The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.
And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.
Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.
I think from 2015 onwards, both Labour and the Tories, in different ways, switched from the traditional, low risk, proven electoral strategy of trying to sell yourself to the centre - even when being more radical in practice. To a high risk, high reward one of trying to activate the perennially disillusioned either among non-voters or traditionally on the other side.
The reward is that if you are successful you get your fabled 'realignment', win a big majority, leave your opponents electorally adrift by winning in places you shouldn't and have a mandate for big changes.
The problems being, it relies on you not losing your centre flank and becoming disillusioned but even more dangerous, given are often effectively distributed, and the disillusioned buying what you're selling. Get those wrong and you end up losing both and imploding or coming close to it.
The Tories appeared to have done that with Johnson and Brexit. But the former relied on lots of moderate Tory or centrist voters thinking Corbyn was a fate worse than that (its own failed high risk/reward strategy), and the latter its new Ukippy or ex-Labour leave voters not feeling they'd been missold to because nothing has changed for the better.
Labour are now fighting on the traditional low risk strategy, meaning they might not maximise gains - which they could do by promising lots of flourishy stuff in all directions - but maximise chances of a handy majority.
While the Tories are stuck having gambled and lost, having effectively written off a load of more liberal working age voters they now need, because the illiberal ones who were supposed to add to or replace them are as disillusioned with them as were all politicians before.
I disagree with that. Cameron in 2015, May in 2017, Johnson in 2019 and Starmer in 2024/25 have all appealed to the centre. Just each persons version of the centre changes over time.
The problem is that some people cloaked themselves in the name "centrist" in 2017-2019 while being nothing of the sort.
The central position of the British electorate is to respect democracy. Having had a majority vote for Brexit in 2016, implementing Brexit went from being an extreme position to the centrist one overnight, which 52% who voted for it and millions more who didn't vote for it but respected democracy anyway could support.
Staying in Europe despite the referendum result was anything but a centrist position.
The uniqueness of the Brexit thing is that leaving the EU has always been a centrist position - it has always been arguable, rational and variously preferred by loads of non extreme people with varying degrees of depth and enthusiasm.
But of course it was not the only centrist position. Being in the EU is and was always also non-extreme and centrist.
The issue split centrist opinion to a unique degree, so much so that many centrists honestly believe the view they don't take to have been extreme. This rendered dialogue difficult.
The calculation is not difficult. When a vote splits 16 million to 17 million (approx) then you can be sure neither view is extreme. There are not enough crazy people to go round.
I agree with that, though I'd say the proportion who felt that we should stay in the EU despite the referendum result after the vote was considerably lower than 16 million.
Most Britons respect democracy. The moment the referendum happened, respecting its result was the centrist position and anyone who opposed that under the label of "centrist" was misnamed.
There was more to it. What would’ve been centrist was a soft Brexit, but a wing of the Conservative Party dragged us into a hard Brexit, then choosing a candidate who lied about it to get through a general election campaign.
Well the Vote Leave campaign promised what you call a hard Brexit, as did the Remain campaign if we left. The campaign was debated on issues such as "taking back control" of our money, laws, trade and borders - a soft Brexit didn't do that, except for maybe the last one which as a non-racist was the one I cared about the least.
Either way though, Theresa May spent years trying to get a flaccidly soft Brexit through that would have all-but kept us in the EU via the backstop, but was blocked at every turn not just by the wing of the Tory party that had campaigned for Brexit originally as they wanted us to actually leave the EU in practice and not just in name, but she was also blocked by the likes of Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer, Jeremy Corbyn, Jo "next Prime Minister" Swinson and Ian Blackford,
You can thank them as well as the Tories who wanted a hard Brexit for giving the country what the Brexiteer Tories wanted.
Vote Leave promised no barriers to trade with the EU. We got barriers, so that's a harder Brexit.
Vote Leave promised the Northern Irish border would be unchanged... Well, it sort of wasn't changed, and it sort of was when it moved to the middle of the Irish Sea.
Vote Leave promised continued participation in EU science schemes. That didn't happen: we got a harder Brexit there too.
You can blame Grieve, Starmer, Corbyn, Swinson and Blackford if you wish, but the Brexit we got was the Brexit of Johnson, Gove, Frost etc.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
And that concensus is distorted hugely by the effects of Covid and the Ukraine war. People are shit at matching cause and effect.
I don't think so. The fundamental reason for people thinking Brexit was a mistake in my view is the complete inability or unwillingness of those promoting Brexit to point to a single real and concrete benefit, while they get to hear about literally hundreds of downsides from everyone else. "Move along, nothing to see here" isn't a compelling argument when they are hearing about all those hundreds of downsides. The public may not get into the nuances of the UK's foreign and economic policy but they can smell a rat at a hundred paces.
The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.
And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.
Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.
I think from 2015 onwards, both Labour and the Tories, in different ways, switched from the traditional, low risk, proven electoral strategy of trying to sell yourself to the centre - even when being more radical in practice. To a high risk, high reward one of trying to activate the perennially disillusioned either among non-voters or traditionally on the other side.
The reward is that if you are successful you get your fabled 'realignment', win a big majority, leave your opponents electorally adrift by winning in places you shouldn't and have a mandate for big changes.
The problems being, it relies on you not losing your centre flank and becoming disillusioned but even more dangerous, given are often effectively distributed, and the disillusioned buying what you're selling. Get those wrong and you end up losing both and imploding or coming close to it.
The Tories appeared to have done that with Johnson and Brexit. But the former relied on lots of moderate Tory or centrist voters thinking Corbyn was a fate worse than that (its own failed high risk/reward strategy), and the latter its new Ukippy or ex-Labour leave voters not feeling they'd been missold to because nothing has changed for the better.
Labour are now fighting on the traditional low risk strategy, meaning they might not maximise gains - which they could do by promising lots of flourishy stuff in all directions - but maximise chances of a handy majority.
While the Tories are stuck having gambled and lost, having effectively written off a load of more liberal working age voters they now need, because the illiberal ones who were supposed to add to or replace them are as disillusioned with them as were all politicians before.
I disagree with that. Cameron in 2015, May in 2017, Johnson in 2019 and Starmer in 2024/25 have all appealed to the centre. Just each persons version of the centre changes over time.
The problem is that some people cloaked themselves in the name "centrist" in 2017-2019 while being nothing of the sort.
The central position of the British electorate is to respect democracy. Having had a majority vote for Brexit in 2016, implementing Brexit went from being an extreme position to the centrist one overnight, which 52% who voted for it and millions more who didn't vote for it but respected democracy anyway could support.
Staying in Europe despite the referendum result was anything but a centrist position.
The uniqueness of the Brexit thing is that leaving the EU has always been a centrist position - it has always been arguable, rational and variously preferred by loads of non extreme people with varying degrees of depth and enthusiasm.
But of course it was not the only centrist position. Being in the EU is and was always also non-extreme and centrist.
The issue split centrist opinion to a unique degree, so much so that many centrists honestly believe the view they don't take to have been extreme. This rendered dialogue difficult.
The calculation is not difficult. When a vote splits 16 million to 17 million (approx) then you can be sure neither view is extreme. There are not enough crazy people to go round.
I agree with that, though I'd say the proportion who felt that we should stay in the EU despite the referendum result after the vote was considerably lower than 16 million.
Most Britons respect democracy. The moment the referendum happened, respecting its result was the centrist position and anyone who opposed that under the label of "centrist" was misnamed.
There was more to it. What would’ve been centrist was a soft Brexit, but a wing of the Conservative Party dragged us into a hard Brexit, then choosing a candidate who lied about it to get through a general election campaign.
Well the Vote Leave campaign promised what you call a hard Brexit, as did the Remain campaign if we left. The campaign was debated on issues such as "taking back control" of our money, laws, trade and borders - a soft Brexit didn't do that, except for maybe the last one which as a non-racist was the one I cared about the least.
Either way though, Theresa May spent years trying to get a flaccidly soft Brexit through that would have all-but kept us in the EU via the backstop, but was blocked at every turn not just by the wing of the Tory party that had campaigned for Brexit originally as they wanted us to actually leave the EU in practice and not just in name, but she was also blocked by the likes of Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer, Jeremy Corbyn, Jo "next Prime Minister" Swinson and Ian Blackford,
You can thank them as well as the Tories who wanted a hard Brexit for giving the country what the Brexiteer Tories wanted.
Vote Leave promised no barriers to trade with the EU. We got barriers, so that's a harder Brexit.
Vote Leave promised the Northern Irish border would be unchanged... Well, it sort of wasn't changed, and it sort of was when it moved to the middle of the Irish Sea.
Vote Leave promised continued participation in EU science schemes. That didn't happen: we got a harder Brexit there too.
You can blame Grieve, Starmer, Corbyn, Swinson and Blackford if you wish, but the Brexit we got was the Brexit of Johnson, Gove, Frost etc.
Vote leave however wasnt the government which with few exceptions campaigned for remain so all they could voice was aspirations
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
And that concensus is distorted hugely by the effects of Covid and the Ukraine war. People are shit at matching cause and effect.
I don't think so. The fundamental reason for people thinking Brexit was a mistake in my view is the complete inability or unwillingness of those promoting Brexit to point to a single real and concrete benefit, while they get to hear about literally hundreds of downsides from everyone else. "Move along, nothing to see here" isn't a compelling argument when they are hearing about all those hundreds of downsides. The public may not get into the nuances of the UK's foreign and economic policy but they can smell a rat at a hundred paces.
Brexit worked for me, I finally got my first payrise since about 2004 and migration is sorted in my mind. I don't care about numbers so much. I do care when most coming are min wage workers who add less to the tax revenue than they cost. I dont mind if we have a million doctors come....I do care if we have a million waiters/baristas/bar staff come
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
You can’t infer that from the polls without also inferring that people think that abolishing the death penalty was a mistake.
You keep making this correlation which in it's simplest form appears correct. I don't believe it is because Brexit has been discussed and experienced to death, whilst if you widen the capital punishment debate, conflicting answers appear. "Do you think tiny baby serial killer Lucy Letby should be executed alongside Gary Glitter" the answer is "yes". "Do you think the now exonerated Birmingham 6 should have been executed after being fitted up by West Midlands Police", the answer will be "no".
I believe this Government running with a capital punishment referendum you think is your best way to return Sunak. Remember what Osborne said, the EU referendum should be the UK's last.
Yeah but @heathener says the last 5 polls are over 20% lead and therefore this proves something or other.
I say wait for more in common, Opinium, Survation and Deltapoll.
This is Opinium. Swingback has been taken into account and you know this.
That is not to say this isn't the more accurate study, but dismissing the others because they don't give you the result you want is silly.
For what it's worth I don't believe the Tories are below 30 and Labour are much above 40. This will be borne out in the locals.
@heathener said the previous 5 were a trend even though 2 were from same pollster.
I merely pointed out some of the pollsters which give smaller Labour leads ie the 4 I have just listed hadn't reported last week due to easter so wait for theirs to see if there is a trend.
Yeah but @heathener says the last 5 polls are over 20% lead and therefore this proves something or other.
I say wait for more in common, Opinium, Survation and Deltapoll.
This is Opinium. Swingback has been taken into account and you know this.
That is not to say this isn't the more accurate study, but dismissing the others because they don't give you the result you want is silly.
For what it's worth I don't believe the Tories are below 30 and Labour are much above 40. This will be borne out in the locals.
@heathener said the previous 5 were a trend even though 2 were from same pollster.
I merely pointed out some of the pollsters which give smaller Labour leads ie the 4 I have just listed hadn't reported last week due to easter so wait for theirs to see if there is a trend.
He pooh pooed that and insisted there was a trend
So what you’re saying is that Heathener should have built a Time Machine to go forward in time and check the polls on Saturday?
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
And that concensus is distorted hugely by the effects of Covid and the Ukraine war. People are shit at matching cause and effect.
I don't think so. The fundamental reason for people thinking Brexit was a mistake in my view is the complete inability or unwillingness of those promoting Brexit to point to a single real and concrete benefit, while they get to hear about literally hundreds of downsides from everyone else. "Move along, nothing to see here" isn't a compelling argument when they are hearing about all those hundreds of downsides. The public may not get into the nuances of the UK's foreign and economic policy but they can smell a rat at a hundred paces.
Brexit worked for me, I finally got my first payrise since about 2004 and migration is sorted in my mind. I don't care about numbers so much. I do care when most coming are min wage workers who add less to the tax revenue than they cost. I dont mind if we have a million doctors come....I do care if we have a million waiters/baristas/bar staff come
Failing to secure a pay rise for 16 years while working in IT has to be some kind of perverse achievement. Were you undercut by all those minimum wage coders from Poland?
I think the Rayner story is a non-story except for those who are going to vote Tory anyway. Not a lot.
This is probably true. It’s not unlike the run up to 1997. The Tories had a seemingly endless run of fairly minor stories that Alistair Campbell somehow turned into a government mired in sleaze. And then Bernie Eccleston entered the chat, but no one really got too het up because it wasn’t Tory sleaze…
She could have handled this better. It would have been easy to close down. Apologise. Say it may be an error. Release the advice and move on.
That may have worked in the past but it doesn't work now. Never apologise, never explain. People will attack whatever you do, whoever you are.
The problem is this story is just dragging on and on and it is relatively trivial in the overall,scheme of things.
She just comes over as evasive and deflecting on it and it just means it drags on.
It is possible Rayner doesn't actually owe any tax, as she seems to be claiming, and as Neidle allows could be the case. In which situation her only fault would be to have made the same mistake about CGT allowances on houses after marriage everyone makes.
Revealing her tax advice is unlikely to do anything for her. HMRC will either claim the back tax or not. And if it does, it presumably means her advice was wrong.
I would imagine without applied swingback this poll, using Opinium's earlier methodology would align with the others and be over 20%. I do agree with you that back in the real world the Cons are way closer to Labour than any poll suggests.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
And that concensus is distorted hugely by the effects of Covid and the Ukraine war. People are shit at matching cause and effect.
I don't think so. The fundamental reason for people thinking Brexit was a mistake in my view is the complete inability or unwillingness of those promoting Brexit to point to a single real and concrete benefit, while they get to hear about literally hundreds of downsides from everyone else. "Move along, nothing to see here" isn't a compelling argument when they are hearing about all those hundreds of downsides. The public may not get into the nuances of the UK's foreign and economic policy but they can smell a rat at a hundred paces.
Brexit worked for me, I finally got my first payrise since about 2004 and migration is sorted in my mind. I don't care about numbers so much. I do care when most coming are min wage workers who add less to the tax revenue than they cost. I dont mind if we have a million doctors come....I do care if we have a million waiters/baristas/bar staff come
Consensus doesn't mean 100% agree, but a solid >60% do think it was a mistake and frankly a good part of the rest can't be bothered to make the case any more.
Yeah but @heathener says the last 5 polls are over 20% lead and therefore this proves something or other.
I say wait for more in common, Opinium, Survation and Deltapoll.
This is Opinium. Swingback has been taken into account and you know this.
That is not to say this isn't the more accurate study, but dismissing the others because they don't give you the result you want is silly.
For what it's worth I don't believe the Tories are below 30 and Labour are much above 40. This will be borne out in the locals.
@heathener said the previous 5 were a trend even though 2 were from same pollster.
I merely pointed out some of the pollsters which give smaller Labour leads ie the 4 I have just listed hadn't reported last week due to easter so wait for theirs to see if there is a trend.
He pooh pooed that and insisted there was a trend
I'm sure someone else was getting excited about a trend in the week before Easter.
Reality is that the polls have been incredibly boring all year.
Our latest VI-over-time graph also reflects the extreme stability we have been seeing in our results over the past few weeks.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
And that concensus is distorted hugely by the effects of Covid and the Ukraine war. People are shit at matching cause and effect.
I don't think so. The fundamental reason for people thinking Brexit was a mistake in my view is the complete inability or unwillingness of those promoting Brexit to point to a single real and concrete benefit, while they get to hear about literally hundreds of downsides from everyone else. "Move along, nothing to see here" isn't a compelling argument when they are hearing about all those hundreds of downsides. The public may not get into the nuances of the UK's foreign and economic policy but they can smell a rat at a hundred paces.
Brexit worked for me, I finally got my first payrise since about 2004 and migration is sorted in my mind. I don't care about numbers so much. I do care when most coming are min wage workers who add less to the tax revenue than they cost. I dont mind if we have a million doctors come....I do care if we have a million waiters/baristas/bar staff come
Failing to secure a pay rise for 16 years while working in IT has to be some kind of perverse achievement. Were you undercut by all those minimum wage coders from Poland?
In 2004 I was paid a wage, whenever I changed jobs the wage offered was in the same ball park till about 2019. That is ads for multiple companies and what they were offering
Yeah but @heathener says the last 5 polls are over 20% lead and therefore this proves something or other.
I say wait for more in common, Opinium, Survation and Deltapoll.
This is Opinium. Swingback has been taken into account and you know this.
That is not to say this isn't the more accurate study, but dismissing the others because they don't give you the result you want is silly.
For what it's worth I don't believe the Tories are below 30 and Labour are much above 40. This will be borne out in the locals.
@heathener said the previous 5 were a trend even though 2 were from same pollster.
I merely pointed out some of the pollsters which give smaller Labour leads ie the 4 I have just listed hadn't reported last week due to easter so wait for theirs to see if there is a trend.
He pooh pooed that and insisted there was a trend
Average Labour lead of the last 6 polls, including that Opinium, is 20.2%
Average Labour lead of all polls taken in March was also 20.2% Average Labour lead of all polls taken in February was 19.4% Average Labour lead of all polls taken in January was 19.5%
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
And that concensus is distorted hugely by the effects of Covid and the Ukraine war. People are shit at matching cause and effect.
I don't think so. The fundamental reason for people thinking Brexit was a mistake in my view is the complete inability or unwillingness of those promoting Brexit to point to a single real and concrete benefit, while they get to hear about literally hundreds of downsides from everyone else. "Move along, nothing to see here" isn't a compelling argument when they are hearing about all those hundreds of downsides. The public may not get into the nuances of the UK's foreign and economic policy but they can smell a rat at a hundred paces.
Brexit worked for me, I finally got my first payrise since about 2004 and migration is sorted in my mind. I don't care about numbers so much. I do care when most coming are min wage workers who add less to the tax revenue than they cost. I dont mind if we have a million doctors come....I do care if we have a million waiters/baristas/bar staff come
Consensus doesn't mean 100% agree, but a solid >60% do think it was a mistake and frankly a good part of the rest can't be bothered to make the case any more.
I didn't claim it was a 100% and its not even 60% if you ask about joining the euro its less than 50%
Yeah but @heathener says the last 5 polls are over 20% lead and therefore this proves something or other.
I say wait for more in common, Opinium, Survation and Deltapoll.
This is Opinium. Swingback has been taken into account and you know this.
That is not to say this isn't the more accurate study, but dismissing the others because they don't give you the result you want is silly.
For what it's worth I don't believe the Tories are below 30 and Labour are much above 40. This will be borne out in the locals.
@heathener said the previous 5 were a trend even though 2 were from same pollster.
I merely pointed out some of the pollsters which give smaller Labour leads ie the 4 I have just listed hadn't reported last week due to easter so wait for theirs to see if there is a trend.
He pooh pooed that and insisted there was a trend
I'm sure someone else was getting excited about a trend in the week before Easter.
Reality is that the polls have been incredibly boring all year.
Our latest VI-over-time graph also reflects the extreme stability we have been seeing in our results over the past few weeks.
Boris Johnson: "If the west continues to crumble – and especially if Britain and the US crumble – then the Israelis will be prevented from getting into Rafah. They will be prevented from achieving their objective: of finishing Hamas as a military force in Gaza."
Imagine such a terrible awful unthinkable outcome: Israel not achieving its objective! The Israeli armed forces who have killed 30,000 people in six months - mostly women and children, and including about 200 aid workers - not "getting into" a tiny area in which they have corralled 1.4 million people, many of whom are starving.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
And that concensus is distorted hugely by the effects of Covid and the Ukraine war. People are shit at matching cause and effect.
I don't think so. The fundamental reason for people thinking Brexit was a mistake in my view is the complete inability or unwillingness of those promoting Brexit to point to a single real and concrete benefit, while they get to hear about literally hundreds of downsides from everyone else. "Move along, nothing to see here" isn't a compelling argument when they are hearing about all those hundreds of downsides. The public may not get into the nuances of the UK's foreign and economic policy but they can smell a rat at a hundred paces.
I fundamentally disagree. The hard economic effects of covid and Ukraine are being experienced all over the land and people are blaming Brexit. Add in people moaning on social media about a few queues at airports and there you go.
I don’t think people in general think that deeply about politics and economics.
It is really pathetic. He was probably wearing Adidas Sambas, Gazelles and Puma States at school when they were cool that time round. Are they suggesting that there should be some sort of committee who decide whether you are allowed to wear certain clothing based on your politics or background?
I would imagine Adrian Chiles wearing a pair would be more damaging to their cred than Sunak wearing them but can’t write about that as the Guardian Editor might be peeved for some reason.
It is also unoriginal. It is almost a meme now because the same Sambas/Rishi/uncool joke seems to have occurred to so many.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
You can’t infer that from the polls without also inferring that people think that abolishing the death penalty was a mistake.
You keep making this correlation which in it's simplest form appears correct. I don't believe it is because Brexit has been discussed and experienced to death, whilst if you widen the capital punishment debate, conflicting answers appear. "Do you think tiny baby serial killer Lucy Letby should be executed alongside Gary Glitter" the answer is "yes". "Do you think the now exonerated Birmingham 6 should have been executed after being fitted up by West Midlands Police", the answer will be "no".
I believe this Government running with a capital punishment referendum you think is your best way to return Sunak. Remember what Osborne said, the EU referendum should be the UK's last.
The same nuances are there with the EU. "Do you think we should cooperate and be friendly with our European neighbours?" - "Yes." "Do you think we should have uncontrolled immigration from the continent?" - "No."
Boris Johnson: "If the west continues to crumble – and especially if Britain and the US crumble – then the Israelis will be prevented from getting into Rafah. They will be prevented from achieving their objective: of finishing Hamas as a military force in Gaza."
Imagine such a terrible awful unthinkable outcome: Israel not achieving its objective! The Israeli armed forces who have killed 30,000 people in six months - mostly women and children, and including about 200 aid workers - not "getting into" a tiny area in which they have corralled 1.4 million people, many of whom are starving.
Well the remaining hostages might be a bit peeved.
Yeah but @heathener says the last 5 polls are over 20% lead and therefore this proves something or other.
I say wait for more in common, Opinium, Survation and Deltapoll.
This is Opinium. Swingback has been taken into account and you know this.
That is not to say this isn't the more accurate study, but dismissing the others because they don't give you the result you want is silly.
For what it's worth I don't believe the Tories are below 30 and Labour are much above 40. This will be borne out in the locals.
@heathener said the previous 5 were a trend even though 2 were from same pollster.
I merely pointed out some of the pollsters which give smaller Labour leads ie the 4 I have just listed hadn't reported last week due to easter so wait for theirs to see if there is a trend.
He pooh pooed that and insisted there was a trend
Average Labour lead of the last 6 polls, including that Opinium, is 20.2%
Average Labour lead of all polls taken in March was also 20.2% Average Labour lead of all polls taken in February was 19.4% Average Labour lead of all polls taken in January was 19.5%
Why the last 6 polls?
@heathener cut and pasted the last 5 polls yesterday when on the same day as the 5th of 5 there were 2 others that he conveniently excluded. There were 7 polls in the time period he included. The 2 excluded ones didn't fit in with the
There's a trend narrative been pushed.
You had to be there yesterday to pick up what I am talking about tbh
Anyway life's too short tbh and we just need to see who is right I think Heathener was saying Lab would end up on at least 45 and Con on about 25
I forecast Lab 38/39 Con 32/33
Both end with SKSICIPM but are very different outcomes
Boris Johnson: "If the west continues to crumble – and especially if Britain and the US crumble – then the Israelis will be prevented from getting into Rafah. They will be prevented from achieving their objective: of finishing Hamas as a military force in Gaza."
Imagine such a terrible awful unthinkable outcome: Israel not achieving its objective! The Israeli armed forces who have killed 30,000 people in six months - mostly women and children, and including about 200 aid workers - not "getting into" a tiny area in which they have corralled 1.4 million people, many of whom are starving.
Well the remaining hostages might be a bit peeved.
Which ones - the Palestinians in Israeli captivity? Let the prisoner swaps continue.
It is really pathetic. He was probably wearing Adidas Sambas, Gazelles and Puma States at school when they were cool that time round. Are they suggesting that there should be some sort of committee who decide whether you are allowed to wear certain clothing based on your politics or background?
I would imagine Adrian Chiles wearing a pair would be more damaging to their cred than Sunak wearing them but can’t write about that as the Guardian Editor might be peeved for some reason.
It is also unoriginal. It is almost a meme now because the same Sambas/Rishi/uncool joke seems to have occurred to so many.
Can’t be arsed reading the article, but the totally Rishi too uncool for Skool thing is the wee squirt wearing them with his suit trousers and white shirt. WHY?!
Given Michael Fabricant is Andy Street’s partner he isn’t that distant from Tories
Golly.
Fabricant has a partner.
That's news to me too I had no idea he was even gay
I knew he was gay, but him having a significant other was just a step too far. Say what you like about HYUFD but he’s our man on the spot when it comes to Tory scuttlebutt.
Boris Johnson: "If the west continues to crumble – and especially if Britain and the US crumble – then the Israelis will be prevented from getting into Rafah. They will be prevented from achieving their objective: of finishing Hamas as a military force in Gaza."
Imagine such a terrible awful unthinkable outcome: Israel not achieving its objective! The Israeli armed forces who have killed 30,000 people in six months - mostly women and children, and including about 200 aid workers - not "getting into" a tiny area in which they have corralled 1.4 million people, many of whom are starving.
Well the remaining hostages might be a bit peeved.
Which ones - the Palestinians in Israeli captivity? Let the prisoner swaps continue.
Given Michael Fabricant is Andy Street’s partner he isn’t that distant from Tories
Golly.
Fabricant has a partner.
That's news to me too I had no idea he was even gay
I knew he was gay, but him having a significant other was just a step too far. Say what you like about HYUFD but he’s our man on the spot when it comes to Tory scuttlebutt.
This is almost, almost, as big a reveal as Palmergate…
Given Michael Fabricant is Andy Street’s partner he isn’t that distant from Tories
Golly.
Fabricant has a partner.
That's news to me too I had no idea he was even gay
I knew he was gay, but him having a significant other was just a step too far. Say what you like about HYUFD but he’s our man on the spot when it comes to Tory scuttlebutt.
SSI - Not exactly a fan, however do admire that he (simultaneously) has > gone public concerning his sexuality and life partner; and > "He has stated his hair is a personal matter."
Given Michael Fabricant is Andy Street’s partner he isn’t that distant from Tories
Golly.
Fabricant has a partner.
That's news to me too I had no idea he was even gay
I knew he was gay, but him having a significant other was just a step too far. Say what you like about HYUFD but he’s our man on the spot when it comes to Tory scuttlebutt.
SSI - Not exactly a fan, however do admire that he (simultaneously) has > gone public concerning his sexuality and life partner; and > "He has stated his hair is a personal matter."
Boris Johnson: "If the west continues to crumble – and especially if Britain and the US crumble – then the Israelis will be prevented from getting into Rafah. They will be prevented from achieving their objective: of finishing Hamas as a military force in Gaza."
Does @SeaShantyIrish2 have any view on the merits of this argument?
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
You can’t infer that from the polls without also inferring that people think that abolishing the death penalty was a mistake.
You keep making this correlation which in it's simplest form appears correct. I don't believe it is because Brexit has been discussed and experienced to death, whilst if you widen the capital punishment debate, conflicting answers appear. "Do you think tiny baby serial killer Lucy Letby should be executed alongside Gary Glitter" the answer is "yes". "Do you think the now exonerated Birmingham 6 should have been executed after being fitted up by West Midlands Police", the answer will be "no".
I believe this Government running with a capital punishment referendum you think is your best way to return Sunak. Remember what Osborne said, the EU referendum should be the UK's last.
The same nuances are there with the EU. "Do you think we should cooperate and be friendly with our European neighbours?" - "Yes." "Do you think we should have uncontrolled immigration from the continent?" - "No."
"Do you think we should have freedom of movement whereby Eastern Europeans can do the jobs you don't want to do and you can travel to Spain on holiday unhindered by immigration control, the alternative would be queuing to have your passport stamped and we bring in our friends from the Indian Subcontinent to do the jobs we don't want to do. Yes or no?" "Yes"
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
You can’t infer that from the polls without also inferring that people think that abolishing the death penalty was a mistake.
You keep making this correlation which in it's simplest form appears correct. I don't believe it is because Brexit has been discussed and experienced to death, whilst if you widen the capital punishment debate, conflicting answers appear. "Do you think tiny baby serial killer Lucy Letby should be executed alongside Gary Glitter" the answer is "yes". "Do you think the now exonerated Birmingham 6 should have been executed after being fitted up by West Midlands Police", the answer will be "no".
I believe this Government running with a capital punishment referendum you think is your best way to return Sunak. Remember what Osborne said, the EU referendum should be the UK's last.
The same nuances are there with the EU. "Do you think we should cooperate and be friendly with our European neighbours?" - "Yes." "Do you think we should have uncontrolled immigration from the continent?" - "No."
"Do you think we should have freedom of movement whereby Eastern Europeans can do the jobs you don't want to do and you can travel to Spain on holiday unhindered by immigration control, the alternative would be queuing to have your passport stamped and we bring in our friends from the Indian Subcontinent to do the jobs we don't want to do. Yes or no?" "Yes"
But you can’t win a majority just from appealing to Hyacinth Bucket.
Given Michael Fabricant is Andy Street’s partner he isn’t that distant from Tories
(hits gaydar repeatedly. "Godsdamm it, it's on the blink again!")
Many years ago a friend of mine was bemoaning how awful dating apps were on her phone. I - foolishly - thought "Ah-ha! A gap in the market!". Signed up to the top 20 or so dating apps to check them out and see how I could make an un-scummy version.
Quickly realised that "being scummy" was the entire and only business model.
And sadly only now get dating emails from lonely - and obviously fake - elderly gentleman from Germany.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
You can’t infer that from the polls without also inferring that people think that abolishing the death penalty was a mistake.
You keep making this correlation which in it's simplest form appears correct. I don't believe it is because Brexit has been discussed and experienced to death, whilst if you widen the capital punishment debate, conflicting answers appear. "Do you think tiny baby serial killer Lucy Letby should be executed alongside Gary Glitter" the answer is "yes". "Do you think the now exonerated Birmingham 6 should have been executed after being fitted up by West Midlands Police", the answer will be "no".
I believe this Government running with a capital punishment referendum you think is your best way to return Sunak. Remember what Osborne said, the EU referendum should be the UK's last.
The same nuances are there with the EU. "Do you think we should cooperate and be friendly with our European neighbours?" - "Yes." "Do you think we should have uncontrolled immigration from the continent?" - "No."
"Do you think we should have freedom of movement whereby Eastern Europeans can do the jobs you don't want to do and you can travel to Spain on holiday unhindered by immigration control, the alternative would be queuing to have your passport stamped and we bring in our friends from the Indian Subcontinent to do the jobs we don't want to do. Yes or no?" "Yes"
But you can’t win a majority just from appealing to Hyacinth Bucket.
Somehow I'm now seeing a whiteboard in Rishi's office - spreadsheet matrix - with "How would Hyacinth Bucket react to: A1 Rwanda, B1 ....."
Fabricant also rather amusingly in that interview said if he was not already a Tory MP in 1997 he would have voted for Blair. However as he was a Tory MP he better vote for himself otherwise he might lose his job
Fabricant also rather amusingly in that interview said if he was not already a Tory MP in 1997 he would have voted for Blair. However as he was a Tory MP he better vote for himself otherwise he might lose his job
I don't mind the intense friendships. I can deal with the roadkill wig. But a penchant for Blairism is a predeliction too far for me I'm afraid.
Boris Johnson: "If the west continues to crumble – and especially if Britain and the US crumble – then the Israelis will be prevented from getting into Rafah. They will be prevented from achieving their objective: of finishing Hamas as a military force in Gaza."
Does @SeaShantyIrish2 have any view on the merits of this argument?
They won't finish Hamas as a military force either way. Radicalism among Palestinians won't ever dwindle until they have their own state, and even then it will take decades.
I would imagine without applied swingback this poll, using Opinium's earlier methodology would align with the others and be over 20%. I do agree with you that back in the real world the Cons are way closer to Labour than any poll suggests.
What do you base that on? The six-person canvass we had this morning in an area where we didn't even have council candidates last year produced a haul of Lab 19 Con 9 LD 7 DK 22 Won't vote 4. Even if we assume half the don't knows were shy Tories (and some were merely "don't know between LD and Lab"), we didn't detect any reviving Tory enthusiasm at all.
Yeah but @heathener says the last 5 polls are over 20% lead and therefore this proves something or other.
I say wait for more in common, Opinium, Survation and Deltapoll.
This is Opinium. Swingback has been taken into account and you know this.
That is not to say this isn't the more accurate study, but dismissing the others because they don't give you the result you want is silly.
For what it's worth I don't believe the Tories are below 30 and Labour are much above 40. This will be borne out in the locals.
@heathener said the previous 5 were a trend even though 2 were from same pollster.
I merely pointed out some of the pollsters which give smaller Labour leads ie the 4 I have just listed hadn't reported last week due to easter so wait for theirs to see if there is a trend.
He pooh pooed that and insisted there was a trend
Average Labour lead of the last 6 polls, including that Opinium, is 20.2%
Average Labour lead of all polls taken in March was also 20.2% Average Labour lead of all polls taken in February was 19.4% Average Labour lead of all polls taken in January was 19.5%
Why the last 6 polls?
@heathener cut and pasted the last 5 polls yesterday when on the same day as the 5th of 5 there were 2 others that he conveniently excluded. There were 7 polls in the time period he included. The 2 excluded ones didn't fit in with the
There's a trend narrative been pushed.
You had to be there yesterday to pick up what I am talking about tbh
Anyway life's too short tbh and we just need to see who is right I think Heathener was saying Lab would end up on at least 45 and Con on about 25
I forecast Lab 38/39 Con 32/33
Both end with SKSICIPM but are very different outcomes
To answer your question.
If you go beyond the last 6 polls, then the next 3 are all earlier out of date polls from the same polling companies whose polls are included in the last 6. So in order to avoid duplicates in my view it's reasonable for Benpointer to draw the line at the last 6, it's hardly pushing a trend narrative to do so. Those 6 polls each from the 6 most recently reporting polling companies produce a 20.2% average Labour lead.
But your point is presumably that it is better to include earlier polls from other polling companies as well, on the premise that it's important to take account of others with different house effects. That's a reasonable premise too, so let's see what happens.
So going back further to show the next 3 polling companies to report (with average lead in brackets), you have Savanta (21%), MIC (15%) and Deltapoll (18%) - an average Labour lead of 18% for those 3. At face value, that changes the picture, if only by a tad. And you've only changed that picture by overlooking recent trends. Of Benpointer's 6 most recently reporting companies, the 20.2% average lead they reported was itself 2.3% higher than the previous polls by the same 6 companies. So given the most recent trend they reveal, which is independent of house effects, it is reasonable to infer that the next polls from Savanta, MIC and Deltapoll would also show the lead increasing by about 2%, which would take you back to an average Labour lead of 20% for those three as well.
In summary, if you extended your sample from Benpointer's most recent 6 to the most recent 9 reporting companies, and making reasonable adjustments for the most recent trend, it would still point to an overall 20% lead.
If you went back even further and included another 3 polling companies, you would be including those whose house effects pointed to some of the biggest recent Labour leads - that's Ashcroft (22%), People Polling (28%), and Ipsos (27%). So if you wanted a sample of companies that produces smaller Labour leads, it's best to keep it to just the 9 above.
I would imagine without applied swingback this poll, using Opinium's earlier methodology would align with the others and be over 20%. I do agree with you that back in the real world the Cons are way closer to Labour than any poll suggests.
What do you base that on? The six-person canvass we had this morning in an area where we didn't even have council candidates last year produced a haul of Lab 19 Con 9 LD 7 DK 22 Won't vote 4. Even if we assume half the don't knows were shy Tories (and some were merely "don't know between LD and Lab"), we didn't detect any reviving Tory enthusiasm at all.
Yes Nick, I've been doing plenty of doorknocking too and the collapse in the Tory vote is absolutely palpable in a way that I've never seen for a general election, with absolutely no sign of letting up over the past week or two.
bigjohnowls has a point when he says Starmer isn't any more popular than Corbyn in 2017, because some polls are indeed putting them both on around the same level of support.
Yeah but @heathener says the last 5 polls are over 20% lead and therefore this proves something or other.
I say wait for more in common, Opinium, Survation and Deltapoll.
This is Opinium. Swingback has been taken into account and you know this.
That is not to say this isn't the more accurate study, but dismissing the others because they don't give you the result you want is silly.
For what it's worth I don't believe the Tories are below 30 and Labour are much above 40. This will be borne out in the locals.
@heathener said the previous 5 were a trend even though 2 were from same pollster.
I merely pointed out some of the pollsters which give smaller Labour leads ie the 4 I have just listed hadn't reported last week due to easter so wait for theirs to see if there is a trend.
He pooh pooed that and insisted there was a trend
Average Labour lead of the last 6 polls, including that Opinium, is 20.2%
Average Labour lead of all polls taken in March was also 20.2% Average Labour lead of all polls taken in February was 19.4% Average Labour lead of all polls taken in January was 19.5%
Coming up to nearly 6 months since the tories polled 30% or higher with any pollster.
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
And that concensus is distorted hugely by the effects of Covid and the Ukraine war. People are shit at matching cause and effect.
I don't think so. The fundamental reason for people thinking Brexit was a mistake in my view is the complete inability or unwillingness of those promoting Brexit to point to a single real and concrete benefit, while they get to hear about literally hundreds of downsides from everyone else. "Move along, nothing to see here" isn't a compelling argument when they are hearing about all those hundreds of downsides. The public may not get into the nuances of the UK's foreign and economic policy but they can smell a rat at a hundred paces.
I fundamentally disagree. The hard economic effects of covid and Ukraine are being experienced all over the land and people are blaming Brexit. Add in people moaning on social media about a few queues at airports and there you go.
I don’t think people in general think that deeply about politics and economics.
Sure. Some of the complaints have a lot to do with Brexit - it's not just airport queues by the way - and some very little to do with Brexit. But the thing is, no-one is making the practical case for Brexit by pointing out the wins. One thing is sure. Brexit is a failure in the eyes of the public. Brexiteers have very little curiosity as to why.
This sounds interesting from someone who used to be one of the main posters on this site.
"Four polling mysteries Alastair Meeks
There’s something odd about current polls in the UK. They don’t completely stack up with either anecdotal experience or with empirical evidence. There are four mysteries that need resolving."
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
I don't know how old you are (I think you may be younger than me) but I am in my mid-50s and all the Conservative governments in my adult lifetime have been an unmitigated disaster. The coalition was good on the whole, Blair's first term likewise if a bit timid until he went mad over Iraq, but even Brown was OK compared to all Conservative administrations except late Major but by then they had run out of steam and were fatally damaged by the mess they made earlier.
It perplexes me where the fear of Labour comes from.
The disasters of many of the nationalisations, for one thing. The Transport Act 1947 did not just nationalise railways, but all long-distance road haulage (forming British Road Services). Even for the few years it remained nationalised, it was an unmitigated disaster.
But as ever, any government that puts ideology over common sense should be avoided.
But that government was so long ago even my long-deceased father was too young to vote for it. It would be like refusing to vote Tory because of Suez.
My Dad refused to buy the Observer because the the way they behaved over Suez…I’ve inherited the policy…
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Yes, that's fair.
I don't think it is. *If* the government had tried to tie down what the 'leave' option meant, then the Europhobes would have screamed murder - as it would not have met what *they* wanted, what *they* wanted to campaign for. That would have been true, because the leave campaign was rather contradictory to create a broad church. The government were clear what a vote to remain meant, and had done the hard legwork for that. They were not recommending people vote leave.
It was up to leave to tell people what they were voting for, and the contradictions in their lies has led us to this mess.
Contingency planning for different options. Not telling Leave which one it was
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
You know all those polls showing the Tories will get only about 10% of the vote with the youngest age group? I'm pretty sure that won't happen and they'll get at least 20%, partly because turnout will be low with this age group (as it usually is).
I was reflecting recently that I have work colleagues who are either too young to remember the 1997 election or, in some cases, weren't even born.
This year's GE has the potential to be 1997 for the next generation.
I have new starts for whom Cameron is only a hazy memory of as PM, much the same way I have of Callaghan (I am a PB youngster, I realise!).
Which I am ENTIRELY FINE WITH. Thanks for asking.
I'm reading thru "Cameron at 10" (Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon) and although his austerity program will always colour his reputation in my eyes, the book does bring out his strong points and I think his career renaissance speaks to that.
Sadly - and it is sad - like Blair, Cameron's fail on a truly big call colours all his other efforts.
To call a referendum with only two outcomes, both possible, is fine. To do so when you and your government and civil service only have a plan for one outcome, and none for the other, and only prepared to take responsibility for one of only two outcomes, and not tell us in advance, and abandon the nation at the one critical point where you absolutely must, must stay...this is Iraq level failure.
Completely correct. He explicitly said he would stay on as PM should Leave win too, which is not far off misleading Parliament
He’s never been held to account for his reckless irresponsibility in relation to Brexit. And I’m not altogether sure why. That’s one major difference with Blair, who has never been allowed to return to Politics, much though he’s clearly wanted to.
By ‘reckless irresponsibility’ you mean allowing the nation a vote on something that had not been allowed for 40 odd years? In which time all other members of the EU had voted, often several times, about whether to accept treaties etc.
You can argue that he handled the renegotiation poorly, but to be honest the EU didn’t think we would leave so didn’t put much effort in.
As for leaving after saying he would stay on, it’s not unlike a Lib Dem leader saying she expects to be PM after the election. They are campaigning to win, after all.
The firm consensus amongst the UK population is that Brexit was a mistake. You could argue it was their choice, albeit a mistaken one. But no-one is going to thank the leader who sent them down that route.
And that concensus is distorted hugely by the effects of Covid and the Ukraine war. People are shit at matching cause and effect.
I don't think so. The fundamental reason for people thinking Brexit was a mistake in my view is the complete inability or unwillingness of those promoting Brexit to point to a single real and concrete benefit, while they get to hear about literally hundreds of downsides from everyone else. "Move along, nothing to see here" isn't a compelling argument when they are hearing about all those hundreds of downsides. The public may not get into the nuances of the UK's foreign and economic policy but they can smell a rat at a hundred paces.
I fundamentally disagree. The hard economic effects of covid and Ukraine are being experienced all over the land and people are blaming Brexit. Add in people moaning on social media about a few queues at airports and there you go.
I don’t think people in general think that deeply about politics and economics.
Sure. Some of the complaints have a lot to do with Brexit - it's not just airport queues by the way - and some very little to do with Brexit. But the thing is, no-one is making the practical case for Brexit by pointing out the wins. One thing is sure. Brexit is a failure in the eyes of the public. Brexiteers have very little curiosity as to why.
Because it is associated with the Tory party and that is a millstone in public perception. As I have said before, Brexit dissipates as an issue in the public eye once Labour are in power - assuming that is that they show competent and practical governance, which I realise is still something that is up for debate.
If they'd really believed they were going to occupy Israel then there wouldn't have been any purpose to taking hostages and bringing them back to Gaza. Since they did take hostages - in large numbers - then they did not believe they would prevail against the IDF.
But still, it's interesting to see Hamas presented as a normal organisation, in the sense of having internal conflict with a variety of views, rather than a monolithic entity. As presented, you could imagine future negotiations with Hamas if the current leader was shuffled off.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
I don't know how old you are (I think you may be younger than me) but I am in my mid-50s and all the Conservative governments in my adult lifetime have been an unmitigated disaster. The coalition was good on the whole, Blair's first term likewise if a bit timid until he went mad over Iraq, but even Brown was OK compared to all Conservative administrations except late Major but by then they had run out of steam and were fatally damaged by the mess they made earlier.
It perplexes me where the fear of Labour comes from.
The disasters of many of the nationalisations, for one thing. The Transport Act 1947 did not just nationalise railways, but all long-distance road haulage (forming British Road Services). Even for the few years it remained nationalised, it was an unmitigated disaster.
But as ever, any government that puts ideology over common sense should be avoided.
But that government was so long ago even my long-deceased father was too young to vote for it. It would be like refusing to vote Tory because of Suez.
My Dad refused to buy the Observer because the the way they behaved over Suez…I’ve inherited the policy…
Suez was sold as a patriotic policy; rather like Leave! And just as foolish!
And good morning everybody; bit breezy here, but the sun is shining.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
I don't know how old you are (I think you may be younger than me) but I am in my mid-50s and all the Conservative governments in my adult lifetime have been an unmitigated disaster. The coalition was good on the whole, Blair's first term likewise if a bit timid until he went mad over Iraq, but even Brown was OK compared to all Conservative administrations except late Major but by then they had run out of steam and were fatally damaged by the mess they made earlier.
It perplexes me where the fear of Labour comes from.
The disasters of many of the nationalisations, for one thing. The Transport Act 1947 did not just nationalise railways, but all long-distance road haulage (forming British Road Services). Even for the few years it remained nationalised, it was an unmitigated disaster.
But as ever, any government that puts ideology over common sense should be avoided.
But that government was so long ago even my long-deceased father was too young to vote for it. It would be like refusing to vote Tory because of Suez.
My Dad refused to buy the Observer because the the way they behaved over Suez…I’ve inherited the policy…
Suez was sold as a patriotic policy; rather like Leave! And just as foolish!
And good morning everybody; bit breezy here, but the sun is shining.
Suez was about maintaining strategic control of a strategic sea lane, especially important due to the increased WW2 dependence on oil.
It could have "worked" had Eden acted immediately and not colluded secretly with Eden. As so often in life and politics what looks black and white often just hinges on timing and branding.
I would imagine without applied swingback this poll, using Opinium's earlier methodology would align with the others and be over 20%. I do agree with you that back in the real world the Cons are way closer to Labour than any poll suggests.
What do you base that on? The six-person canvass we had this morning in an area where we didn't even have council candidates last year produced a haul of Lab 19 Con 9 LD 7 DK 22 Won't vote 4. Even if we assume half the don't knows were shy Tories (and some were merely "don't know between LD and Lab"), we didn't detect any reviving Tory enthusiasm at all.
I think swing back will be very weak. The voters are not enthusiastic about Labour, but they are absolutely determined to give the Tories a kicking. I can see only the very weakest of recoveries until after the election, and probably not until the initial honeymoon period for the new government is over. I may say that this suggests that turnout will end up being quite low too, which could lead to some unexpected and interesting results in certain seats.
The right wing Tory support for Trump still plays very badly as well. It still seems like Truss/Johnson/Frost et al prefer to be a part of Farage`s fundamentally unserious, populist politics rather than trying to solve the problems of their own party, and that could end up being very dangerous. The support certain Liberal politicians gave to the ILP at the beginning of the twentieth century fostered the nascent Labour Party into a terminal threat to the old Liberals. The tolerance of the far right Tories for Farage, if Reform won even a few seats, could be similarly fatal. FPTP can create some very volatile results under the right circumstances.
More to the point, rubbish policies like Rwanda shows the Tories are just talking to themselves, and the sleaze that seems to come every week, just underlines that the Tories are tired and have more or less given up. The electorate is sick of it all. So the anecdotal evidence seems to support the polls and the emerging media narrative- the punters may not love Labour, but: "Time´s up, Tories".
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
I don't know how old you are (I think you may be younger than me) but I am in my mid-50s and all the Conservative governments in my adult lifetime have been an unmitigated disaster. The coalition was good on the whole, Blair's first term likewise if a bit timid until he went mad over Iraq, but even Brown was OK compared to all Conservative administrations except late Major but by then they had run out of steam and were fatally damaged by the mess they made earlier.
It perplexes me where the fear of Labour comes from.
The disasters of many of the nationalisations, for one thing. The Transport Act 1947 did not just nationalise railways, but all long-distance road haulage (forming British Road Services). Even for the few years it remained nationalised, it was an unmitigated disaster.
But as ever, any government that puts ideology over common sense should be avoided.
But that government was so long ago even my long-deceased father was too young to vote for it. It would be like refusing to vote Tory because of Suez.
My Dad refused to buy the Observer because the the way they behaved over Suez…I’ve inherited the policy…
Suez was sold as a patriotic policy; rather like Leave! And just as foolish!
And good morning everybody; bit breezy here, but the sun is shining.
Suez was about maintaining strategic control of a strategic sea lane, especially important due to the increased WW2 dependence on oil.
It could have "worked" had Eden acted immediately and not colluded secretly with Eden. As so often in life and politics what looks black and white often just hinges on timing and branding.
I think the problem for the Tories is how enthused people are to vote against them. I know several friends who will get out and vote in all things the PCC elections in areas with no local elections. Just so they can vote against the Tory .
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
I don't know how old you are (I think you may be younger than me) but I am in my mid-50s and all the Conservative governments in my adult lifetime have been an unmitigated disaster. The coalition was good on the whole, Blair's first term likewise if a bit timid until he went mad over Iraq, but even Brown was OK compared to all Conservative administrations except late Major but by then they had run out of steam and were fatally damaged by the mess they made earlier.
It perplexes me where the fear of Labour comes from.
The disasters of many of the nationalisations, for one thing. The Transport Act 1947 did not just nationalise railways, but all long-distance road haulage (forming British Road Services). Even for the few years it remained nationalised, it was an unmitigated disaster.
But as ever, any government that puts ideology over common sense should be avoided.
But that government was so long ago even my long-deceased father was too young to vote for it. It would be like refusing to vote Tory because of Suez.
My Dad refused to buy the Observer because the the way they behaved over Suez…I’ve inherited the policy…
Suez was sold as a patriotic policy; rather like Leave! And just as foolish!
And good morning everybody; bit breezy here, but the sun is shining.
Suez was about maintaining strategic control of a strategic sea lane, especially important due to the increased WW2 dependence on oil.
It could have "worked" had Eden acted immediately and not colluded secretly with Eden. As so often in life and politics what looks black and white often just hinges on timing and branding.
I think the problem for the Tories is how enthused people are to vote against them. I know several friends who will get out and vote in all things the PCC elections in areas with no local elections. Just so they can vote against the Tory .
I’ve decided to do likewise here in Eastbourne .
As I always do here in Twickenham. There is palpable dislike (sometimes outright hatred), of the current Tories. This could power the drive to tactical votes and give the opposition a few extra seats they weren't expecting.
Everyone is going to rapidly rediscover everything they've forgotten over the last 14 years about what a Labour government means - and not in a good way.
I don't know how old you are (I think you may be younger than me) but I am in my mid-50s and all the Conservative governments in my adult lifetime have been an unmitigated disaster. The coalition was good on the whole, Blair's first term likewise if a bit timid until he went mad over Iraq, but even Brown was OK compared to all Conservative administrations except late Major but by then they had run out of steam and were fatally damaged by the mess they made earlier.
It perplexes me where the fear of Labour comes from.
The disasters of many of the nationalisations, for one thing. The Transport Act 1947 did not just nationalise railways, but all long-distance road haulage (forming British Road Services). Even for the few years it remained nationalised, it was an unmitigated disaster.
But as ever, any government that puts ideology over common sense should be avoided.
But that government was so long ago even my long-deceased father was too young to vote for it. It would be like refusing to vote Tory because of Suez.
My Dad refused to buy the Observer because the the way they behaved over Suez…I’ve inherited the policy…
Suez was sold as a patriotic policy; rather like Leave! And just as foolish!
And good morning everybody; bit breezy here, but the sun is shining.
Suez was about maintaining strategic control of a strategic sea lane, especially important due to the increased WW2 dependence on oil.
It could have "worked" had Eden acted immediately and not colluded secretly with Eden. As so often in life and politics what looks black and white often just hinges on timing and branding.
I don't know much about the Suez crisis; it's not something I've ever studied, and I find it too depressing to read widely on it voluntarily.
My understanding is that the USA was so furious at the UK, France and Israel's action without consultation that it threatened to sink the pound.
Instinctively, I feel we should have hung on to the canal and let them do their worst. In economies, things always find their true value. Our capitulation set the tone for the relationship that followed, which became one of a craven supplicant and a dominant master. That was unhealthy for both parties.
Comments
That left a vacuum which May filled with her silly rhetoric.
In a parallel universe she got consensus with Labour in 2016/2017 for a soft Brexit and we left on those terms.
Vote Leave promised the Northern Irish border would be unchanged... Well, it sort of wasn't changed, and it sort of was when it moved to the middle of the Irish Sea.
Vote Leave promised continued participation in EU science schemes. That didn't happen: we got a harder Brexit there too.
You can blame Grieve, Starmer, Corbyn, Swinson and Blackford if you wish, but the Brexit we got was the Brexit of Johnson, Gove, Frost etc.
Especially mine and yours!
I believe this Government running with a capital punishment referendum you think is your best way to return Sunak. Remember what Osborne said, the EU referendum should be the UK's last.
Lab 41%
Con 25%
Ref 11%
LD 10%
Green 8%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/06/only-four-in-10-tory-voters-from-2019-back-sunak-poll
I merely pointed out some of the pollsters which give smaller Labour leads ie the 4 I have just listed hadn't reported last week due to easter so wait for theirs to see if there is a trend.
He pooh pooed that and insisted there was a trend
Revealing her tax advice is unlikely to do anything for her. HMRC will either claim the back tax or not. And if it does, it presumably means her advice was wrong.
Reality is that the polls have been incredibly boring all year.
Our latest VI-over-time graph also reflects the extreme stability we have been seeing in our results over the past few weeks.
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1776686349115961825
Average Labour lead of all polls taken in March was also 20.2%
Average Labour lead of all polls taken in February was 19.4%
Average Labour lead of all polls taken in January was 19.5%
BTW, does anyone else think "You Tube if you want, The Lady's not for Tubing" when they hear someone say "YouTube"? Just me? I'll get my coat.
But the wiki graph of all polls does show a widening trend:
Boris Johnson: "If the west continues to crumble – and especially if Britain and the US crumble – then the Israelis will be prevented from getting into Rafah. They will be prevented from achieving their objective: of finishing Hamas as a military force in Gaza."
Imagine such a terrible awful unthinkable outcome: Israel not achieving its objective! The Israeli armed forces who have killed 30,000 people in six months - mostly women and children, and including about 200 aid workers - not "getting into" a tiny area in which they have corralled 1.4 million people, many of whom are starving.
https://archive.is/MMsNa
Add in people moaning on social media about a few queues at airports and there you go.
I don’t think people in general think that deeply about politics and economics.
Fabricant has a partner.
@heathener cut and pasted the last 5 polls yesterday when on the same day as the 5th of 5 there were 2 others that he conveniently excluded. There were 7 polls in the time period he included. The 2 excluded ones didn't fit in with the
There's a trend narrative been pushed.
You had to be there yesterday to pick up what I am talking about tbh
Anyway life's too short tbh and we just need to see who is right I think Heathener was saying Lab would end up on at least 45 and Con on about 25
I forecast Lab 38/39 Con 32/33
Both end with SKSICIPM but are very different outcomes
WHY?!
Say what you like about HYUFD but he’s our man on the spot when it comes to Tory scuttlebutt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fabricant
SSI - Not exactly a fan, however do admire that he (simultaneously) has
> gone public concerning his sexuality and life partner; and
> "He has stated his hair is a personal matter."
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/birmingham/2022/06/14/mayor-andy-street-says-he-didnt-realise-he-was-gay-until-30---and-opens-up-on-intense-friendship-with-lichfield-mp-michael-fabricant/
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/12/09/being-a-character-isnt-something-i-force-says-eccentric-tory-mp-fabricant/
I’m feeling a bit intense friendshippy tonight
Quickly realised that "being scummy" was the entire and only business model.
And sadly only now get dating emails from lonely - and obviously fake - elderly gentleman from Germany.
If you go beyond the last 6 polls, then the next 3 are all earlier out of date polls from the same polling companies whose polls are included in the last 6. So in order to avoid duplicates in my view it's reasonable for Benpointer to draw the line at the last 6, it's hardly pushing a trend narrative to do so. Those 6 polls each from the 6 most recently reporting polling companies produce a 20.2% average Labour lead.
But your point is presumably that it is better to include earlier polls from other polling companies as well, on the premise that it's important to take account of others with different house effects. That's a reasonable premise too, so let's see what happens.
So going back further to show the next 3 polling companies to report (with average lead in brackets), you have Savanta (21%), MIC (15%) and Deltapoll (18%) - an average Labour lead of 18% for those 3. At face value, that changes the picture, if only by a tad. And you've only changed that picture by overlooking recent trends. Of Benpointer's 6 most recently reporting companies, the 20.2% average lead they reported was itself 2.3% higher than the previous polls by the same 6 companies. So given the most recent trend they reveal, which is independent of house effects, it is reasonable to infer that the next polls from Savanta, MIC and Deltapoll would also show the lead increasing by about 2%, which would take you back to an average Labour lead of 20% for those three as well.
In summary, if you extended your sample from Benpointer's most recent 6 to the most recent 9 reporting companies, and making reasonable adjustments for the most recent trend, it would still point to an overall 20% lead.
If you went back even further and included another 3 polling companies, you would be including those whose house effects pointed to some of the biggest recent Labour leads - that's Ashcroft (22%), People Polling (28%), and Ipsos (27%). So if you wanted a sample of companies that produces smaller Labour leads, it's best to keep it to just the 9 above.
PS. Goodnight with that pleasant thought.
"Four polling mysteries
Alastair Meeks
There’s something odd about current polls in the UK. They don’t completely stack up with either anecdotal experience or with empirical evidence. There are four mysteries that need resolving."
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/four-polling-mysteries-63a4bae31816
Short and economical with words; he made his point with absolute clarity and no room for misunderstanding
But still, it's interesting to see Hamas presented as a normal organisation, in the sense of having internal conflict with a variety of views, rather than a monolithic entity. As presented, you could imagine future negotiations with Hamas if the current leader was shuffled off.
And just as foolish!
And good morning everybody; bit breezy here, but the sun is shining.
It could have "worked" had Eden acted immediately and not colluded secretly with Eden. As so often in life and politics what looks black and white often just hinges on timing and branding.
The right wing Tory support for Trump still plays very badly as well. It still seems like Truss/Johnson/Frost et al prefer to be a part of Farage`s fundamentally unserious, populist politics rather than trying to solve the problems of their own party, and that could end up being very dangerous. The support certain Liberal politicians gave to the ILP at the beginning of the twentieth century fostered the nascent Labour Party into a terminal threat to the old Liberals. The tolerance of the far right Tories for Farage, if Reform won even a few seats, could be similarly fatal. FPTP can create some very volatile results under the right circumstances.
More to the point, rubbish policies like Rwanda shows the Tories are just talking to themselves, and the sleaze that seems to come every week, just underlines that the Tories are tired and have more or less given up. The electorate is sick of it all. So the anecdotal evidence seems to support the polls and the emerging media narrative- the punters may not love Labour, but: "Time´s up, Tories".
I’ve decided to do likewise here in Eastbourne .
Happy lampposts. Well, it was a day.
Butter fingers.
My understanding is that the USA was so furious at the UK, France and Israel's action without consultation that it threatened to sink the pound.
Instinctively, I feel we should have hung on to the canal and let them do their worst. In economies, things always find their true value. Our capitulation set the tone for the relationship that followed, which became one of a craven supplicant and a dominant master. That was unhealthy for both parties.