

    what is the science and reason to waiting every single time? Or, instead, looking into the remaining months, what do you see there specifically to help you have a great campaign - for a government it’s getting attention off yourself and onto your opponents, the threat of the new, tap into the universal truth: who really wants change when it’s not absolutely necessary?

    I’m sure the timing in leaders minds, and in the team around them, is based on how can we have great campaign.

    At least it should be?
    There's an interesting comparison to 2007 in that the best option for the party, and with a chance of winning, wasn't taken as it posed too much risk to the principal. The fact that Brown should have (and maybe initially planned to) have a short, sharp launch and go within six months in the honeymoon period, but bottled it, has become legion.

    If Sunak had actually done that. Come in after Truss. Clear the decks. Promote fresh faces, apologise for Truss and try to fix the most obvious things while doing a policy blitz, putting together his manifesto, and going to the country within 6 months, he might have pulled something out of the bag. As it is, like Brown, it's now all bad options.

    In both cases you have to think one reason that road wasn't taken is due to the personal risk (pretty large in Sunak's case) that the person in charge would be humiliated by losing after 6 months as PM. While going on for 2 years or so proved the worst of all worlds, as it's not long enough to properly fix anything but long enough for people to remember you're not this new face with new ideas, and blame you for said problems.
    Sunak could plausibly have made it a post-covid election and tried to contrast his safe pair of hands approach with Starmer's reckless grandstanding.
    Yes that could well have worked. But it would have required Starmer to play ball and do some reckless grandstanding.

    Such a short memory, as I know only too well

    ‘Johnson Variant’, what a prat







    What a tw@.

    That's your next PM, right there.

    For those who think they will get something better than Rishi Sunak. Spoiler alert...

    We'd be replaciing a banker (sic) with a lawyer, I consider that an absolute win.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 17,732
    edited January 28
    vino said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    IanB2 said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,

    Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.

    Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
    This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
    Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
    I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
    That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
    Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
    The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
    Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.

    Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
    And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
    There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.

    I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.

    We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
    Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.

    Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.

    Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
    Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!

    Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
    Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.

    Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.

    Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.

    To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.

    "Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
    I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them

    The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)

    Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
    But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.

    It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.

    Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.

    That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
    That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.

    Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.

    The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.

    It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
    As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.

    I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.

    One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.

    I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.

    I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.

    Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.

    Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.

    My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.

    So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
    I assume you mean Babbington Colliery not Badminton - Babbington Colliery was just off the M1 on the A610 - It's now Phoenix Park site of the Nottingham Tram.
    Agree entirely with your voting intentions - Tories have lost my vote cos they are incompetent/stupid whilst Labour have lost it due to Brexit Referendum 2.
    Lib Dems no chance.
    I will vote Reform if Nigel takes over otherwise Green or No Vote.
    I know a lot of former Tory voters like you or me.
    FWIW I think Lee Anderson will retain his seat.
    Yes - Babbington. The dual carriageways were full of flying pickets on that day.

    On Lee Anderson, I'd say that Ben Bradley is safer. So if Anderson survives, so will Bradley imo.

    I really can't call Ashfield as I can't call the Ashfield Independents. Despite all the slings and arrows, they increased their seats at the last Local Elections. Some of their supporters are extraordinarily loyal.

    Two factors are that there has been a lot of housing built in both Ashfield and Mansfield over recent yeas, and both are becoming to some extent commuter towns for Nottingham more than previously (via Robin Hood line light rai partially).

    I would not consider Hucknall (southern end of Ashfield Constituency) to be a Nottingham suburb since they are also on the tramway network. Nottingham centric people voting in Ashfield. It is noticeable that house prices there have relatively increased by perhaps 10%+ over a period of years compared to similar housing stick *not* on the tram network.

    A third factor is that our District Hospital (Mansfield / Ashfield borders) is now 600 beds and has 3000+ staff, which would probably mainly go against Conservative this time. Many live locally (inexpensive housing), but a small but not tiny number of staff I met whilst in there for 3 weeks last summer commute quite some distance to work there - I met ones coming from both Nottingham and Sheffield.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Netanyahus out of control war and scorched earth policy in Gaza now leading to American casualties and making us all less safe.

    As much as I dislike him, the American casualties are not Bibi's fault.
    The whole area is being de-stabilized. This didn’t happen in a vacuum .
    No indeed. Hamas may have had something to do with it, for a start.

    What American casualties are these? I haven't heard anything.
    "There are conflicting accounts of the location of the drone attack which killed three US servicemen.

    US President Joe Biden says the attack took place in north-east Jordan, close to the Syrian border, suggesting the location was a US base called Tower 22, which is just across the border from the much larger US base at al-Tanf, in south-east Syria."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68121694
    The extent to which he can be blamed is debatable, but Biden does risk looking like a very weak President going into the election.
    Yes. He could lose the election right here, right now, tonight

    Iran has just hit US troops directly, and killed several and wounded many

    Is America a superpower or not? Does it just meekly accept this, or does it take on the mad mullahs in Tehran?

    If Biden fails, then Trump will exult and taunt, and Trump will have a point. America was not humiliated when Trump was in charge. It’s an unfair point, to an extent, but it will work
    No it hasn't. It's hit them *indirectly.* Which is rather different, and altogether more difficult to respond to.

    As for Trump, he'll probably claim they were attacked by Iraq and China and this shows that President Obama is unfit to be re-elected.
  • A goal and an assist for Antony. Talk about finding your level.

    https://twitter.com/paddypower/status/1751665832017437147
  • MattWMattW Posts: 17,732

    vino said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    IanB2 said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,

    Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.

    Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
    This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
    Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
    I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
    That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
    Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
    The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
    Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.

    Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
    And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
    There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.

    I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.

    We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
    Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.

    Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.

    Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
    Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!

    Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
    Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.

    Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.

    Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.

    To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.

    "Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
    I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them

    The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)

    Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
    But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.

    It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.

    Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.

    That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
    That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.

    Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.

    The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.

    It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
    As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.

    I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.

    One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.

    I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.

    I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.

    Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.

    Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.

    My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.

    So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
    I assume you mean Babbington Colliery not Badminton - Babbington Colliery was just off the M1 on the A610 - It's now Phoenix Park site of the Nottingham Tram.
    Agree entirely with your voting intentions - Tories have lost my vote cos they are incompetent/stupid whilst Labour have lost it due to Brexit Referendum 2.
    Lib Dems no chance.
    I will vote Reform if Nigel takes over otherwise Green or No Vote.
    I know a lot of former Tory voters like you or me.
    FWIW I think Lee Anderson will retain his seat.
    30p Lee for LOTO!!!!
    I wondered. It depends who is left standing :smile: .
  • MattWMattW Posts: 17,732

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    IanB2 said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,

    Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.

    Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
    This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
    Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
    I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
    That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
    Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
    The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
    Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.

    Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
    And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
    There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.

    I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.

    We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
    Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.

    Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.

    Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
    Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!

    Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
    Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.

    Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.

    Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.

    To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.

    "Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
    I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them

    The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)

    Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
    But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.

    It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.

    Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.

    That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
    That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.

    Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.

    The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.

    It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
    As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.

    I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.

    One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.

    I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.

    I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.

    Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.

    Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.

    My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.

    So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
    On the pensioners thing it is not the governing taxing workers to support poor pensioners. It is the government taxing workers to support the middles class better off pensioners. Nothing for them can be means tested and anything taxed is met with uproar.

    As someone who complains regulary about generational unfairness (and "in between" the generations) I would be quite happy to see pension credit increasing faster than it has done to support poorer pensioners as long as richer and middle income pensioners pay more.
    That's fair comment, and I pretty much agree. I wonder how it would be tackled, especially as it would need imo potentially to be retrospective.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,865
    edited January 28

    Why would anyone hang on in this situation, just to climb this leaderboard? Isn’t that the biggest insult, to suggest their motivation here is themself, not party or country?

    What is Sunak's motivation, though? He doesn't actually appear to have any plan for the country, other than "more maths and cancel HS2", which as a worked-out policy programme is slightly less coherent than the Underpants Gnomes off South Park. For the party? Maybe, I guess, if that plan is "get the Conservatives to 20% in the polls and stay there".

    I agree it's vanishingly unlikely that his motivation is "become the 43rd longest serving Prime Minister in British history". But I'm buggered if I can work out what it actually is.
This discussion has been closed.