Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

About the Farage comeback – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,917
edited April 28 in General
About the Farage comeback – politicalbetting.com

2/ … in reality the problem for the Tories isn’t the country as a whole. @IpsosUK polling in Feb shows Farage second in favourable terms to Boris Johnson with 2019 Con voters.Arguably Sunak numbers comparable but not sure that’s much consolation. pic.twitter.com/2hTjQddSnT

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543
    edited March 18
    First?

    Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    DavidL said:

    First?

    Comrade Putin came first.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    DavidL said:

    First?

    Comrade Putin came first.
    7.44 and the first spoiler of the day.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677
    DavidL said:

    First?

    Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.

    That assumes that they have an actual agenda for government, rather than wishing to make the residual Conservatives suffer.

    For a long time, before 2016 I think, some on the Right have looked longingly at what happened in Canada- crush the wet Conservatives then absorb the dripping remains from the right to form a Proper Tory Party.

    The interaction of FPTP and geography (RefCan was regionally concentrated so won seats, RefUK isn't so won't) means it doesn't work like that here.

    We're scarily close to the first tipping point, where RefUK success = Labour hegemony. I wonder where the second tipping point (RefUK actually win meaningful numbers of seats) is?
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,770
    Might Keiren be making something of an error in his assumptions in his analysis? Or at least one part of it.

    He mentions that there are lots of people who don't know who Reform are/Don't have an opinion of them and then asks whether Farage joining them would up their public profile (clearly) and so boost their polling numbers.

    Is it not possible that at least a bit of Reform's current support is exactly because people don't know who they are/what they stand for but are fed up with the main parties and think 'Reform' sounds like a good name/idea?

    Would Farage joining them crystallise people's understanding of where they lie on the politial spectrum and actually drive some voters away?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733
    Does it even need to be a 'full throttle' return? I don't think Nigel needs to be a candidate - he could quite happily return as leader, do some canpaigning, rename the party 'Nigel Farage's Reform Party' which gives huge name recognition, and that would probably be enough to outpoll the Tories on the current trajectory.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,770
    DavidL said:

    First?

    Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.

    To be fair people said much the same for years about UKIP. And yet they proved far more influential without MPs than parties like the Lib Dems, Plaid or the Greens with MPs.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 11,138

    DavidL said:

    First?

    Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.

    To be fair people said much the same for years about UKIP. And yet they proved far more influential without MPs than parties like the Lib Dems, Plaid or the Greens with MPs.
    Much as I hate his politics, Farage has clearly been one of the most important UK politicians of our time.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,449

    Does it even need to be a 'full throttle' return? I don't think Nigel needs to be a candidate - he could quite happily return as leader, do some canpaigning, rename the party 'Nigel Farage's Reform Party' which gives huge name recognition, and that would probably be enough to outpoll the Tories on the current trajectory.

    It may even work to their advantage to get more than 4m votes (quite possible) and still end up with no MPs. The argument that the system is "stacked against us" would be strong. Interesting to see Reform next to the LDs in the queue for PR.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    mwadams said:

    Does it even need to be a 'full throttle' return? I don't think Nigel needs to be a candidate - he could quite happily return as leader, do some canpaigning, rename the party 'Nigel Farage's Reform Party' which gives huge name recognition, and that would probably be enough to outpoll the Tories on the current trajectory.

    It may even work to their advantage to get more than 4m votes (quite possible) and still end up with no MPs. The argument that the system is "stacked against us" would be strong. Interesting to see Reform next to the LDs in the queue for PR.
    ... alongside the Tories if they suffer Canadageddon.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883

    Might Keiren be making something of an error in his assumptions in his analysis? Or at least one part of it.

    He mentions that there are lots of people who don't know who Reform are/Don't have an opinion of them and then asks whether Farage joining them would up their public profile (clearly) and so boost their polling numbers.

    Is it not possible that at least a bit of Reform's current support is exactly because people don't know who they are/what they stand for but are fed up with the main parties and think 'Reform' sounds like a good name/idea?

    Would Farage joining them crystallise people's understanding of where they lie on the politial spectrum and actually drive some voters away?

    Much as I'd love many of the Reform supporters to be lefty reformists, disappointed by Starmer's lack of ambition, and still not forgiving of the Lib Dem time in coalition, the polling evidence doesn't really bear that out.

    They're almost exclusively 2019 Tories, and they switched to Reform after Truss was defenestrated - presumably buying the line in the right-wing media that Sunak represented a surrender to the lefty establishment and the proper right-wing agenda of Liz Truss had been abandoned.

    I think it's more likely that people have some sense of Reform being Farage's party - their branding is essentially the same as the Brexit party's - and so any return to the fray by Farage might have limited effect, because most of the people who would be impressed see him on GB News and didn't think he'd ever gone away.

    I also think that, if he were to return for the election he's leaving it a bit late. Makes me think that he isn't interested. But of course he loves that people are talking about it.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883

    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.

    I'd say they're desperate for some sort of deal, as it does several things for them.
    1. Avoids them trying and failing to get MPs elected again, with the attendant risk that people conclude they're irrelevant.
    2. Avoids them being blamed for the Tory defeat due to vote-splitting.
    3. Gives them influence in the Tory party.
    4. Reduces the amount of money they have to spend and effort they have to make in the general election.

    The more I think about it the more I think that a deal is all upside for Reform and no downside.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677

    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.

    But which marginals?

    The 2019 marginals will be utterly uncompetitive this time, so it won't help the Conservatives.

    The 2024 marginals... that would be awkward.

    Besides:


  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,019
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    Pulpstar said:
    Did... One of the six nations not compete at all?

    That's a bit harsh.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    @KevinASchofield

    Kemi Badenoch, the first govt minister to say Frank Hester's comments about Diane Abbott were "racist", seems to have changed her tune.

    She tells LBC: "This was something that happened 5 years ago - he wasn't talking to Diane Abbott, it wasn't even really about Diane Abbott."

    @paulwaugh

    Some will see this as pitch to the Tory Right. But it may just be Badenoch being Badenoch: she hates what she sees as other people pushing a narrative on her + often hits out at 'cancel culture' - which can blind her to the facts of a case (Hester *was* talking about Abbott)
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    This is the point I’ve been making for years.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.

    I'd say they're desperate for some sort of deal, as it does several things for them.
    1. Avoids them trying and failing to get MPs elected again, with the attendant risk that people conclude they're irrelevant.
    2. Avoids them being blamed for the Tory defeat due to vote-splitting.
    3. Gives them influence in the Tory party.
    4. Reduces the amount of money they have to spend and effort they have to make in the general election.

    The more I think about it the more I think that a deal is all upside for Reform and no downside.
    A sensible deal for them would be to

    1. get the Tories to stand down in say 100 seats where the Tories can never win but Reform might have a chance
    2. This allows them to focus resources so a cheaper more effective campaign
    3. Gives the Tories some GOTV boost reducing the wipe out
    4, If in Parliament keeps the Tories from forgetting any policy deals as they did previously.
    5. chuck in a knighhood for Farage and they have a voice in the HoL - that should be fun TV if nothing else.

    Both Tories and Reform would have to reverse policies to make things happen but the Tories are heading for a shellacking and Reform will probably end up with no seats. So they can either choose an arcance squabble for 10 years or the chance to stay relevant.

    Big boy politics.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Farage is a campaigner and - pace certain folks on here - a grifter. The actual, complex, compromise-ridden and often boring work of governing (and MP-ing, for that matter) would not suit him, so I suspect he is just fine with the ‘unfairness’ of FPTP.

    And as much as his fans and some sections of the media love him, as the polling shows he is broadly pretty unpopular. I’m A Celeb doesn’t seem to have shifted that.

    That said, I think his name on the tin would stick a rocket up Reform and they would almost certainly be getting into double figures come the GE.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Heathener said:

    This is the point I’ve been making for years.
    Which doesn’t make it correct of course.

    The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.

    Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.

    However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.

    My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.

    The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:

    "winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order.”

    The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”

    But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of a popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
    Exactly. It’s a kicking, not a coronation.
  • Options
    No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,193

    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.

    I'd say they're desperate for some sort of deal, as it does several things for them.
    1. Avoids them trying and failing to get MPs elected again, with the attendant risk that people conclude they're irrelevant.
    2. Avoids them being blamed for the Tory defeat due to vote-splitting.
    3. Gives them influence in the Tory party.
    4. Reduces the amount of money they have to spend and effort they have to make in the general election.

    The more I think about it the more I think that a deal is all upside for Reform and no downside.
    No, I don't see how being the "permanent Tory B team" benefits Reform.
    And for there to be a deal, what could the Conservative Party publicly sign up to in return?
    This election really is "put up or shut up" time for Reform.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,424
    Reform won’t do a deal with the Conservatives.

    Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.

    Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.

    The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,424
    Scott_xP said:

    A Government that doesn't contain any of the current cabinet will axiomatically be better than what we have now, despite the protestations of Hiroo Alanbrooke Onoda et al

    The actual issue is this

    Mode 1 : The government ambles along. Whenever they try and do something substantive, such as build more house, the system pushes back. “Brave policy”, “Upsets this demographic” etc. so they abandon that and start playing with fripperies

    Mode 2 : The government tries to do something substantive. When they encounter pushback, they bulldoze through.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677
    Heathener said:

    This is the point I’ve been making for years.
    Which doesn’t make it correct of course.

    The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.

    Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.

    However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.

    My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.

    The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:

    "winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order.”

    The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”

    But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of a popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
    That's what this year is going to test, really. How far is FPTP about elevating the one you want, and how far is it about dethroning the one you don't?

    There's the old saw about "oppositions don't win, governments lose". 2019 contradicted that- a poor government won a landslide it didn't deserve on its own merits because the opposition was worse.

    But although we all sort of know that's the case, it's a traumatic thing for anyone with any sort of emotional attachment to a political party to admit. We'd rather think that it's about the best man winning, rather than the worst man losing.

    And that's not new, it's just become really stark in recent years.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399
    DavidL said:

    First?

    Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.

    The crank left have agitated against capitalism for decades. There is zero chance of them actually gaining power *and implementing* their agenda, but they do so regardless.

    Why is the crank right any different?
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883

    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.

    I'd say they're desperate for some sort of deal, as it does several things for them.
    1. Avoids them trying and failing to get MPs elected again, with the attendant risk that people conclude they're irrelevant.
    2. Avoids them being blamed for the Tory defeat due to vote-splitting.
    3. Gives them influence in the Tory party.
    4. Reduces the amount of money they have to spend and effort they have to make in the general election.

    The more I think about it the more I think that a deal is all upside for Reform and no downside.
    No, I don't see how being the "permanent Tory B team" benefits Reform.
    And for there to be a deal, what could the Conservative Party publicly sign up to in return?
    This election really is "put up or shut up" time for Reform.
    Did the Tories sign up to anything in 2019? I thought Farage unilaterally stood his candidates down on the basis that Johnson would "get Brexit done", and that he had the self-awareness to recognise that the Brexit party needed a face-saving way out of failing at the election.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    Scott_xP said:

    A Government that doesn't contain any of the current cabinet will axiomatically be better than what we have now, despite the protestations of Hiroo Alanbrooke Onoda et al

    The actual issue is this

    Mode 1 : The government ambles along. Whenever they try and do something substantive, such as build more house, the system pushes back. “Brave policy”, “Upsets this demographic” etc. so they abandon that and start playing with fripperies

    Mode 2 : The government tries to do something substantive. When they encounter pushback, they bulldoze through.
    There is of course the third option which is to deconstruct the Blair settlement. Repeal acres of legislation which stop development or interference in citizens lives and then you dont need the bulldozer so much.

    Government should do the essentials well rather than doing lots of things badly.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883

    Reform won’t do a deal with the Conservatives.

    Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.

    Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.

    The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.

    It's precisely because they have no ground game, and that Farage isn't that interested, that they will do a "deal", because they haven't put the work in to achieve anything better by standing candidates.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,459
    Heathener said:

    This is the point I’ve been making for years.
    Which doesn’t make it correct of course.

    The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.

    Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.

    However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.

    My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.

    The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:

    "winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”

    But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
    "This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "

    If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.

    I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.

    But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    Reform won’t do a deal with the Conservatives.

    Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.

    Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.

    The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.

    It's precisely because they have no ground game, and that Farage isn't that interested, that they will do a "deal", because they haven't put the work in to achieve anything better by standing candidates.
    Much truth in that, they are probably at maximum leverage around now.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399

    Reform won’t do a deal with the Conservatives.

    Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.

    Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.

    The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.

    I agree. The objective of the UKIP / Brexit Party / ReFUK progression has been to take over the Conservative Party. Canadageddon is the target - where the smaller party further to the right takes over what is left of the supposedly more mainstream party after ELE.

    The reason why Farage will come back is simple - he has to be a player to become THE player. Remember that Conservative Party rules require its leader to be an MP. So pick your spot, run for office, finally get elected, rule over the ashes.

    Tice has gone for Hartlepools, Farage should run in...? Thanet again? Clacton? Boston? Where is the population heavily Brexity, poor and GBeebies-level ignorant?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,424

    Scott_xP said:

    A Government that doesn't contain any of the current cabinet will axiomatically be better than what we have now, despite the protestations of Hiroo Alanbrooke Onoda et al

    The actual issue is this

    Mode 1 : The government ambles along. Whenever they try and do something substantive, such as build more house, the system pushes back. “Brave policy”, “Upsets this demographic” etc. so they abandon that and start playing with fripperies

    Mode 2 : The government tries to do something substantive. When they encounter pushback, they bulldoze through.
    There is of course the third option which is to deconstruct the Blair settlement. Repeal acres of legislation which stop development or interference in citizens lives and then you dont need the bulldozer so much.

    Government should do the essentials well rather than doing lots of things badly.
    That's just a variation on Mode 2.

    Operating in that mode requires political ability to build a coalition of support within the party in power. Otherwise the votes get peeled off by the special interests.

    It also requires some conviction from the leadership and a desire to "spend" popularity to get things done.

    It is much easier to sit in No 10, announcing the same spending 8 or 9 times, and wondering why (if you haven't done anything controversial) no one seems very happy. Mode 1.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677

    Scott_xP said:

    A Government that doesn't contain any of the current cabinet will axiomatically be better than what we have now, despite the protestations of Hiroo Alanbrooke Onoda et al

    The actual issue is this

    Mode 1 : The government ambles along. Whenever they try and do something substantive, such as build more house, the system pushes back. “Brave policy”, “Upsets this demographic” etc. so they abandon that and start playing with fripperies

    Mode 2 : The government tries to do something substantive. When they encounter pushback, they bulldoze through.
    And that's why Starmer might, just possibly, be who we need.

    Whatever you think of his vision, he has pretty efficiently overhauled the Labour Party in double-quick time. And whilst there have been occasional howls of rage from the dispossessed, he's basically got away with it.

    He's like the conjuror who tells you that you can pick any card, but ensures you take the card he wants you to.

    And, unlike many of our recent leaders, he's an oldish man who knows he needs to get a move on.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    Heathener said:

    This is the point I’ve been making for years.
    Which doesn’t make it correct of course.

    The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.

    Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.

    However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.

    My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.

    The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:

    "winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”

    But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
    "This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "

    If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.

    I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.

    But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
    You forget Heathener has more Tory friends than there are actual Tories
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,459

    Heathener said:

    This is the point I’ve been making for years.
    Which doesn’t make it correct of course.

    The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.

    Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.

    However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.

    My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.

    The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:

    "winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”

    But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
    "This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "

    If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.

    I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.

    But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
    You forget Heathener has more Tory friends than there are actual Tories
    Plus all the conversations about thermos flasks the Tories on the bus.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    Scott_xP said:

    A Government that doesn't contain any of the current cabinet will axiomatically be better than what we have now, despite the protestations of Hiroo Alanbrooke Onoda et al

    The actual issue is this

    Mode 1 : The government ambles along. Whenever they try and do something substantive, such as build more house, the system pushes back. “Brave policy”, “Upsets this demographic” etc. so they abandon that and start playing with fripperies

    Mode 2 : The government tries to do something substantive. When they encounter pushback, they bulldoze through.
    There is of course the third option which is to deconstruct the Blair settlement. Repeal acres of legislation which stop development or interference in citizens lives and then you dont need the bulldozer so much.

    Government should do the essentials well rather than doing lots of things badly.
    That's just a variation on Mode 2.

    Operating in that mode requires political ability to build a coalition of support within the party in power. Otherwise the votes get peeled off by the special interests.

    It also requires some conviction from the leadership and a desire to "spend" popularity to get things done.

    It is much easier to sit in No 10, announcing the same spending 8 or 9 times, and wondering why (if you haven't done anything controversial) no one seems very happy. Mode 1.
    And in a nutshell thats why the Tories are in the shit. They wont do what needs to be done and then try to spin their way out of it. Mode 1 only works for a short time, people can see through ti.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    Note only Boris amongst the main Tory figures has higher favourables than Farage amongst 2019 Conservative voters and voters as a whole. Sunak does have slightly better net numbers amongst 2019 Conservatives than Farage but still not as good as Boris does
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    Ghedebrav said:

    Heathener said:

    This is the point I’ve been making for years.
    Which doesn’t make it correct of course.

    The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.

    Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.

    However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.

    My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.

    The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:

    "winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order.”

    The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”

    But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of a popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
    Exactly. It’s a kicking, not a coronation.
    Coronation? Perhaps not the best metaphor.

    It looks to be a pretty close contest between which collapses first, the government or the Monarchy.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033

    Heathener said:

    This is the point I’ve been making for years.
    Which doesn’t make it correct of course.

    The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.

    Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.

    However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.

    My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.

    The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:

    "winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order.”

    The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”

    But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of a popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
    That's what this year is going to test, really. How far is FPTP about elevating the one you want, and how far is it about dethroning the one you don't?

    There's the old saw about "oppositions don't win, governments lose". 2019 contradicted that- a poor government won a landslide it didn't deserve on its own merits because the opposition was worse.

    But although we all sort of know that's the case, it's a traumatic thing for anyone with any sort of emotional attachment to a political party to admit. We'd rather think that it's about the best man winning, rather than the worst man losing.

    And that's not new, it's just become really stark in recent years.
    If the polls are right we are about to see something that hasn’t happened since 1970.

    A government with a working majority replaced by another government with a working majority.

    The key factors to consider is that Labour starts with 202 MPs, Blair started with 271, and there’s no lock on Scotland either.

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    Scott_xP said:

    A Government that doesn't contain any of the current cabinet will axiomatically be better than what we have now, despite the protestations of Hiroo Alanbrooke Onoda et al

    The actual issue is this

    Mode 1 : The government ambles along. Whenever they try and do something substantive, such as build more house, the system pushes back. “Brave policy”, “Upsets this demographic” etc. so they abandon that and start playing with fripperies

    Mode 2 : The government tries to do something substantive. When they encounter pushback, they bulldoze through.
    And that's why Starmer might, just possibly, be who we need.

    Whatever you think of his vision, he has pretty efficiently overhauled the Labour Party in double-quick time. And whilst there have been occasional howls of rage from the dispossessed, he's basically got away with it.

    He's like the conjuror who tells you that you can pick any card, but ensures you take the card he wants you to.

    And, unlike many of our recent leaders, he's an oldish man who knows he needs to get a move on.
    Chortle
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498

    DavidL said:

    First?

    Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.

    To be fair people said much the same for years about UKIP. And yet they proved far more influential without MPs than parties like the Lib Dems, Plaid or the Greens with MPs.
    UKIP did have two MPs, Reckless briefly and Carswell
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,770
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    First?

    Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.

    To be fair people said much the same for years about UKIP. And yet they proved far more influential without MPs than parties like the Lib Dems, Plaid or the Greens with MPs.
    UKIP did have two MPs, Reckless briefly and Carswell
    Not until very late in their history and well after they had managed to change the narrative over EU membership.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,424

    Reform won’t do a deal with the Conservatives.

    Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.

    Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.

    The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.

    It's precisely because they have no ground game, and that Farage isn't that interested, that they will do a "deal", because they haven't put the work in to achieve anything better by standing candidates.
    If they do a deal - Reform doesn't get any MPs (probable), but they get accused for being Tories Part Deux, sell outs etc

    If they don't do a deal - Reform get a x million votes, no MPs, but can claim that they can build on this, and pass the collapsed remains of the Tories etc...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    Scott_xP said:

    @KevinASchofield

    Kemi Badenoch, the first govt minister to say Frank Hester's comments about Diane Abbott were "racist", seems to have changed her tune.

    She tells LBC: "This was something that happened 5 years ago - he wasn't talking to Diane Abbott, it wasn't even really about Diane Abbott."

    @paulwaugh

    Some will see this as pitch to the Tory Right. But it may just be Badenoch being Badenoch: she hates what she sees as other people pushing a narrative on her + often hits out at 'cancel culture' - which can blind her to the facts of a case (Hester *was* talking about Abbott)

    It's just the party line is that when Hester said Diane Abbott made him "want to hate all black women" and "should be shot", he wasn't talking about race, gender or Diane Abbott.

    And there are £ five million reasons to go along with it.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,156

    Reform won’t do a deal with the Conservatives.

    Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.

    Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.

    The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.

    I agree. The objective of the UKIP / Brexit Party / ReFUK progression has been to take over the Conservative Party. Canadageddon is the target - where the smaller party further to the right takes over what is left of the supposedly more mainstream party after ELE.

    The reason why Farage will come back is simple - he has to be a player to become THE player. Remember that Conservative Party rules require its leader to be an MP. So pick your spot, run for office, finally get elected, rule over the ashes.

    Tice has gone for Hartlepools, Farage should run in...? Thanet again? Clacton? Boston? Where is the population heavily Brexity, poor and GBeebies-level ignorant?
    I agree with this.
    I think Farage's strategic aim is to be leader of a combined Tory/Reform party.

    Step 1. Reduce the Tory party to 100 seats with Farage on the sidelines avoiding responsibility for it. "Aw what a pity. Let's still be friends" - to the Tory membership and MPs.
    Step 2. Lead the move to combine the two parties with Farage as leader.
    Step 3. A "volunteer" among the remaining 100 Tory MPs steps down to allow Farage to win the by election and become LOTO.

    The Reformed Conservative Party will:
    Stand up for British culture, identity and values.
    Restore trust in our democracy.
    Repair our broken public services.
    Cut taxes to make work pay.
    Slash government waste and red tape.
    Maximise Britain's vast energy treasure of oil and gas, to reduce the cost of energy, beat the cost of living crisis and help unleash real economic growth.
    Finally take back control over our borders, our money and our laws.

    The Reformed Conservative Party will secure Britain's future as a free, proud and independent sovereign nation.

  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,567
    Lee Anderson will be the Sir Jimmy Goldsmith of the 2024 (2025?) election.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 11,138
    edited March 18

    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.

    I'd say they're desperate for some sort of deal, as it does several things for them.
    1. Avoids them trying and failing to get MPs elected again, with the attendant risk that people conclude they're irrelevant.
    2. Avoids them being blamed for the Tory defeat due to vote-splitting.
    3. Gives them influence in the Tory party.
    4. Reduces the amount of money they have to spend and effort they have to make in the general election.

    The more I think about it the more I think that a deal is all upside for Reform and no downside.
    A sensible deal for them would be to

    1. get the Tories to stand down in say 100 seats where the Tories can never win but Reform might have a chance
    2. This allows them to focus resources so a cheaper more effective campaign
    3. Gives the Tories some GOTV boost reducing the wipe out
    4, If in Parliament keeps the Tories from forgetting any policy deals as they did previously.
    5. chuck in a knighhood for Farage and they have a voice in the HoL - that should be fun TV if nothing else.

    Both Tories and Reform would have to reverse policies to make things happen but the Tories are heading for a shellacking and Reform will probably end up with no seats. So they can either choose an arcance squabble for 10 years or the chance to stay relevant.

    Big boy politics.
    1. What 100 seats would that be?
    2. I assume you are referring to Reform here? Reform don't have a ground game. Like UKIP this is one of their issues. So it makes little difference. If you are referring to the Tories they are well resourced anyway. Focusing on a 100 less seats will make little difference to them in the rest of the seats.
    3. Freeing up Tories from 100 seats to GOTV elsewhere would be minimal. Most Tory activists are not mobile but local and do not move from one constituency to another and those that do (and I know there are a few) would already be doing so, so it would free up very few extra helpers from 100 seats to the other 500 odd seats. Minimal benefit.
    4. Fair point
    5. How does a knighthood give Farage a voice in the HofL?
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,478

    Might Keiren be making something of an error in his assumptions in his analysis? Or at least one part of it.

    He mentions that there are lots of people who don't know who Reform are/Don't have an opinion of them and then asks whether Farage joining them would up their public profile (clearly) and so boost their polling numbers.

    Is it not possible that at least a bit of Reform's current support is exactly because people don't know who they are/what they stand for but are fed up with the main parties and think 'Reform' sounds like a good name/idea?

    Would Farage joining them crystallise people's understanding of where they lie on the politial spectrum and actually drive some voters away?

    Much as I'd love many of the Reform supporters to be lefty reformists, disappointed by Starmer's lack of ambition, and still not forgiving of the Lib Dem time in coalition, the polling evidence doesn't really bear that out.

    They're almost exclusively 2019 Tories, and they switched to Reform after Truss was defenestrated - presumably buying the line in the right-wing media that Sunak represented a surrender to the lefty establishment and the proper right-wing agenda of Liz Truss had been abandoned.

    I think it's more likely that people have some sense of Reform being Farage's party - their branding is essentially the same as the Brexit party's - and so any return to the fray by Farage might have limited effect, because most of the people who would be impressed see him on GB News and didn't think he'd ever gone away.

    I also think that, if he were to return for the election he's leaving it a bit late. Makes me think that he isn't interested. But of course he loves that people are talking about it.
    Not sure about that. I think Truss was massively niche with hardly anyone in the real world actually buying into her brand of anarcho-economics. Even the the Tory membership would have balked had they realized what they were getting themselves into.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    HYUFD said:

    Note only Boris amongst the main Tory figures has higher favourables than Farage amongst 2019 Conservative voters and voters as a whole. Sunak does have slightly better net numbers amongst 2019 Conservatives than Farage but still not as good as Boris does

    Shhhhh he’s not meant to be popular with the voters that matter
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906

    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.

    I'd say they're desperate for some sort of deal, as it does several things for them.
    1. Avoids them trying and failing to get MPs elected again, with the attendant risk that people conclude they're irrelevant.
    2. Avoids them being blamed for the Tory defeat due to vote-splitting.
    3. Gives them influence in the Tory party.
    4. Reduces the amount of money they have to spend and effort they have to make in the general election.

    The more I think about it the more I think that a deal is all upside for Reform and no downside.
    A sensible deal for them would be to

    1. get the Tories to stand down in say 100 seats where the Tories can never win but Reform might have a chance
    2. This allows them to focus resources so a cheaper more effective campaign
    3. Gives the Tories some GOTV boost reducing the wipe out
    4, If in Parliament keeps the Tories from forgetting any policy deals as they did previously.
    5. chuck in a knighhood for Farage and they have a voice in the HoL - that should be fun TV if nothing else.

    Both Tories and Reform would have to reverse policies to make things happen but the Tories are heading for a shellacking and Reform will probably end up with no seats. So they can either choose an arcance squabble for 10 years or the chance to stay relevant.

    Big boy politics.
    Fantasy politics, as kjh notes.

    There are, though, well over 100 Tory MPs standing down. Shenanigans at the constituency level might be possible.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906

    Scott_xP said:

    A Government that doesn't contain any of the current cabinet will axiomatically be better than what we have now, despite the protestations of Hiroo Alanbrooke Onoda et al

    The actual issue is this

    Mode 1 : The government ambles along. Whenever they try and do something substantive, such as build more house, the system pushes back. “Brave policy”, “Upsets this demographic” etc. so they abandon that and start playing with fripperies

    Mode 2 : The government tries to do something substantive. When they encounter pushback, they bulldoze through.
    There is of course the third option which is to deconstruct the Blair settlement. Repeal acres of legislation which stop development or interference in citizens lives and then you dont need the bulldozer so much.

    Government should do the essentials well rather than doing lots of things badly.
    That's just a variation on Mode 2.

    Operating in that mode requires political ability to build a coalition of support within the party in power. Otherwise the votes get peeled off by the special interests.

    It also requires some conviction from the leadership and a desire to "spend" popularity to get things done.

    It is much easier to sit in No 10, announcing the same spending 8 or 9 times, and wondering why (if you haven't done anything controversial) no one seems very happy. Mode 1.
    I think that's all very astute. It's the main reason that I think Michael Gove is the best Tory Minister - it's not that he's necessarily right, but he keeps doggedly trying to do stuff that he thinks will be helpful, and he absolutely doesn't care about special interests (indeed his record suggests he actively reacts against them). Nearly everyone else (apart from Cameron, who has to respond to global problems) seems to be just minding the shop and waiting for the election.

    I'm fairly optimistic that Starmer will roll over special interest groups if he thinks it necessary - he's much more ruthless than his equable manner suggests. Whether I'll personally approve of it all is another matter, but we will have a purposeful government, which at present we really don't.
    There's a slight flaw in your argument.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Nigelb said:

    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.

    I'd say they're desperate for some sort of deal, as it does several things for them.
    1. Avoids them trying and failing to get MPs elected again, with the attendant risk that people conclude they're irrelevant.
    2. Avoids them being blamed for the Tory defeat due to vote-splitting.
    3. Gives them influence in the Tory party.
    4. Reduces the amount of money they have to spend and effort they have to make in the general election.

    The more I think about it the more I think that a deal is all upside for Reform and no downside.
    A sensible deal for them would be to

    1. get the Tories to stand down in say 100 seats where the Tories can never win but Reform might have a chance
    2. This allows them to focus resources so a cheaper more effective campaign
    3. Gives the Tories some GOTV boost reducing the wipe out
    4, If in Parliament keeps the Tories from forgetting any policy deals as they did previously.
    5. chuck in a knighhood for Farage and they have a voice in the HoL - that should be fun TV if nothing else.

    Both Tories and Reform would have to reverse policies to make things happen but the Tories are heading for a shellacking and Reform will probably end up with no seats. So they can either choose an arcance squabble for 10 years or the chance to stay relevant.

    Big boy politics.
    Fantasy politics, as kjh notes.

    There are, though, well over 100 Tory MPs standing down. Shenanigans at the constituency level might be possible.
    Are there? I thought it was more like 70. Though I don’t doubt more will choose to ‘spend more time with their family’ before too long.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    edited March 18
    Rishi Sunak tells critics: This is our bounce back year
    Prime minister ‘would sooner call vote than be ousted’, a senior ally warned

    "A senior ally of the prime minister said that Sunak’s critics underestimate his resolve. They said that he would be prepared to call a general election if rebels force a leadership contest.
    “He’s increasingly determined to prove his point and establish his own mandate,” they said. “You don’t get to achieve the things he’s done without some steel. He’s not just going to roll over.
    “People should be careful what they wish for. It’s up to them. If they don’t want an election they should stop messing about. Rishi could easily say ‘OK, if that’s the mood of the party I don’t think it’s fair to put it to another leadership contest’. He can say reasonably he might just go to the palace instead.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-general-election-call-allies-warning-wxxgrcql6
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 5,085
    Am I being a grinch or missing something but why is the lead story on Radio 4’s news bulletins that Laura Kenny is retiring and not going to the olympics? The world must be in a fine place today if that’s the biggest news.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Scott_xP said:

    A Government that doesn't contain any of the current cabinet will axiomatically be better than what we have now, despite the protestations of Hiroo Alanbrooke Onoda et al

    The actual issue is this

    Mode 1 : The government ambles along. Whenever they try and do something substantive, such as build more house, the system pushes back. “Brave policy”, “Upsets this demographic” etc. so they abandon that and start playing with fripperies

    Mode 2 : The government tries to do something substantive. When they encounter pushback, they bulldoze through.
    There is of course the third option which is to deconstruct the Blair settlement. Repeal acres of legislation which stop development or interference in citizens lives and then you dont need the bulldozer so much.

    Government should do the essentials well rather than doing lots of things badly.
    That's just a variation on Mode 2.

    Operating in that mode requires political ability to build a coalition of support within the party in power. Otherwise the votes get peeled off by the special interests.

    It also requires some conviction from the leadership and a desire to "spend" popularity to get things done.

    It is much easier to sit in No 10, announcing the same spending 8 or 9 times, and wondering why (if you haven't done anything controversial) no one seems very happy. Mode 1.
    I think that's all very astute. It's the main reason that I think Michael Gove is the best Tory Minister - it's not that he's necessarily right, but he keeps doggedly trying to do stuff that he thinks will be helpful, and he absolutely doesn't care about special interests (indeed his record suggests he actively reacts against them). Nearly everyone else (apart from Cameron, who has to respond to global problems) seems to be just minding the shop and waiting for the election.

    I'm fairly optimistic that Starmer will roll over special interest groups if he thinks it necessary - he's much more ruthless than his equable manner suggests. Whether I'll personally approve of it all is another matter, but we will have a purposeful government, which at present we really don't.
    Gove’s reactivity to ‘special interests’ was pretty disastrous in education. He did better at environment and particularly justice, though obvs the pebble-brained Grayling undid it all.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906
    Ghedebrav said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.

    I'd say they're desperate for some sort of deal, as it does several things for them.
    1. Avoids them trying and failing to get MPs elected again, with the attendant risk that people conclude they're irrelevant.
    2. Avoids them being blamed for the Tory defeat due to vote-splitting.
    3. Gives them influence in the Tory party.
    4. Reduces the amount of money they have to spend and effort they have to make in the general election.

    The more I think about it the more I think that a deal is all upside for Reform and no downside.
    A sensible deal for them would be to

    1. get the Tories to stand down in say 100 seats where the Tories can never win but Reform might have a chance
    2. This allows them to focus resources so a cheaper more effective campaign
    3. Gives the Tories some GOTV boost reducing the wipe out
    4, If in Parliament keeps the Tories from forgetting any policy deals as they did previously.
    5. chuck in a knighhood for Farage and they have a voice in the HoL - that should be fun TV if nothing else.

    Both Tories and Reform would have to reverse policies to make things happen but the Tories are heading for a shellacking and Reform will probably end up with no seats. So they can either choose an arcance squabble for 10 years or the chance to stay relevant.

    Big boy politics.
    Fantasy politics, as kjh notes.

    There are, though, well over 100 Tory MPs standing down. Shenanigans at the constituency level might be possible.
    Are there? I thought it was more like 70. Though I don’t doubt more will choose to ‘spend more time with their family’ before too long.
    You are, of course, correct.
    Though as you note, it's very likely to be well over 100 in due course.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    Nigelb said:

    I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.

    It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.

    I'd say they're desperate for some sort of deal, as it does several things for them.
    1. Avoids them trying and failing to get MPs elected again, with the attendant risk that people conclude they're irrelevant.
    2. Avoids them being blamed for the Tory defeat due to vote-splitting.
    3. Gives them influence in the Tory party.
    4. Reduces the amount of money they have to spend and effort they have to make in the general election.

    The more I think about it the more I think that a deal is all upside for Reform and no downside.
    A sensible deal for them would be to

    1. get the Tories to stand down in say 100 seats where the Tories can never win but Reform might have a chance
    2. This allows them to focus resources so a cheaper more effective campaign
    3. Gives the Tories some GOTV boost reducing the wipe out
    4, If in Parliament keeps the Tories from forgetting any policy deals as they did previously.
    5. chuck in a knighhood for Farage and they have a voice in the HoL - that should be fun TV if nothing else.

    Both Tories and Reform would have to reverse policies to make things happen but the Tories are heading for a shellacking and Reform will probably end up with no seats. So they can either choose an arcance squabble for 10 years or the chance to stay relevant.

    Big boy politics.
    Fantasy politics, as kjh notes.

    There are, though, well over 100 Tory MPs standing down. Shenanigans at the constituency level might be possible.

    You may have missed it but most things on this board are fantasy politics.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,906

    Rishi Sunak tells critics: This is our bounce back year
    Prime minister ‘would sooner call vote than be ousted’, a senior ally warned

    "A senior ally of the prime minister said that Sunak’s critics underestimate his resolve. They said that he would be prepared to call a general election if rebels force a leadership contest.
    “He’s increasingly determined to prove his point and establish his own mandate,” they said. “You don’t get to achieve the things he’s done without some steel. He’s not just going to roll over.
    “People should be careful what they wish for. It’s up to them. If they don’t want an election they should stop messing about. Rishi could easily say ‘OK, if that’s the mood of the party I don’t think it’s fair to put it to another leadership contest’. He can say reasonably he might just go to the palace instead.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-general-election-call-allies-warning-wxxgrcql6

    I'm old enough to recall this (though, tbf, the circumstances are now a little different).

    Boris Johnson drops heavy hints of snap election – but the Queen could block the plan
    PM threatens quickfire vote to thwart bid to oust him, although Buckingham Palace could refuse any request to dissolve Parliament
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/06/snap-general-election-what-will-call-boris-johnson-confidence/
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    I know that the papers want to make the next GE interesting, but I do not understand the constant refusal to see the evidence before ones eyes from some commentators:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/18/labour-landslide-will-be-much-harder-to-achieve-than-in-1997-analysis-shows

    The Labour Party have been consistently polling 20% above the Tories since Truss was PM - and the Tories have consistently hovered around / below 25% for the last 6 months. The Reform vote share is growing and, despite Labour not actually being popular in polls, there doesn't seem to be any huge swing from Labour to Greens or LDs - with both remaining steady.

    Given FPTP this scenario could produce anything from a Labour majority that was similar to the majority won by the Tories in 2019, or we could have Baathist levels of Labour representation in the Commons and an extinction level wipeout of the Tories. FPTP makes it difficult to predict - but neither of those scenarios are more tricky than '97.

    I think people are just failing to see that the time of long stable governments has long been over. It looks like we have had that since the coalition because the Tories have been the biggest party after each election since 2010 - but they only won an outright majority twice and a governable majority once (I don't count the majority that Cameron won as governable as it required the Brexit referendum to function and fell apart almost immediately afterwards). Conservative policy (on the economy and Brexit) has been hegemonic, but the party less so. A huge swing from a large Tory majority to a large Labour majority would be in line with what I see as quite chaotic electoral modern history in the UK.

    I also would not be surprised if by 2030 Labour looks like they may lose their majority, despite potentially Baathist numbers, for similar reasons - that since the 2008 crash no political party has dealt with the underlying economic issues that are negatively impacting most people and, in fact, keep allowing thigs to get worse as the situation in the economy changes over time. Labour don't look like they'll enact policies to actually help, so I imagine a similar fallout for them that could, eventually, benefit reactionaries like Farage who argue that neither side has the answers and only he can sort things out...
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,489
    Slightly OT.

    An old article but interesting in the context of the rather mind numbing thought that 42% of 2019 Conservative voters have a favourable opinion of Nigel Farage. Particularly interesting in how the BBC's interpretation of 'impartiality' helped lead to the UK leaving the EU.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/25/emily-maitlis-bbc-broadcaster-newsnight-government
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    You must be new to twitter.
    TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    edited March 18
    Foxy said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Heathener said:

    This is the point I’ve been making for years.
    Which doesn’t make it correct of course.

    The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.

    Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.

    However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.

    My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.

    The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:

    "winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order.”

    The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”

    But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of a popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
    Exactly. It’s a kicking, not a coronation.
    Coronation? Perhaps not the best metaphor.

    It looks to be a pretty close contest between which collapses first, the government or the Monarchy.
    Both William and Charles have far higher net favourables in polls than Sunak and even Starmer does for that matter
  • Options
    ScarpiaScarpia Posts: 51
    @Alanbrooke

    A sensible deal for them would be to..
    ....
    5. chuck in a knighthood for Farage and they have a voice in the HoL - that should be fun TV if nothing else.

    You would need a bit more than a K -Lord Farridge of Fagash at least

    And what about RefUKs front line troops? Their ability to run a ground campaign has been discussed, however the quality of their candidates may be problematical. A RefUk candidate near me is presented as a model of managerial experience on their website; perusal of the local newspaper archive tells a different story. The major parties candidate selection processes do weed out a lot of the totally unacceptable. What level of scrutiny has been applied by RefUK who will not have the experience (and battle scars) of running a national party over the years?
  • Options
    MJWMJW Posts: 1,576
    148grss said:

    I know that the papers want to make the next GE interesting, but I do not understand the constant refusal to see the evidence before ones eyes from some commentators:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/18/labour-landslide-will-be-much-harder-to-achieve-than-in-1997-analysis-shows

    The Labour Party have been consistently polling 20% above the Tories since Truss was PM - and the Tories have consistently hovered around / below 25% for the last 6 months. The Reform vote share is growing and, despite Labour not actually being popular in polls, there doesn't seem to be any huge swing from Labour to Greens or LDs - with both remaining steady.

    Given FPTP this scenario could produce anything from a Labour majority that was similar to the majority won by the Tories in 2019, or we could have Baathist levels of Labour representation in the Commons and an extinction level wipeout of the Tories. FPTP makes it difficult to predict - but neither of those scenarios are more tricky than '97.

    I think people are just failing to see that the time of long stable governments has long been over. It looks like we have had that since the coalition because the Tories have been the biggest party after each election since 2010 - but they only won an outright majority twice and a governable majority once (I don't count the majority that Cameron won as governable as it required the Brexit referendum to function and fell apart almost immediately afterwards). Conservative policy (on the economy and Brexit) has been hegemonic, but the party less so. A huge swing from a large Tory majority to a large Labour majority would be in line with what I see as quite chaotic electoral modern history in the UK.

    I also would not be surprised if by 2030 Labour looks like they may lose their majority, despite potentially Baathist numbers, for similar reasons - that since the 2008 crash no political party has dealt with the underlying economic issues that are negatively impacting most people and, in fact, keep allowing thigs to get worse as the situation in the economy changes over time. Labour don't look like they'll enact policies to actually help, so I imagine a similar fallout for them that could, eventually, benefit reactionaries like Farage who argue that neither side has the answers and only he can sort things out...

    While I think it overwhelmingly likely Labour win, with the current favourite a landslide, it should not be forgotten that it is a much tougher hill to climb than 1997 - when Labour were on around 300 seats and there was far less cynicism about politicians.

    That's important because it offers better explanations of Labour strategy (or what it should be) and how their commanding position is slightly more precarious than then. They have to win seats in which they came nowhere 5 years ago. The polls would indicate that's likely, but it doesn't stop it being a pretty difficult and then incredible feat if and when they do so.

    As to the future, we'll see, little doubt in the volatility of the electorate. My gut feeling though is that since the Truss debacle the Tories have so discredited themselves that Labour may get more of a sympathetic hearing than some expect. There are cohorts that may never, ever vote Tory again having previously done so because of the past decade or so.

    So if Lab manage some incremental improvements and relieve some of the acute crises where the country feels really broken, then they might be harder to dislodge than imagined and get credit for relatively meagre returns. Of course if in a 2nd term there's not real progress on resolving our big issues, then they would likely face rejection.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    148grss said:

    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    You must be new to twitter.
    TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
    The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/26753071/king-charles-trooping-the-colour-cancer/
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    Note only Boris amongst the main Tory figures has higher favourables than Farage amongst 2019 Conservative voters and voters as a whole. Sunak does have slightly better net numbers amongst 2019 Conservatives than Farage but still not as good as Boris does

    Shhhhh he’s not meant to be popular with the voters that matter
    But he isn't popular amongst all voters - indeed he has one of the lowest net approval ratings at -31, tied with Cameron, slightly above Sunak at -34 and way above Truss at that hilarious -60. Also, he has been out of the public eye for a while, and I would personally suspect that that would be helpful for Johnson at the moment, so being made PM again (unlikely as that is) could increase his unlikability as he steps back into the spotlight.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,224

    Might Keiren be making something of an error in his assumptions in his analysis? Or at least one part of it.

    He mentions that there are lots of people who don't know who Reform are/Don't have an opinion of them and then asks whether Farage joining them would up their public profile (clearly) and so boost their polling numbers.

    Is it not possible that at least a bit of Reform's current support is exactly because people don't know who they are/what they stand for but are fed up with the main parties and think 'Reform' sounds like a good name/idea?

    Would Farage joining them crystallise people's understanding of where they lie on the politial spectrum and actually drive some voters away?

    Much as I'd love many of the Reform supporters to be lefty reformists, disappointed by Starmer's lack of ambition, and still not forgiving of the Lib Dem time in coalition, the polling evidence doesn't really bear that out.

    They're almost exclusively 2019 Tories, and they switched to Reform after Truss was defenestrated - presumably buying the line in the right-wing media that Sunak represented a surrender to the lefty establishment and the proper right-wing agenda of Liz Truss had been abandoned.

    I think it's more likely that people have some sense of Reform being Farage's party - their branding is essentially the same as the Brexit party's - and so any return to the fray by Farage might have limited effect, because most of the people who would be impressed see him on GB News and didn't think he'd ever gone away.

    I also think that, if he were to return for the election he's leaving it a bit late. Makes me think that he isn't interested. But of course he loves that people are talking about it.
    Not sure about that. I think Truss was massively niche with hardly anyone in the real world actually buying into her brand of anarcho-economics. Even the the Tory membership would have balked had they realized what they were getting themselves into.
    The stats in the header seem to say that 2019 Con voters can't stand her. As for Reform I'd say their support is distinguished by 2 main characteristics:

    They like their politicians to be a 'bit of a card' which they internally translate as 'authentic' and 'unPC' and 'telling it like it is' and all of that baloney. Hence Johnson and Farage do well with them.

    Their big area of concern, politically, is Immigration. Rhetoric and policies which sound 'tough' on this will appeal (if they believe it). The tougher the better. Eg Rwanda, the policy not the place, will be quite popular with them.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.

    'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.

    Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.

    This had a knock-on effect on the government’s finances. In 1997, public sector net debt was 37.5% of gross domestic product. It is now over 90%.'
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/18/labour-landslide-will-be-much-harder-to-achieve-than-in-1997-analysis-shows
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,671

    Rishi Sunak tells critics: This is our bounce back year
    Prime minister ‘would sooner call vote than be ousted’, a senior ally warned

    "A senior ally of the prime minister said that Sunak’s critics underestimate his resolve. They said that he would be prepared to call a general election if rebels force a leadership contest.
    “He’s increasingly determined to prove his point and establish his own mandate,” they said. “You don’t get to achieve the things he’s done without some steel. He’s not just going to roll over.
    “People should be careful what they wish for. It’s up to them. If they don’t want an election they should stop messing about. Rishi could easily say ‘OK, if that’s the mood of the party I don’t think it’s fair to put it to another leadership contest’. He can say reasonably he might just go to the palace instead.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-general-election-call-allies-warning-wxxgrcql6

    More desperate threats. Really nobody believes this drivel from an apparent senior ally .
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,459
    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    Because a lie travels round the world before the truth has got its boots on?
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,459
    148grss said:

    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    You must be new to twitter.
    TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
    Was it? Days, hours or minutes? Myself and a colleague thought she was already dead as soon as they announced that she was gravely ill.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    MJW said:

    148grss said:

    I know that the papers want to make the next GE interesting, but I do not understand the constant refusal to see the evidence before ones eyes from some commentators:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/18/labour-landslide-will-be-much-harder-to-achieve-than-in-1997-analysis-shows

    The Labour Party have been consistently polling 20% above the Tories since Truss was PM - and the Tories have consistently hovered around / below 25% for the last 6 months. The Reform vote share is growing and, despite Labour not actually being popular in polls, there doesn't seem to be any huge swing from Labour to Greens or LDs - with both remaining steady.

    Given FPTP this scenario could produce anything from a Labour majority that was similar to the majority won by the Tories in 2019, or we could have Baathist levels of Labour representation in the Commons and an extinction level wipeout of the Tories. FPTP makes it difficult to predict - but neither of those scenarios are more tricky than '97.

    I think people are just failing to see that the time of long stable governments has long been over. It looks like we have had that since the coalition because the Tories have been the biggest party after each election since 2010 - but they only won an outright majority twice and a governable majority once (I don't count the majority that Cameron won as governable as it required the Brexit referendum to function and fell apart almost immediately afterwards). Conservative policy (on the economy and Brexit) has been hegemonic, but the party less so. A huge swing from a large Tory majority to a large Labour majority would be in line with what I see as quite chaotic electoral modern history in the UK.

    I also would not be surprised if by 2030 Labour looks like they may lose their majority, despite potentially Baathist numbers, for similar reasons - that since the 2008 crash no political party has dealt with the underlying economic issues that are negatively impacting most people and, in fact, keep allowing thigs to get worse as the situation in the economy changes over time. Labour don't look like they'll enact policies to actually help, so I imagine a similar fallout for them that could, eventually, benefit reactionaries like Farage who argue that neither side has the answers and only he can sort things out...

    While I think it overwhelmingly likely Labour win, with the current favourite a landslide, it should not be forgotten that it is a much tougher hill to climb than 1997 - when Labour were on around 300 seats and there was far less cynicism about politicians.

    That's important because it offers better explanations of Labour strategy (or what it should be) and how their commanding position is slightly more precarious than then. They have to win seats in which they came nowhere 5 years ago. The polls would indicate that's likely, but it doesn't stop it being a pretty difficult and then incredible feat if and when they do so.

    As to the future, we'll see, little doubt in the volatility of the electorate. My gut feeling though is that since the Truss debacle the Tories have so discredited themselves that Labour may get more of a sympathetic hearing than some expect. There are cohorts that may never, ever vote Tory again having previously done so because of the past decade or so.

    So if Lab manage some incremental improvements and relieve some of the acute crises where the country feels really broken, then they might be harder to dislodge than imagined and get credit for relatively meagre returns. Of course if in a 2nd term there's not real progress on resolving our big issues, then they would likely face rejection.
    I just don't see why there is this level of scepticism at a large Labour majority when all polls point to it. It would be another thing if the polling were tight or even volatile - but even the friendliest polls for the Tories suggest a Lab majority of 50+.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,364
    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    You must be new to twitter.
    TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
    The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/26753071/king-charles-trooping-the-colour-cancer/
    What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?

    Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.

    The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
  • Options
    theakestheakes Posts: 894
    Looking at the Canadian Opinion polling there may be a wipe out of the Liberal Party at the next General.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,029
    edited March 18
    HYUFD said:

    Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.

    'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.

    Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.

    This had a knock-on effect on the government’s finances. In 1997, public sector net debt was 37.5% of gross domestic product. It is now over 90%.'
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/18/labour-landslide-will-be-much-harder-to-achieve-than-in-1997-analysis-shows
    At least we’ll be saved from Tories 20 years on from now bleating about a wasted golden legacy.

    Edit: assuming there are any Tories left.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,460
    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    There is definitely something going on in the Outhouse of Windsor and they are trying to keep it quiet. We have the ultimate oxymoron of the "Working Royal" who hasn't been seen in public since Dec 25 last year.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,524
    Latest Forsa poll for the European elections in Germany is interesting:

    https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2024-03/forsa-umfrage-europawahl-union-ampel-afd

    Apart from the headline that CDU/CSU (34%) polled more than all 3 coalition partners together (SPD 16%, Greens 14%, FDP 3%), it also has the AfD back in 3rd place on 15%.

    In national polling for the Bundestag the last 4 Forsa polls have the AfD on 17%, slightly surprising to me that they are doing worse in polling for the European parliament elections.

    Maybe it's because the (former?) AfD policy of 'controlled dissolution' of the EU is unpopular even among AfD voters - a policy they seem to have now abandoned.


  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,459
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    You must be new to twitter.
    TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
    The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/26753071/king-charles-trooping-the-colour-cancer/
    What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?

    Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.

    The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
    +1. The Kate thing is weird. I don't understand the point of any of it. If she is seriously unwell, then just say, and expect privacy. Health issues happen. If its something else? Divorce? Seems unlikely. Is she dead? Even more unlikely. At this point its classic Streissand.
  • Options
    booksellerbookseller Posts: 494
    Barnesian said:

    Reform won’t do a deal with the Conservatives.

    Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.

    Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.

    The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.

    I agree. The objective of the UKIP / Brexit Party / ReFUK progression has been to take over the Conservative Party. Canadageddon is the target - where the smaller party further to the right takes over what is left of the supposedly more mainstream party after ELE.

    The reason why Farage will come back is simple - he has to be a player to become THE player. Remember that Conservative Party rules require its leader to be an MP. So pick your spot, run for office, finally get elected, rule over the ashes.

    Tice has gone for Hartlepools, Farage should run in...? Thanet again? Clacton? Boston? Where is the population heavily Brexity, poor and GBeebies-level ignorant?
    I agree with this.
    I think Farage's strategic aim is to be leader of a combined Tory/Reform party.

    Step 1. Reduce the Tory party to 100 seats with Farage on the sidelines avoiding responsibility for it. "Aw what a pity. Let's still be friends" - to the Tory membership and MPs.
    Step 2. Lead the move to combine the two parties with Farage as leader.
    Step 3. A "volunteer" among the remaining 100 Tory MPs steps down to allow Farage to win the by election and become LOTO.

    The Reformed Conservative Party will:
    Stand up for British culture, identity and values.
    Restore trust in our democracy.
    Repair our broken public services.
    Cut taxes to make work pay.
    Slash government waste and red tape.
    Maximise Britain's vast energy treasure of oil and gas, to reduce the cost of energy, beat the cost of living crisis and help unleash real economic growth.
    Finally take back control over our borders, our money and our laws.

    The Reformed Conservative Party will secure Britain's future as a free, proud and independent sovereign nation.

    Genuine question (assuming you weren't just taking the p*ss with that list): GB has arguably the best wind and wave energy resources of any European nation. Why not use those - they're free? Plus that's lots of green tech expertise for global exports.

    Wind = 29% and even solar energy is up to nearly 5%. Oil and gas increasingly expensive (ignoring carbon) and just sets us up for future dependency and supply problems as our resources dwindle?
  • Options
    DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 723
    edited March 18
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    You must be new to twitter.
    TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
    The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/26753071/king-charles-trooping-the-colour-cancer/
    What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?

    Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.

    The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
    Re. the woman, it's easy to speculate about a health emergency of which her husband's family don't want the nature, or the surrounding circumstances, to come out. See the experiences of two other women who married into the same family. I say this, having not read any "theories" at all.
    Dura_Ace said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    There is definitely something going on in the Outhouse of Windsor and they are trying to keep it quiet. We have the ultimate oxymoron of the "Working Royal" who hasn't been seen in public since Dec 25 last year.
    Did she try a Crown Prince Dipendra move at the Christmas dinner table?
  • Options
    ScarpiaScarpia Posts: 51
    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    I remember in the 1990s, rumours that the Queen Mother had died regularly swept through The City and Fleet Street - usually sourced authoritatively from someone who knew someone - in good urban fairy tale tradition.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,424
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    You must be new to twitter.
    TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
    The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/26753071/king-charles-trooping-the-colour-cancer/
    What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?

    Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.

    The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
    The rumours are to do with the bizarre internet partisanship. Which works thus

    1) I am a decent, unbiased person.
    2) Royal wife x is a saint.
    3) I am a decent, unbiased person.
    4) Royal wife y is the anti-christ and so is her husband. And their children. And their cat. HATE HATE HATE HATE.

    Plus you have republicans who are extremely upset - they were promised the monarchy would implode in seconds of King Charles getting the throne.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 18
    148grss said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    Note only Boris amongst the main Tory figures has higher favourables than Farage amongst 2019 Conservative voters and voters as a whole. Sunak does have slightly better net numbers amongst 2019 Conservatives than Farage but still not as good as Boris does

    Shhhhh he’s not meant to be popular with the voters that matter
    But he isn't popular amongst all voters - indeed he has one of the lowest net approval ratings at -31, tied with Cameron, slightly above Sunak at -34 and way above Truss at that hilarious -60. Also, he has been out of the public eye for a while, and I would personally suspect that that would be helpful for Johnson at the moment, so being made PM again (unlikely as that is) could increase his unlikability as he steps back into the spotlight.
    He wasn’t popular with Remainers/lefties before he won a landslide. It doesn’t matter

    But, getting back to the point I was making, and have made repeatedly, this is yet another poll that shows Boris to be the most popular Tory amongst 2019 Con voters. I can’t see why people try to pretend this isn’t so. He’s gone, the Conservative MPs committed suicide, you got lucky, there’s no need to be scared anymore
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,156
    ..


  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,424

    Barnesian said:

    Reform won’t do a deal with the Conservatives.

    Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.

    Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.

    The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.

    I agree. The objective of the UKIP / Brexit Party / ReFUK progression has been to take over the Conservative Party. Canadageddon is the target - where the smaller party further to the right takes over what is left of the supposedly more mainstream party after ELE.

    The reason why Farage will come back is simple - he has to be a player to become THE player. Remember that Conservative Party rules require its leader to be an MP. So pick your spot, run for office, finally get elected, rule over the ashes.

    Tice has gone for Hartlepools, Farage should run in...? Thanet again? Clacton? Boston? Where is the population heavily Brexity, poor and GBeebies-level ignorant?
    I agree with this.
    I think Farage's strategic aim is to be leader of a combined Tory/Reform party.

    Step 1. Reduce the Tory party to 100 seats with Farage on the sidelines avoiding responsibility for it. "Aw what a pity. Let's still be friends" - to the Tory membership and MPs.
    Step 2. Lead the move to combine the two parties with Farage as leader.
    Step 3. A "volunteer" among the remaining 100 Tory MPs steps down to allow Farage to win the by election and become LOTO.

    The Reformed Conservative Party will:
    Stand up for British culture, identity and values.
    Restore trust in our democracy.
    Repair our broken public services.
    Cut taxes to make work pay.
    Slash government waste and red tape.
    Maximise Britain's vast energy treasure of oil and gas, to reduce the cost of energy, beat the cost of living crisis and help unleash real economic growth.
    Finally take back control over our borders, our money and our laws.

    The Reformed Conservative Party will secure Britain's future as a free, proud and independent sovereign nation.

    Genuine question (assuming you weren't just taking the p*ss with that list): GB has arguably the best wind and wave energy resources of any European nation. Why not use those - they're free? Plus that's lots of green tech expertise for global exports.

    Wind = 29% and even solar energy is up to nearly 5%. Oil and gas increasingly expensive (ignoring carbon) and just sets us up for future dependency and supply problems as our resources dwindle?
    Especially tidal - for base load.

    The resistance to tidal in the permanent system of government is a fascinating example of how "the done thing" is pushed.

    I bet they are still pushing those ridiculous reports on tidal - the one claiming that it would need x hundred percent of the concrete production of Europe was especially funny.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,224
    HYUFD said:

    Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.

    'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.

    Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.

    This had a knock-on effect on the government’s finances. In 1997, public sector net debt was 37.5% of gross domestic product. It is now over 90%.'
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/18/labour-landslide-will-be-much-harder-to-achieve-than-in-1997-analysis-shows
    However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,459
    Scarpia said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    I remember in the 1990s, rumours that the Queen Mother had died regularly swept through The City and Fleet Street - usually sourced authoritatively from someone who knew someone - in good urban fairy tale tradition.
    When she did finally depart to the Sherry lounge in the sky, I had been out walking in the Lakes with some friends. We returned to the farm we were staying out to be met by the landlady. In hushed tones she broke the news to us.

    I genuinely did not know what was expected of me. A very old lady had died of old age. Different generations I guess.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    148grss said:

    MJW said:

    148grss said:

    I know that the papers want to make the next GE interesting, but I do not understand the constant refusal to see the evidence before ones eyes from some commentators:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/18/labour-landslide-will-be-much-harder-to-achieve-than-in-1997-analysis-shows

    The Labour Party have been consistently polling 20% above the Tories since Truss was PM - and the Tories have consistently hovered around / below 25% for the last 6 months. The Reform vote share is growing and, despite Labour not actually being popular in polls, there doesn't seem to be any huge swing from Labour to Greens or LDs - with both remaining steady.

    Given FPTP this scenario could produce anything from a Labour majority that was similar to the majority won by the Tories in 2019, or we could have Baathist levels of Labour representation in the Commons and an extinction level wipeout of the Tories. FPTP makes it difficult to predict - but neither of those scenarios are more tricky than '97.

    I think people are just failing to see that the time of long stable governments has long been over. It looks like we have had that since the coalition because the Tories have been the biggest party after each election since 2010 - but they only won an outright majority twice and a governable majority once (I don't count the majority that Cameron won as governable as it required the Brexit referendum to function and fell apart almost immediately afterwards). Conservative policy (on the economy and Brexit) has been hegemonic, but the party less so. A huge swing from a large Tory majority to a large Labour majority would be in line with what I see as quite chaotic electoral modern history in the UK.

    I also would not be surprised if by 2030 Labour looks like they may lose their majority, despite potentially Baathist numbers, for similar reasons - that since the 2008 crash no political party has dealt with the underlying economic issues that are negatively impacting most people and, in fact, keep allowing thigs to get worse as the situation in the economy changes over time. Labour don't look like they'll enact policies to actually help, so I imagine a similar fallout for them that could, eventually, benefit reactionaries like Farage who argue that neither side has the answers and only he can sort things out...

    While I think it overwhelmingly likely Labour win, with the current favourite a landslide, it should not be forgotten that it is a much tougher hill to climb than 1997 - when Labour were on around 300 seats and there was far less cynicism about politicians.

    That's important because it offers better explanations of Labour strategy (or what it should be) and how their commanding position is slightly more precarious than then. They have to win seats in which they came nowhere 5 years ago. The polls would indicate that's likely, but it doesn't stop it being a pretty difficult and then incredible feat if and when they do so.

    As to the future, we'll see, little doubt in the volatility of the electorate. My gut feeling though is that since the Truss debacle the Tories have so discredited themselves that Labour may get more of a sympathetic hearing than some expect. There are cohorts that may never, ever vote Tory again having previously done so because of the past decade or so.

    So if Lab manage some incremental improvements and relieve some of the acute crises where the country feels really broken, then they might be harder to dislodge than imagined and get credit for relatively meagre returns. Of course if in a 2nd term there's not real progress on resolving our big issues, then they would likely face rejection.
    I just don't see why there is this level of scepticism at a large Labour majority when all polls point to it. It would be another thing if the polling were tight or even volatile - but even the friendliest polls for the Tories suggest a Lab majority of 50+.
    Yet you yourself are sceptical of Boris being the most popular Tory amongst Tory voters, despite almost every poll showing it to be so. It’s the old story of believing polls you agree with and not being so sure of those you don’t
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,048

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    You must be new to twitter.
    TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
    The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/26753071/king-charles-trooping-the-colour-cancer/
    What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?

    Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.

    The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
    +1. The Kate thing is weird. I don't understand the point of any of it. If she is seriously unwell, then just say, and expect privacy. Health issues happen. If its something else? Divorce? Seems unlikely. Is she dead? Even more unlikely. At this point its classic Streissand.
    They finally worked out how to upstage Meghan and get more of the headlines and tweets :wink:
  • Options
    DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 723
    edited March 18

    Scarpia said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    I remember in the 1990s, rumours that the Queen Mother had died regularly swept through The City and Fleet Street - usually sourced authoritatively from someone who knew someone - in good urban fairy tale tradition.
    When she did finally depart to the Sherry lounge in the sky, I had been out walking in the Lakes with some friends. We returned to the farm we were staying out to be met by the landlady. In hushed tones she broke the news to us.

    I genuinely did not know what was expected of me. A very old lady had died of old age. Different generations I guess.
    What a touching story. But you let the side down a bit by not knowing what was expected of you. In those now distant days, did you not have a banknote on you? You should have pinned it to the wall with the monarch's face looking out, stood to attention, and saluted.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.

    'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.

    Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.

    This had a knock-on effect on the government’s finances. In 1997, public sector net debt was 37.5% of gross domestic product. It is now over 90%.'
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/18/labour-landslide-will-be-much-harder-to-achieve-than-in-1997-analysis-shows
    However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
    A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.

    Lets put this in perspective

    We have low growth
    We have massive debts
    We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure
    We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation
    We need productivity and investment
    We have a war in Ukraine

    And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,

    Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.

    Personally I dont.

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    edited March 18
    theakes said:

    Looking at the Canadian Opinion polling there may be a wipe out of the Liberal Party at the next General.

    Not really, given when Trudeau took the leadership of the Liberals they had been in 3rd place at the 2011 election on just 18% to 30% for the NDP and 39% for the Conservatives even most current Canadian polls still have the Liberals a clear second still ahead of the NDP even if it looks like the Conservatives will return to power next year for the first time since 2015
  • Options
    DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 723

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?

    You must be new to twitter.
    TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
    The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/26753071/king-charles-trooping-the-colour-cancer/
    What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?

    Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.

    The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
    +1. The Kate thing is weird. I don't understand the point of any of it. If she is seriously unwell, then just say, and expect privacy. Health issues happen. If its something else? Divorce? Seems unlikely. Is she dead? Even more unlikely. At this point its classic Streissand.
    It's not Streisand. Their comms managers may not get their jobs by being the best in the business, but they're not that stupid.

    The mistake is to assume that if she had a health issue they would necessarily be OK with its nature and cause and circumstances coming out. It's easy to think of scenarios where that wouldn't be so - ones that don't involve the anti-Christ or bad people believing what they read on the internet.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,459

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.

    'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.

    Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.

    This had a knock-on effect on the government’s finances. In 1997, public sector net debt was 37.5% of gross domestic product. It is now over 90%.'
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/18/labour-landslide-will-be-much-harder-to-achieve-than-in-1997-analysis-shows
    However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
    A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.

    Lets put this in perspective

    We have low growth
    We have massive debts
    We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure
    We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation
    We need productivity and investment
    We have a war in Ukraine

    And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,

    Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.

    Personally I dont.

    On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
This discussion has been closed.