Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
There won't be any formal arrangements between Labour and the Lib Dems but once the campaign stars "non political" organisations like Best for Britain will promote tactical voting and publish lists showing which party is best placed to beat the Tory in each constituency. Their recommendations will be taken up by the parties on the ground and this will do a lot to reduce the risk of LD/Labour infighting letting the Tories through the middle.
And Labour has a long-standing policy of twinning safe and unwinnable constituencies with marginals and targets. Activists in seats where the Lib Dems are the main challengers will be sent to other constituencies where Labour's prospect are brighter.
In 1997 it was more formal than that, but very quiet.
There was a meeting between Peter Mandelson and Chris Rennard, where both turned up with lists of target seats, which fed through into a double page spread of tactical voting opportunities in the Daily Mirror near polling day.
There were also local arrangements.
Ed Davey's seat had one iirc, and he got into Parliament by 56 votes - which is one reason I think LDs will be very serious about it. For Starmer, it is a chance to add an extra nail into the Tory coffin beyond the ones Sunak is putting in it.
Since there is little overlap between say the top 25 LD targets and the high end of the Labour target list, it seems to me to be an obvious thing to do.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
It's a possibility that has been little mentioned, LP, but I agree with you.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
In terms of whether Sunak will have a good campaign the evidence stacks up as follows.
BAD CAMPAIGN Poor judgement. Comes across as insincere. Uncanny valley in interviews with the public. Appeared to just give up on recent by-elections.
GOOD CAMPAIGN Uxbridge by-election shows that if they can find a wedge issue they can exploit it.
Check out the swing in Uxbridge, and it was a wedge issue of the moment.
Morning all. On Uxbridge, unpopular opinion incoming. ULEZ be damned, the swing at the by election is in reasonable line with London Polling over the last year (recent Survation e.g. was a 7.5% swing)
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Thanks to fellow PBers for the comments and welcomes – much appreciated.
When I first materialised a couple of weeks ago, @ydoethur said 'Welcome to the bear pit'. No bears in sight yet, but I am prepared... to run for the hills like Brave Sir Robin.
@Foxy Thanks for posting some of the bio I disclosed when @Malmesbury was testing me to see if I was a Russian troll. I think I passed the test (ie, negative), but I still haven't disclosed my opinion about pineapple on pizza - or indeed whether Diehard is a Christmas movie. I might just sit on the fence on these for a bit ...
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
There won't be any formal arrangements between Labour and the Lib Dems but once the campaign stars "non political" organisations like Best for Britain will promote tactical voting and publish lists showing which party is best placed to beat the Tory in each constituency. Their recommendations will be taken up by the parties on the ground and this will do a lot to reduce the risk of LD/Labour infighting letting the Tories through the middle.
And Labour has a long-standing policy of twinning safe and unwinnable constituencies with marginals and targets. Activists in seats where the Lib Dems are the main challengers will be sent to other constituencies where Labour's prospect are brighter.
In 1997 it was more formal than that, but very quiet.
There was a meeting between Peter Mandelson and Chris Rennard, where both turned up with lists of target seats, which fed through into a double page spread of tactical voting opportunities in the Daily Mirror near polling day.
There were also local arrangements.
Ed Davey's seat had one iirc, and he got into Parliament by 56 votes.
And I was possibly one of the 56 ! I was living in Surbiton then and the result was amazing .
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
Just so. Me too.
The problem here is perhaps that those designing, administering and reviewing the results of such courses imagine that they are somehow immune to their own particular biases.
I simultaneously have some sympathy with Casino, and think that he seriously overreacts to what is a relatively minor irritation.
Mm. It's a fair point to raise, your first para, but certainly the courses I did seemed reasonably open-ended to the degree that the only implicit bias was that there was a potential problem which needed to be dealt with - edit: actually, it was fairly explicit!
The other point that might be made is that we are all vulnerable - so even if some HR procedures are of no value to us personally others might well be. Consider, for instance, unconscious bias against the older employee. Even *conscious* bias was perfectly legal until quite recently. So new employees need to understand the situation. And so on.
Rather than “bias” it can just be accidental ignorance which would be fairer as less accusatory. For example had my eyes opened to a form of unconscious ignorance on here yesterday. There was a link to an article about the number of pregnancies in Texas resulting from rape since Roe v wade was squashed.
I looked at the figure, think it was 26,000, and thought that’s got to be absolute bullshit. 26,000 women pregnant from rapes must mean that significantly higher numbers were raped which just can’t be true.
I looked at the population of Texas and thought it’s below half of the UK so that would mean there must be double maybe in UK so I looked up UK stats.
I just couldn’t believe that many women are raped each year. Seriously staggered. I thought it was a couple of thousand, which would be grim enough but the figures are huge.
So I learnt something that countered my beliefs which might have coloured my judgement on issues and arguments. I didn’t have a bias in any way but I just didn’t know.
So if we are trying to “improve” people then maybe best to come at it from an enlightening angle rather than a hectoring angle.
And given how few such crimes (estimated fewer than one in six rapes) are actually reported to the police, we really only have estimates:
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
It's a possibility that has been little mentioned, LP, but I agree with you.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
In terms of whether Sunak will have a good campaign the evidence stacks up as follows.
BAD CAMPAIGN Poor judgement. Comes across as insincere. Uncanny valley in interviews with the public. Appeared to just give up on recent by-elections.
GOOD CAMPAIGN Uxbridge by-election shows that if they can find a wedge issue they can exploit it.
Check out the swing in Uxbridge, and it was a wedge issue of the moment.
The swing in Uxbridge was 6.7%. The swing in Selby and Aintsy, on the same day, was 23.7%.
Obviously they would need to find a different issue to be the wedge, and it would have to have widespread applicability, but when they did have such an issue they were able to use it effectively to create a massive difference in the swing against them.
If the Tories had been complete no-hopers then they'd have contrived to bungle that campaign and also lose Uxbridge.
Nick Ferrari won Uxbridge for the Tories. He'd been banging on for years about ULEZ extension. Bear in mind up until they weren't the Tories were fully on board with clean air programmes. Ferrari caused confusion over ULEZ non conforming vehicles and at the last minute the Tories hitched up their skirt and ran with Ferrari. They then foolishly believed they could apply " the motorist's friend" narrative everywhere, even cancelling HS2. ULEZ extension is no longer an issue. Onwards and upwards.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
It's a possibility that has been little mentioned, LP, but I agree with you.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
In terms of whether Sunak will have a good campaign the evidence stacks up as follows.
BAD CAMPAIGN Poor judgement. Comes across as insincere. Uncanny valley in interviews with the public. Appeared to just give up on recent by-elections.
GOOD CAMPAIGN Uxbridge by-election shows that if they can find a wedge issue they can exploit it.
Check out the swing in Uxbridge, and it was a wedge issue of the moment.
Morning all. On Uxbridge, unpopular opinion incoming. ULEZ be damned, the swing at the by election is in reasonable line with London Polling over the last year (recent Survation e.g. was a 7.5% swing)
Indeed. And Uxbridge is reported as if it was a great Tory victory, rather than a narrow hold, with their majority reduced from 7,210 to 495.
On Topic: I think personal factors will dictate the GE timing not calculations of when would be optimal for the result.
Rishi Sunak has attained the summit in politics. He's the Prime Minister and that's an amazing thing. Firstly because he IS the Prime Minister. He's running the country. Ok so it's unpleasant in many ways and highly pressurized but still, he's the Man. Like our Header writer he's Top Dog. At 43 he has much life left but he will never experience such a (professional) high again and he knows it ends the day after the GE. The inclination, the strong inclination, will be to delay this not accelerate it.
Then there's History to think of. Sunak takes his exalted place in it having become (post the GE) one of the very few people who WERE the Prime Minister. In this context it means a great deal to have served for at least two years. He'll want that two years. It will be right up there as a consideration when he thinks about the election. He became PM on 25th October 2022. Therefore the earliest date he will call the GE is the day before. That will have him leaving office slap bang on his two year anniversary.
I think he will choose that date - Thursday 24th October - but I wouldn't rule out later. What you can rule out is any date before then.
Thanks to fellow PBers for the comments and welcomes – much appreciated.
When I first materialised a couple of weeks ago, @ydoethur said 'Welcome to the bear pit'. No bears in sight yet, but I am prepared... to run for the hills like Brave Sir Robin.
@Foxy Thanks for posting some of the bio I disclosed when @Malmesbury was testing me to see if I was a Russian troll. I think I passed the test (ie, negative), but I still haven't disclosed my opinion about pineapple on pizza - or indeed whether Diehard is a Christmas movie. I might just sit on the fence on these for a bit ...
We need your answer on DieHard, and of course it is a Christmas movie.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
There won't be any formal arrangements between Labour and the Lib Dems but once the campaign stars "non political" organisations like Best for Britain will promote tactical voting and publish lists showing which party is best placed to beat the Tory in each constituency. Their recommendations will be taken up by the parties on the ground and this will do a lot to reduce the risk of LD/Labour infighting letting the Tories through the middle.
And Labour has a long-standing policy of twinning safe and unwinnable constituencies with marginals and targets. Activists in seats where the Lib Dems are the main challengers will be sent to other constituencies where Labour's prospect are brighter.
In 1997 it was more formal than that, but very quiet.
There was a meeting between Peter Mandelson and Chris Rennard, where both turned up with lists of target seats, which fed through into a double page spread of tactical voting opportunities in the Daily Mirror near polling day.
There were also local arrangements.
Ed Davey's seat had one iirc, and he got into Parliament by 56 votes.
And I was possibly one of the 56 ! I was living in Surbiton then and the result was amazing .
That was low enough to have been done just from swaps by local party branch members.
One stat I recall from later was a statement that Davey greeted personally around 40k of constituents during his first. Perhaps not *that* unusual now that many try to work like Lib Dems, but it's part of digging in. I can't imagine Geoff Hoon doing that here in Ashfield back then.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
It's a possibility that has been little mentioned, LP, but I agree with you.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
In terms of whether Sunak will have a good campaign the evidence stacks up as follows.
BAD CAMPAIGN Poor judgement. Comes across as insincere. Uncanny valley in interviews with the public. Appeared to just give up on recent by-elections.
GOOD CAMPAIGN Uxbridge by-election shows that if they can find a wedge issue they can exploit it.
Check out the swing in Uxbridge, and it was a wedge issue of the moment.
Morning all. On Uxbridge, unpopular opinion incoming. ULEZ be damned, the swing at the by election is in reasonable line with London Polling over the last year (recent Survation e.g. was a 7.5% swing)
Indeed. And Uxbridge is reported as if it was a great Tory victory, rather than a narrow hold, with their majority reduced from 7,210 to 495.
True enough. Although it does make it one of several London seats that under London polling are eminently more holdable than UNS has been suggesting. They hold a dozen London seats on 7.5% to Lab and 4% to LDs per latest polling. London and Scotland I expect to look 'relatively speaking' much better than everywhere else
A rather odd cartoon as despite all the pearl clutching no one has been arrested for expressing opinions in Scotland so far.
Not under this Act. But see the case of Marion Millar. After years of being under investigation the case was dropped when lawyers indicated that they would argue ECHR points. The process was the punishment. And it shows that there was no need for this law since there were already existing laws which could be used. An interesting aside in yesterday's Times from some MSPs saying that specific exceptions making it clear that no offence would be committed by expressing lawful views were voted down because it would upset the gender lobby.
Law-making and governance in Scotland seem utterly woeful. Whether this is a consequence of devolution or just because Scotland has really poor politicians is not clear. What is the governance like in devolved assemblies in Catalonia for instance?
JUST IN: An extraordinary filing from Jack Smith tonight that is almost incredulous at how legally incorrect Judge Cannon's jury instruction scenarios are re: Trump's claim that he designted reams of classified info as "personal" on the way out of the WH. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1775370773705687271
Trumps luck must surely run out at some point . The judge is clearly a Trump arse licker and should be removed .
The bar to removing a sitting judge is extremely high, though.
Obtaining a writ of mandamus is more realistic, but still would face a very high hurdle - and it's possible Cannon now just further delays ruling on the matter until the actual trial.
Her conduct has been an absolute disgrace, but US trial judges enjoy very great discretion, and their misfeasances are most often corrected on appeal; rarely before any trial.
It's fairly clear what should happen - but the system is just not very well set up to deal with an ex President who has already to some extent subverted it.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
It's a possibility that has been little mentioned, LP, but I agree with you.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
In terms of whether Sunak will have a good campaign the evidence stacks up as follows.
BAD CAMPAIGN Poor judgement. Comes across as insincere. Uncanny valley in interviews with the public. Appeared to just give up on recent by-elections.
GOOD CAMPAIGN Uxbridge by-election shows that if they can find a wedge issue they can exploit it.
Check out the swing in Uxbridge, and it was a wedge issue of the moment.
Morning all. On Uxbridge, unpopular opinion incoming. ULEZ be damned, the swing at the by election is in reasonable line with London Polling over the last year (recent Survation e.g. was a 7.5% swing)
Indeed. And Uxbridge is reported as if it was a great Tory victory, rather than a narrow hold, with their majority reduced from 7,210 to 495.
If you plug the Con->Lab swing at Uxbridge into Electoral Calculus, you get Labour 320, Conservative 260, LibDem 18, SNP 28, Green 2, Plaid 4, which is Labour notionally 6 short of a majority, although with Sinn Fein not taking seats blah blah, I think Labour would effectively have a majority of 1?
So, yeah, the point is: the Uxbridge result is bad for the Tories. Uxbridge is the best result they've had in a fair while and an Uxbridge result still sees them out of No. 10.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
It has. That doesn't answer the question to isam, however.
Helluva cliff edge we're tapdancing near. If the final score is C214L340, Team Sunak have dodged a whole firing squad worth of bullets. C32L536 on the other hand...
Agreed, Stuart.
The simplified table....
Party Pred Votes Pred Seats
CON 23.6% 90 LAB 43.3% 459 LIB 10.2 49 Refor 12.1% 0 Green 5.5% 2 SNP 3.5% 28
In truth that would be pretty farcical and not a good look for British democracy. A near one party state on 43% of the vote and the others not clearly represented equitably,
I do wonder whether the 4 million votes and 1 MP for UKIP in 2015 provided a bit of extra fuel for the Brexit vote.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
There won't be any formal arrangements between Labour and the Lib Dems but once the campaign stars "non political" organisations like Best for Britain will promote tactical voting and publish lists showing which party is best placed to beat the Tory in each constituency. Their recommendations will be taken up by the parties on the ground and this will do a lot to reduce the risk of LD/Labour infighting letting the Tories through the middle.
And Labour has a long-standing policy of twinning safe and unwinnable constituencies with marginals and targets. Activists in seats where the Lib Dems are the main challengers will be sent to other constituencies where Labour's prospect are brighter.
In 1997 it was more formal than that, but very quiet.
There was a meeting between Peter Mandelson and Chris Rennard, where both turned up with lists of target seats, which fed through into a double page spread of tactical voting opportunities in the Daily Mirror near polling day.
There were also local arrangements.
Ed Davey's seat had one iirc, and he got into Parliament by 56 votes.
And I was possibly one of the 56 ! I was living in Surbiton then and the result was amazing .
That was low enough to have been done just from swaps by local party branch members.
One stat I recall from later was a statement that Davey greeted personally around 40k of constituents during his first. Perhaps not *that* unusual now that many try to work like Lib Dems, but it's part of digging in. I can't imagine Geoff Hoon doing that here in Ashfield back then.
I seem to have spent half my voting life in areas where my Labour leanings have to be put aside for the greater good . So Lib Dem when in Surbiton and now Lib Dem in Eastbourne .
I'm sure someone has already said this, but I haven't read through all the comments.
The main article is putting the cart beofre the horse. The Late April-Early June Window 4 years after the last election is the ideal time. PMs who are in a strong will jump at this chance. In all elections I was old enough to remember the end of Thatcher's and Blair's 1st and Second Terms are the only ones that fit this pattern.
On the other extreme the very late elections are almost always called because at the 4 year mark the current situation was not good: 1978, 1991, 1996, 2009 and 2023. The one glaring outlier here is Major's win in 1992, all others lost. I'm excluding the 1st Cameron Term as an exception due to the FTPA so it was not a (realistic) choice for him.
It's the bad political situiation for the PM that leads to a 5 year term followed by poor election results, rather than a 5 year term leading to bad election results.
JUST IN: An extraordinary filing from Jack Smith tonight that is almost incredulous at how legally incorrect Judge Cannon's jury instruction scenarios are re: Trump's claim that he designted reams of classified info as "personal" on the way out of the WH. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1775370773705687271
Trumps luck must surely run out at some point . The judge is clearly a Trump arse licker and should be removed .
The bar to removing a sitting judge is extremely high, though.
Obtaining a writ of mandamus is more realistic, but still would face a very high hurdle - and it's possible Cannon now just further delays ruling on the matter until the actual trial.
Her conduct has been an absolute disgrace, but US trial judges enjoy very great discretion, and their misfeasances are most often corrected on appeal; rarely before any trial.
It's fairly clear what should happen - but the system is just not very well set up to deal with an ex President who has already to some extent subverted it.
Cannon is a known .. er .. loose cannon, and has been disciplined on two previous occasions iirc.
Trump himself has also just been subject to a harsh warning on breach of an extended (to cover family members including of court employees) restriction order in the New York Stormy Daniels case, and the consequences.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
There won't be any formal arrangements between Labour and the Lib Dems but once the campaign stars "non political" organisations like Best for Britain will promote tactical voting and publish lists showing which party is best placed to beat the Tory in each constituency. Their recommendations will be taken up by the parties on the ground and this will do a lot to reduce the risk of LD/Labour infighting letting the Tories through the middle.
And Labour has a long-standing policy of twinning safe and unwinnable constituencies with marginals and targets. Activists in seats where the Lib Dems are the main challengers will be sent to other constituencies where Labour's prospect are brighter.
In 1997 it was more formal than that, but very quiet.
There was a meeting between Peter Mandelson and Chris Rennard, where both turned up with lists of target seats, which fed through into a double page spread of tactical voting opportunities in the Daily Mirror near polling day.
There were also local arrangements.
Ed Davey's seat had one iirc, and he got into Parliament by 56 votes.
And I was possibly one of the 56 ! I was living in Surbiton then and the result was amazing .
I was living in New Malden and my vote contributed too. I have to admit I hadn't remembered it was that close.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
It's a possibility that has been little mentioned, LP, but I agree with you.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
In terms of whether Sunak will have a good campaign the evidence stacks up as follows.
BAD CAMPAIGN Poor judgement. Comes across as insincere. Uncanny valley in interviews with the public. Appeared to just give up on recent by-elections.
GOOD CAMPAIGN Uxbridge by-election shows that if they can find a wedge issue they can exploit it.
Check out the swing in Uxbridge, and it was a wedge issue of the moment.
Morning all. On Uxbridge, unpopular opinion incoming. ULEZ be damned, the swing at the by election is in reasonable line with London Polling over the last year (recent Survation e.g. was a 7.5% swing)
Indeed. And Uxbridge is reported as if it was a great Tory victory, rather than a narrow hold, with their majority reduced from 7,210 to 495.
If you plug the Con->Lab swing at Uxbridge into Electoral Calculus, you get Labour 320, Conservative 260, LibDem 18, SNP 28, Green 2, Plaid 4, which is Labour notionally 6 short of a majority, although with Sinn Fein not taking seats blah blah, I think Labour would effectively have a majority of 1?
So, yeah, the point is: the Uxbridge result is bad for the Tories. Uxbridge is the best result they've had in a fair while and an Uxbridge result still sees them out of No. 10.
I didn't raise Uxbridge to argue there was a route to a Tory victory, but just that it was evidence that they could run a competent election campaign. Keeping a by-election swing down to that shown in opinion polls is an achievement - you'd expect the swing to be greater, as indeed it has been in other by-elections.
The Tories could have helpful media support as they did in Uxbridge. They might find a national wedge issue.
And, also, the context for the discussion was the chances of the Tories avoiding a wipeout that would see them reduced to 32 seats. Not that they might escape with victory.
Thanks to fellow PBers for the comments and welcomes – much appreciated.
When I first materialised a couple of weeks ago, @ydoethur said 'Welcome to the bear pit'. No bears in sight yet, but I am prepared... to run for the hills like Brave Sir Robin.
@Foxy Thanks for posting some of the bio I disclosed when @Malmesbury was testing me to see if I was a Russian troll. I think I passed the test (ie, negative), but I still haven't disclosed my opinion about pineapple on pizza - or indeed whether Diehard is a Christmas movie. I might just sit on the fence on these for a bit ...
Good to see your header - interesting.
It's not Christmas until they throw Professor Snape off Nakatomi Tower.
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
They’re not going to be short of bookings, assuming they have the actual Blamoral staff do the Royal afternoon teas and don’t just outsource it to Sodexo.
AIUI the public have never been able to take a full tour before, and they’re only doing it in tiny numbers.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
There won't be any formal arrangements between Labour and the Lib Dems but once the campaign stars "non political" organisations like Best for Britain will promote tactical voting and publish lists showing which party is best placed to beat the Tory in each constituency. Their recommendations will be taken up by the parties on the ground and this will do a lot to reduce the risk of LD/Labour infighting letting the Tories through the middle.
And Labour has a long-standing policy of twinning safe and unwinnable constituencies with marginals and targets. Activists in seats where the Lib Dems are the main challengers will be sent to other constituencies where Labour's prospect are brighter.
In 1997 it was more formal than that, but very quiet.
There was a meeting between Peter Mandelson and Chris Rennard, where both turned up with lists of target seats, which fed through into a double page spread of tactical voting opportunities in the Daily Mirror near polling day.
There were also local arrangements.
Ed Davey's seat had one iirc, and he got into Parliament by 56 votes.
And I was possibly one of the 56 ! I was living in Surbiton then and the result was amazing .
I was living in New Malden and my vote contributed too. I have to admit I hadn't remembered it was that close.
I remember things about Davey; he was in my class at the age of 8.
Ally will not now be joining in with the choruses of 'up to our knees in Fenian blood' on Sunday.
Discretion and appreciation of future earnings obviously the better part of valour.
Will historians one day look back at this silencing of Ally McCoist as the moment when the erosion of free speech in Scotland passed the point of no return?
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
I thought TopDog is TSE.
I've been waiting for parts 2 and 3 from Robert as well.
Thanks to fellow PBers for the comments and welcomes – much appreciated.
When I first materialised a couple of weeks ago, @ydoethur said 'Welcome to the bear pit'. No bears in sight yet, but I am prepared... to run for the hills like Brave Sir Robin.
@Foxy Thanks for posting some of the bio I disclosed when @Malmesbury was testing me to see if I was a Russian troll. I think I passed the test (ie, negative), but I still haven't disclosed my opinion about pineapple on pizza - or indeed whether Diehard is a Christmas movie. I might just sit on the fence on these for a bit ...
Good to see your header - interesting.
It's not Christmas until they throw Professor Snape off Nakatomi Tower.
"If this is their idea of Christmas, I gotta be here for New Year!"
Ally will not now be joining in with the choruses of 'up to our knees in Fenian blood' on Sunday.
Discretion and appreciation of future earnings obviously the better part of valour.
Celtic will need to score two because the huns will 100% get a pen at some stage.
Rangers definitely have the wind up their tail this part of the season so they may not need the 12th man this time, but as every master of the cliché trots out, Old Firm matches are different.
In a burst of magnificently petty tit for tat Rangers and Celtic are refusing to give each other an away ticket allowance, so the Orcs won't even have any Kafflicks to sing their folk songs to.
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
I don't know and I don't really mind not knowing. I only 'know' who a couple of other posters are, and that's because they given their names. I quite like using pseudonyms in these circumstances; I suspect some of us have different personas on here to those we have in real life.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am actually an 80+ year old. HYUFD, though is, I suspect actually a Green voting 50 year old with a bizarre sense of humour!
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
Net migration to the UK from EU countries has been falling since 2016, when it reached a peak of 322,000, and it has been negative since the year ending September 2021. In contrast, non-EU migration to the UK has increased enormously, reaching a peak of 873,000 in 2022 and far outweighing migration from the UK to the EU.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
By definition "unconscious bias" is bias you don't know about. Questions are: Are you biased on some way? Does it matter? If the answer is Yes to those questions, it's worth trying to do something about it.
"a lot of Woke bollocks" is possibly an indicator.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Ally will not now be joining in with the choruses of 'up to our knees in Fenian blood' on Sunday.
Discretion and appreciation of future earnings obviously the better part of valour.
Will historians one day look back at this silencing of Ally McCoist as the moment when the erosion of free speech in Scotland passed the point of no return?
It only seems like weeks ago that 'free speech' Ally was moaning loudly about Scotland fans booing GSTK.
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
I don't know and I don't really mind not knowing. I only 'know' who a couple of other posters are, and that's because they given their names. I quite like using pseudonyms in these circumstances; I suspect some of us have different personas on here to those we have in real life.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am actually an 80+ year old. HYUFD, though is, I suspect actually a Green voting 50 year old with a bizarre sense of humour!
Perhaps I'm mis-remembering but I thought that a while back TSE mentioned that he doesn't check @TSE notifications so use the TopDog moniker instead.
Thanks to fellow PBers for the comments and welcomes – much appreciated.
When I first materialised a couple of weeks ago, @ydoethur said 'Welcome to the bear pit'. No bears in sight yet, but I am prepared... to run for the hills like Brave Sir Robin.
@Foxy Thanks for posting some of the bio I disclosed when @Malmesbury was testing me to see if I was a Russian troll. I think I passed the test (ie, negative), but I still haven't disclosed my opinion about pineapple on pizza - or indeed whether Diehard is a Christmas movie. I might just sit on the fence on these for a bit ...
Good to see your header - interesting.
It's not Christmas until they throw Professor Snape off Nakatomi Tower.
"If this is their idea of Christmas, I gotta be here for New Year!"
One of the things I liked about the film was that they made even minor characters, characters.
The limo driver could have been a token black guy character, so easily. Instead, with a few lines, they actually gave you a sense of a person.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
I think "private property" and "the king" are difficult concepts to reconcile.
There's a pretty clear demarcation between assets that are the property of the Crown, i.e. the state, and those which belong to members of the Royal Family as individuals.
This is regardless of whether their income has come from the state. It's not like the status of the home of a retired army officer as private property would be in question, despite their job being entirely "publicly funded".
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
There won't be any formal arrangements between Labour and the Lib Dems but once the campaign stars "non political" organisations like Best for Britain will promote tactical voting and publish lists showing which party is best placed to beat the Tory in each constituency. Their recommendations will be taken up by the parties on the ground and this will do a lot to reduce the risk of LD/Labour infighting letting the Tories through the middle.
And Labour has a long-standing policy of twinning safe and unwinnable constituencies with marginals and targets. Activists in seats where the Lib Dems are the main challengers will be sent to other constituencies where Labour's prospect are brighter.
In 1997 it was more formal than that, but very quiet.
There was a meeting between Peter Mandelson and Chris Rennard, where both turned up with lists of target seats, which fed through into a double page spread of tactical voting opportunities in the Daily Mirror near polling day.
There were also local arrangements.
Ed Davey's seat had one iirc, and he got into Parliament by 56 votes.
And I was possibly one of the 56 ! I was living in Surbiton then and the result was amazing .
A family friend was a dyed in the wool Labour lefty in Winchester and persuaded by her husband to vote tactically Lib Dem just that once (though in the end she did it twice of course), so she can lay claim to have doubled that man of unorthodox personal tastes Mark Oaten’s majority to 2.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
if you're managing more than 1 person you have to do this so the company can cover itself if it turns out you been treating them inequitably.
This seems unlikely. I work for a Council run school. I haven't, and am not aware of anyone else having unconscious bias training. In fact, I haven't had any equality nor diversity training in the two years I've worked there. Safeguarding, yes.
Yeah, councils aren't permitted to do it because of the wokefinder generals in government. Most large private companies will follow it as good practice mandated by the board.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
I think that's fair observation, and why I think any unpublished "arrangement" would be limited to a non-overlap set of targets.
The numbers for 1997 were that the tactical voting arrangements were estimated to have benefited both Lab and LD by ~15 seats gained from the Conservatives, with a tilt towards Labour.
Were that to be replicated - perfectly possible - I can see Mr Starmer being quite happy with 30 fewer Tories, since the extra Lib Dems would be no short term threat.
As a small example of what you might practically do to help with unconscious bias...
We got HR to anonymise CVs when we were hiring so that we didn't know if people were male/female/foreign sounding names etc. when doing an initial sift.
No idea if it made a difference, but it was pretty costless.
A factor we need to bear in mind when trying to predict the result of the GE - money. In 2019 the spending limit was £18.5 m; now it is £35.1m. Between January and September 2023 the Conservatives raised £38.2m. Fancy that!
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
I think "private property" and "the king" are difficult concepts to reconcile.
There's a pretty clear demarcation between assets that are the property of the Crown, i.e. the state, and those which belong to members of the Royal Family as individuals.
This is regardless of whether their income has come from the state. It's not like the status of the home of a retired army officer as private property would be in question, despite their job being entirely "publicly funded".
AIUI palaces are divided into three groups: those owned outright by members of the royal family including Balmoral and Sandringham, "working palaces" such as Buckingham, Windsor, Holyrood that are primarily funded by the Sovereign Grant made by parliament to the monarch, and "historic royal palaces" that are primarily heritage sites belonging to the Crown Estate - Hampton Court, Tower of London etc
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
No it's not the only argument. The importance of tactical voting varies depending on the context of the election. In 2019 the context was Brexit and Corbyn so tactical voting did not feature much. In 2024 (as in 1997) the context is "get rid of the Tories" so tactical voting will be more important, and more likely.
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
I thought TopDog is TSE. ..
His legendary modesty would preclude the choice of such a moniker.
A factor we need to bear in mind when trying to predict the result of the GE - money. In 2019 the spending limit was £18.5 m; now it is £35.1m. Between January and September 2023 the Conservatives raised £38.2m. Fancy that!
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
Just so. Me too.
The problem here is perhaps that those designing, administering and reviewing the results of such courses imagine that they are somehow immune to their own particular biases.
I simultaneously have some sympathy with Casino, and think that he seriously overreacts to what is a relatively minor irritation.
Mm. It's a fair point to raise, your first para, but certainly the courses I did seemed reasonably open-ended to the degree that the only implicit bias was that there was a potential problem which needed to be dealt with - edit: actually, it was fairly explicit!
The other point that might be made is that we are all vulnerable - so even if some HR procedures are of no value to us personally others might well be. Consider, for instance, unconscious bias against the older employee. Even *conscious* bias was perfectly legal until quite recently. So new employees need to understand the situation. And so on.
Rather than “bias” it can just be accidental ignorance which would be fairer as less accusatory. For example had my eyes opened to a form of unconscious ignorance on here yesterday. There was a link to an article about the number of pregnancies in Texas resulting from rape since Roe v wade was squashed.
I looked at the figure, think it was 26,000, and thought that’s got to be absolute bullshit. 26,000 women pregnant from rapes must mean that significantly higher numbers were raped which just can’t be true.
I looked at the population of Texas and thought it’s below half of the UK so that would mean there must be double maybe in UK so I looked up UK stats.
I just couldn’t believe that many women are raped each year. Seriously staggered. I thought it was a couple of thousand, which would be grim enough but the figures are huge.
So I learnt something that countered my beliefs which might have coloured my judgement on issues and arguments. I didn’t have a bias in any way but I just didn’t know.
So if we are trying to “improve” people then maybe best to come at it from an enlightening angle rather than a hectoring angle.
I was startled by that too at the same time - but mentally thought, start with one per cent of women being raped a year, which sounds about right as an order of magnitude, more so than 0.1 per cent, and that is [edit] not too far off ten times the number of pregnancies reported.
Can't remember ever being hectored, though ...
I wondered about that comparison.
But I know that reported-to-police rapes / assault by penetration in the UK were around 70k in 2023, compared to around 600k reported in the British Crime survey, so imo it's a really difficult one to unpack in a comments thread.
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
I don't know and I don't really mind not knowing. I only 'know' who a couple of other posters are, and that's because they given their names. I quite like using pseudonyms in these circumstances; I suspect some of us have different personas on here to those we have in real life.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am actually an 80+ year old. HYUFD, though is, I suspect actually a Green voting 50 year old with a bizarre sense of humour!
Perhaps I'm mis-remembering but I thought that a while back TSE mentioned that he doesn't check @TSE notifications so use the TopDog moniker instead.
A factor we need to bear in mind when trying to predict the result of the GE - money. In 2019 the spending limit was £18.5 m; now it is £35.1m. Between January and September 2023 the Conservatives raised £38.2m. Fancy that!
It would be interesting to meet these people. What exactly is um inspiring them to part with their hard earned cash?
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Though one could make the case too for Lab campaigns in Honiton or Brecon for example.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
A factor we need to bear in mind when trying to predict the result of the GE - money. In 2019 the spending limit was £18.5 m; now it is £35.1m. Between January and September 2023 the Conservatives raised £38.2m. Fancy that!
It would be interesting to meet these people. What exactly is um inspiring them to part with their hard earned cash?
An unshakeable belief that Rishi can turn things round and win the General Election! The fightback starts here!
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
A factor we need to bear in mind when trying to predict the result of the GE - money. In 2019 the spending limit was £18.5 m; now it is £35.1m. Between January and September 2023 the Conservatives raised £38.2m. Fancy that!
It would be interesting to meet these people. What exactly is um inspiring them to part with their hard earned cash?
A desperate need to stop the NHS allowing new GP software in one case and keep the duopoly going
A factor we need to bear in mind when trying to predict the result of the GE - money. In 2019 the spending limit was £18.5 m; now it is £35.1m. Between January and September 2023 the Conservatives raised £38.2m. Fancy that!
The conservatives spent £40m in 1997. Fat lot of help that was.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
No it's not the only argument. The importance of tactical voting varies depending on the context of the election. In 2019 the context was Brexit and Corbyn so tactical voting did not feature much. In 2024 (as in 1997) the context is "get rid of the Tories" so tactical voting will be more important, and more likely.
It may be that the polling is so clear that the Tories are going to lose badly that tactical voting will be less important.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Though one could make the case too for Lab campaigns in Honiton or Brecon for example.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
When the campaign starts there will be tactical voting recommendations based on MRP models published by Best for Britain and no doubt others. These will be a pretty good guide for most constituencies. Other MRP models will be published during the campaign. By polling day it will be clear who the main challenger is in almost all constituencies I think.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Meanwhile much of the British Library's service has been down for several months because they had insufficient protection against a cyberattack.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Meanwhile much of the British Library's service has been down for several months because they had insufficient protection against a cyberattack.
As I keep saying, this Government's priorities are skewed and they need to go away and be Opposition for a while so they can work out how to govern again.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Though one could make the case too for Lab campaigns in Honiton or Brecon for example.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Meanwhile much of the British Library's service has been down for several months because they had insufficient protection against a cyberattack.
Why exactly are they taking so long to put it back up, btw, does anyone know? Presumably they have backups?
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
I don't know and I don't really mind not knowing. I only 'know' who a couple of other posters are, and that's because they given their names. I quite like using pseudonyms in these circumstances; I suspect some of us have different personas on here to those we have in real life.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am actually an 80+ year old. HYUFD, though is, I suspect actually a Green voting 50 year old with a bizarre sense of humour!
Perhaps I'm mis-remembering but I thought that a while back TSE mentioned that he doesn't check @TSE notifications so use the TopDog moniker instead.
TopDog has only been around since March 23rd.
His 2nd post introduces himself eloquently. Retired journalist living in the country. Centre right, anti Johnson and Trump, Remainer. So PBs most populous grouping has an addition.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
I did jury service at a central London court (not the Old Bailey) earlier this year. Every morning all attendees - jurors, barristers, witnesses etc - had to queue outside, often for 20-30 minutes whilst bags were thoroughly searched by hand one at a time. Apparently there was no budget to buy a scanner.
A factor we need to bear in mind when trying to predict the result of the GE - money. In 2019 the spending limit was £18.5 m; now it is £35.1m. Between January and September 2023 the Conservatives raised £38.2m. Fancy that!
The conservatives spent £40m in 1997. Fat lot of help that was.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Though one could make the case too for Lab campaigns in Honiton or Brecon for example.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
When the campaign starts there will be tactical voting recommendations based on MRP models published by Best for Britain and no doubt others. These will be a pretty good guide for most constituencies. Other MRP models will be published during the campaign. By polling day it will be clear who the main challenger is in almost all constituencies I think.
It’s a shame there’s no informal pact. That’s the only way to avoid confusion. And the best way to bury the Tories for a few years.
In the absence of one I think the best guide is a mixture of:
- MRP - Electoral history, including who’s held the seat or come second in recent elections - Council seats
Each comes with caveats. MRP tends to overstate Labour chances in areas of traditional LD strength; Electoral history can be misleading when there are major demographic shifts; council seats tend to overstate Lib Dem strength so are probably most useful where a party controls the council or is largest party.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Meanwhile much of the British Library's service has been down for several months because they had insufficient protection against a cyberattack.
Why exactly are they taking so long to put it back up, btw, does anyone know? Presumably they have backups?
The backups didn't include infrastructure setup. The attack deliberately targeted infrastructure. So they have the data, but not the configured services to serve it up.
This is why your backups need to contain configuration as software. With Bamboo and K8s for example, you can specify everything as YAML files, so starting from scratch from a backup automatically installs the configuration for build and deployment.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Meanwhile much of the British Library's service has been down for several months because they had insufficient protection against a cyberattack.
Why exactly are they taking so long to put it back up, btw, does anyone know? Presumably they have backups?
The backups didn't include infrastructure setup. The attack deliberately targeted infrastructure. So they have the data, but not the configured services to serve it up.
This is why your backups need to contain configuration as software. With Bamboo and K8s for example, you can specify everything as YAML files, so starting from scratch from a backup automatically installs the configuration for build and deployment.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Though one could make the case too for Lab campaigns in Honiton or Brecon for example.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
When the campaign starts there will be tactical voting recommendations based on MRP models published by Best for Britain and no doubt others. These will be a pretty good guide for most constituencies. Other MRP models will be published during the campaign. By polling day it will be clear who the main challenger is in almost all constituencies I think.
Though different MRP polls can point in different directions!
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
My wife is an HR Manager, she sees it for the cobblers it is too, but that is exactly why they do it in her view. Same as any other training. Manual Handling, Ethics, compliance etc etc....
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
No it's not the only argument. The importance of tactical voting varies depending on the context of the election. In 2019 the context was Brexit and Corbyn so tactical voting did not feature much. In 2024 (as in 1997) the context is "get rid of the Tories" so tactical voting will be more important, and more likely.
It may be that the polling is so clear that the Tories are going to lose badly that tactical voting will be less important.
Although many might claim that was also the case in 1997, the spectre of "not 1992 again!" meant that many many voters were prepeared to choose the strategic choice of LD vs Lab.
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
I don't know and I don't really mind not knowing. I only 'know' who a couple of other posters are, and that's because they given their names. I quite like using pseudonyms in these circumstances; I suspect some of us have different personas on here to those we have in real life.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am actually an 80+ year old. HYUFD, though is, I suspect actually a Green voting 50 year old with a bizarre sense of humour!
Perhaps I'm mis-remembering but I thought that a while back TSE mentioned that he doesn't check @TSE notifications so use the TopDog moniker instead.
Oops, I don't think so. I am not TSE, I promise...
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Though one could make the case too for Lab campaigns in Honiton or Brecon for example.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
When the campaign starts there will be tactical voting recommendations based on MRP models published by Best for Britain and no doubt others. These will be a pretty good guide for most constituencies. Other MRP models will be published during the campaign. By polling day it will be clear who the main challenger is in almost all constituencies I think.
Though different MRP polls can point in different directions!
Personally I find the Yougov more credible,.
Yes, though I suspect that during the campaign the MRPs and the tactical voting websites will tend to converge and the whole process will become self-reinforcing so that by the end of the campaign there won't be much room for doubt.
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
I don't know and I don't really mind not knowing. I only 'know' who a couple of other posters are, and that's because they given their names. I quite like using pseudonyms in these circumstances; I suspect some of us have different personas on here to those we have in real life.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am actually an 80+ year old. HYUFD, though is, I suspect actually a Green voting 50 year old with a bizarre sense of humour!
Perhaps I'm mis-remembering but I thought that a while back TSE mentioned that he doesn't check @TSE notifications so use the TopDog moniker instead.
TopDog has only been around since March 23rd.
His 2nd post introduces himself eloquently. Retired journalist living in the country. Centre right, anti Johnson and Trump, Remainer. So PBs most populous grouping has an addition.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
My wife is an HR Manager, she sees it for the cobblers it is too, but that is exactly why they do it in her view. Same as any other training. Manual Handling, Ethics, compliance etc etc....
Possibly your wife shouldn't rock the boat too much. People might start seeing HR as a load of cobblers too.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
OT - I must’ve led an incredibly sheltered life but whatever possesses anyone to want to watch the type of content that this guy has been charged with being responsible for?
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
My wife is an HR Manager, she sees it for the cobblers it is too, but that is exactly why they do it in her view. Same as any other training. Manual Handling, Ethics, compliance etc etc....
Possibly your wife shouldn't rock the boat too much. People might start seeing HR as a load of cobblers too.
I think she would welcome a tap on the shoulder, some money along with picture of a spitfire and a carriage clock and a ride off into the sunset.
Alot of what HR does is compliance based. I guess the value it adds is in protecting the organisation.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
I did jury service at a central London court (not the Old Bailey) earlier this year. Every morning all attendees - jurors, barristers, witnesses etc - had to queue outside, often for 20-30 minutes whilst bags were thoroughly searched by hand one at a time. Apparently there was no budget to buy a scanner.
Supposedly the queue for Maidstone was over an hour yesterday morning - to the extent the court reporter tweeted about it taking twice as long as usual
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Though one could make the case too for Lab campaigns in Honiton or Brecon for example.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
When the campaign starts there will be tactical voting recommendations based on MRP models published by Best for Britain and no doubt others. These will be a pretty good guide for most constituencies. Other MRP models will be published during the campaign. By polling day it will be clear who the main challenger is in almost all constituencies I think.
That's fraught, though. I looked at some of the differences yesterday, and the MRPs from different companies have HUGE differences. Way beyond any feasible MoE.
Someone on TwiX looked deeper:
"Across the trio of MRPs released this year, only 460 (70%) seats have held the same projected winner on all three, with nearly a third showing a different winner on at least one (shown in paler tones) and seven even producing different results each time (light grey)."
I know I witter on about my constituency, but a couple further over, we have one of the "every MRP disagrees" seats: Bicester and Woodstock. Which we can confidently project will be held by the Tories by a few percent, taken by Labour by 1%, and won by the Lib Dems by 7%, based on the MRPs and depending on which one you follow(!)
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
I thought TopDog is TSE.
I've been waiting for parts 2 and 3 from Robert as well.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
No it's not the only argument. The importance of tactical voting varies depending on the context of the election. In 2019 the context was Brexit and Corbyn so tactical voting did not feature much. In 2024 (as in 1997) the context is "get rid of the Tories" so tactical voting will be more important, and more likely.
It may be that the polling is so clear that the Tories are going to lose badly that tactical voting will be less important.
Although many might claim that was also the case in 1997, the spectre of "not 1992 again!" meant that many many voters were prepeared to choose the strategic choice of LD vs Lab.
I think the desire to get the Tories out is stronger now than it was in 1997 - there is nothing to mitigate the chaos and failure of policy at every level. And this will drive tactical voting.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Interesting. In Scotland the bigger challenge is to get defence counsel. In sex cases (which is the bulk of what we do) the accused are not allowed to represent themselves so if you cannot find defence counsel the case goes off.
Comments
There was a meeting between Peter Mandelson and Chris Rennard, where both turned up with lists of target seats, which fed through into a double page spread of tactical voting opportunities in the Daily Mirror near polling day.
There were also local arrangements.
Ed Davey's seat had one iirc, and he got into Parliament by 56 votes - which is one reason I think LDs will be very serious about it. For Starmer, it is a chance to add an extra nail into the Tory coffin beyond the ones Sunak is putting in it.
Since there is little overlap between say the top 25 LD targets and the high end of the Labour target list, it seems to me to be an obvious thing to do.
On Uxbridge, unpopular opinion incoming. ULEZ be damned, the swing at the by election is in reasonable line with London Polling over the last year (recent Survation e.g. was a 7.5% swing)
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
When I first materialised a couple of weeks ago, @ydoethur said 'Welcome to the bear pit'. No bears in sight yet, but I am prepared... to run for the hills like Brave Sir Robin.
@Foxy Thanks for posting some of the bio I disclosed when @Malmesbury was testing me to see if I was a Russian troll. I think I passed the test (ie, negative), but I still haven't disclosed my opinion about pineapple on pizza - or indeed whether Diehard is a Christmas movie. I might just sit on the fence on these for a bit ...
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2022#toc
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingseptember2023#domestic-abuse-and-sexual-offences
But the numbers are, as you say, horrible.
Good to see the Firm is still adhering to its business model despite its various vicissitudes.
Rishi Sunak has attained the summit in politics. He's the Prime Minister and that's an amazing thing. Firstly because he IS the Prime Minister. He's running the country. Ok so it's unpleasant in many ways and highly pressurized but still, he's the Man. Like our Header writer he's Top Dog. At 43 he has much life left but he will never experience such a (professional) high again and he knows it ends the day after the GE. The inclination, the strong inclination, will be to delay this not accelerate it.
Then there's History to think of. Sunak takes his exalted place in it having become (post the GE) one of the very few people who WERE the Prime Minister. In this context it means a great deal to have served for at least two years. He'll want that two years. It will be right up there as a consideration when he thinks about the election. He became PM on 25th October 2022. Therefore the earliest date he will call the GE is the day before. That will have him leaving office slap bang on his two year anniversary.
I think he will choose that date - Thursday 24th October - but I wouldn't rule out later. What you can rule out is any date before then.
Top drawer first header Top Dog!
One stat I recall from later was a statement that Davey greeted personally around 40k of constituents during his first. Perhaps not *that* unusual now that many try to work like Lib Dems, but it's part of digging in. I can't imagine Geoff Hoon doing that here in Ashfield back then.
Law-making and governance in Scotland seem utterly woeful. Whether this is a consequence of devolution or just because Scotland has really poor politicians is not clear. What is the governance like in devolved assemblies in Catalonia for instance?
Obtaining a writ of mandamus is more realistic, but still would face a very high hurdle - and it's possible Cannon now just further delays ruling on the matter until the actual trial.
Her conduct has been an absolute disgrace, but US trial judges enjoy very great discretion, and their misfeasances are most often corrected on appeal; rarely before any trial.
It's fairly clear what should happen - but the system is just not very well set up to deal with an ex President who has already to some extent subverted it.
So, yeah, the point is: the Uxbridge result is bad for the Tories. Uxbridge is the best result they've had in a fair while and an Uxbridge result still sees them out of No. 10.
I do wonder whether the 4 million votes and 1 MP for UKIP in 2015 provided a bit of extra fuel for the Brexit vote.
The main article is putting the cart beofre the horse. The Late April-Early June Window 4 years after the last election is the ideal time. PMs who are in a strong will jump at this chance. In all elections I was old enough to remember the end of Thatcher's and Blair's 1st and Second Terms are the only ones that fit this pattern.
On the other extreme the very late elections are almost always called because at the 4 year mark the current situation was not good: 1978, 1991, 1996, 2009 and 2023. The one glaring outlier here is Major's win in 1992, all others lost. I'm excluding the 1st Cameron Term as an exception due to the FTPA so it was not a (realistic) choice for him.
It's the bad political situiation for the PM that leads to a 5 year term followed by poor election results, rather than a 5 year term leading to bad election results.
Discretion and appreciation of future earnings obviously the better part of valour.
Trump himself has also just been subject to a harsh warning on breach of an extended (to cover family members including of court employees) restriction order in the New York Stormy Daniels case, and the consequences.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Edit: if you're looking for a workable definition of "woke", here is my current preferred approach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0OHDky6KRQ
The Tories could have helpful media support as they did in Uxbridge. They might find a national wedge issue.
And, also, the context for the discussion was the chances of the Tories avoiding a wipeout that would see them reduced to 32 seats. Not that they might escape with victory.
It's not Christmas until they throw Professor Snape off Nakatomi Tower.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
AIUI the public have never been able to take a full tour before, and they’re only doing it in tiny numbers.
And I have family in that part of London.
I've been waiting for parts 2 and 3 from Robert as well.
See Greece.
In a burst of magnificently petty tit for tat Rangers and Celtic are refusing to give each other an away ticket allowance, so the Orcs won't even have any Kafflicks to sing their folk songs to.
I quite like using pseudonyms in these circumstances; I suspect some of us have different personas on here to those we have in real life.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am actually an 80+ year old. HYUFD, though is, I suspect actually a Green voting 50 year old with a bizarre sense of humour!
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/
"a lot of Woke bollocks" is possibly an indicator.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Oh, it was just weeks ago.
The limo driver could have been a token black guy character, so easily. Instead, with a few lines, they actually gave you a sense of a person.
This is regardless of whether their income has come from the state. It's not like the status of the home of a retired army officer as private property would be in question, despite their job being entirely "publicly funded".
The numbers for 1997 were that the tactical voting arrangements were estimated to have benefited both Lab and LD by ~15 seats gained from the Conservatives, with a tilt towards Labour.
Were that to be replicated - perfectly possible - I can see Mr Starmer being quite happy with 30 fewer Tories, since the extra Lib Dems would be no short term threat.
We got HR to anonymise CVs when we were hiring so that we didn't know if people were male/female/foreign sounding names etc. when doing an initial sift.
No idea if it made a difference, but it was pretty costless.
But I know that reported-to-police rapes / assault by penetration in the UK were around 70k in 2023, compared to around 600k reported in the British Crime survey, so imo it's a really difficult one to unpack in a comments thread.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
https://twitter.com/TonyKent_Writes/status/1775477244250525895
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
In the absence of one I think the best guide is a mixture of:
- MRP
- Electoral history, including who’s held the seat or come second in recent elections
- Council seats
Each comes with caveats. MRP tends to overstate Labour chances in areas of traditional LD strength; Electoral history can be misleading when there are major demographic shifts; council seats tend to overstate Lib Dem strength so are probably most useful where a party controls the council or is largest party.
This is why your backups need to contain configuration as software. With Bamboo and K8s for example, you can specify everything as YAML files, so starting from scratch from a backup automatically installs the configuration for build and deployment.
Personally I find the Yougov more credible,.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68716467
Alot of what HR does is compliance based. I guess the value it adds is in protecting the organisation.
Someone on TwiX looked deeper:
"Across the trio of MRPs released this year, only 460 (70%) seats have held the same projected winner on all three, with nearly a third showing a different winner on at least one (shown in paler tones) and seven even producing different results each time (light grey)."
I know I witter on about my constituency, but a couple further over, we have one of the "every MRP disagrees" seats: Bicester and Woodstock. Which we can confidently project will be held by the Tories by a few percent, taken by Labour by 1%, and won by the Lib Dems by 7%, based on the MRPs and depending on which one you follow(!)