Howdy, Stranger!

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

Will Starmer do better than Blair? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited May 12 in General
Will Starmer do better than Blair? – politicalbetting.com

?? | BRITISH POLITICS ? Can Labour win more seats at the next General Election than they did in 1997?We’re 5/4 on them winning 420 seats or more!? BET NOW: https://t.co/cHe8AwdJwk? 08000 521 321? T&Cs apply | 18+ https://t.co/9fj8GQUoFv https://t.co/UUGISNaFxw

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,639
    First like Ash Regan
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,832
    edited April 26
    Agree it's not tempting at those odds.

    It's less about Starmer winning seats, but more about how many seats the Tories manage to lose and I'm finding that hard to call at present mainly due to the uncertainty in the squeezability of don't knows and RefUK.

    ETA: And one person away from First [Minister] like Yousaf?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,449
    Though the key bit of the story is more will Sunak do worse than Major?

    (Not quite the same thing, because of changes in places like North Britain. But in the vast majority of constituencies, the election will still be some sort of Two Horse Race between Red and Blue horses.)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,948
    edited April 26
    FPT

    Question to regular travellers - is 65 minutes sufficient time to go UK > Schengen on a connection at Schiphol?

    Last time I connected there the passport queue was loooong - but supposedly there is a bypass line for tight connections?

    Had a bad experience at Schiphol a few years ago. Was ensured by the company making the booking that 45 mins was enough to make a connection. It wasn't, and to make matters worse the airline didn't offload our bags, which I think is against regulations. Only time I've ever missed a plane.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704

    Though the key bit of the story is more will Sunak do worse than Major?

    (Not quite the same thing, because of changes in places like North Britain. But in the vast majority of constituencies, the election will still be some sort of Two Horse Race between Red and Blue horses.)

    Major only held on to one Scots seat IIRC. Sunak could do worse, but it wouldn't make a lot of difference.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,919
    Sturgeon bears a lot of responsibility for the mess the SNP find themselves in right now but it is hard to see her being so politically tin-eared as to think that transitioning to a minority government requires you to upset, attack and denigrate all other parties in the parliament as your first move…
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,650
    edited April 26
    What size Labour win is needed to create a better-than-sex "Were you up for Mogg?" night?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited April 26
    SKS fans please explain.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,189
    Looking at Starmer’s task you can see that there is an initial group of seats will fall relatively easily. There’s a second bigger group that will take a degree of effort to achieve, and then there is a final group that if the Conservative vote completely disintegrates probably falls into his lap with ease again. In other words I suspect it is easy for Starmer to run his score from 200 up to 280, harder to push it from 280 up to 400 but once he’s there the slog from 400-500 isn’t as complicated.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704

    Sturgeon bears a lot of responsibility for the mess the SNP find themselves in right now but it is hard to see her being so politically tin-eared as to think that transitioning to a minority government requires you to upset, attack and denigrate all other parties in the parliament as your first move…

    Do we know yet if she's standing again?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,898
    kinabalu said:

    What size Labour win is needed to create a better-than-sex "Where you up for Mogg?" night?

    Be still my beating heart.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    As much as I’d like to see the Tories wiped out I think it will be much closer than current polls suggest .

  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,568
    edited April 26
    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Question to regular travellers - is 65 minutes sufficient time to go UK > Schengen on a connection at Schiphol?

    Last time I connected there the passport queue was loooong - but supposedly there is a bypass line for tight connections?

    Had a bad experience at Schiphol a few years ago. Was ensured by the company making the booking that 45 mins was enough to make a connection. It wasn't, and to make matters worse the airline didn't offload our bags, which I think is against regulations. Only time I've ever missed a plane.
    Yes. Last time I was at Schiphol about a month back, I had to make a connection and the airport was a mess. Chaotic and crowded. It's not the efficient place it once was (and even then 65 minutes is/was really cutting it fine)

    I would want 90 minutes, bare minimum, and at least two hours if you have hold luggage
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,449
    edited April 26
    kinabalu said:

    What size Labour win is needed to create a better-than-sex "Where you up for Mogg?" night?

    Notional for his redrawn seat (North East Somerset and Hanham)
    Con 31435
    Lab 15046
    Lib 8625

    https://electionresults.parliament.uk/elections/2472

    A 15% swing does it, even without any tactical squeeze.

    ETA: If you want to play with your own swingometer, all the notionals are here:
    https://electionresults.parliament.uk/general-elections/5/majority
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,811

    Though the key bit of the story is more will Sunak do worse than Major?

    (Not quite the same thing, because of changes in places like North Britain. But in the vast majority of constituencies, the election will still be some sort of Two Horse Race between Red and Blue horses.)

    Major only held on to one Scots seat IIRC. Sunak could do worse, but it wouldn't make a lot of difference.
    No he didnt. Tories were wiped out in Scotland and Wales in 97. That's unlikely next time, at least in Scotland.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,000
    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Question to regular travellers - is 65 minutes sufficient time to go UK > Schengen on a connection at Schiphol?

    Last time I connected there the passport queue was loooong - but supposedly there is a bypass line for tight connections?

    Had a bad experience at Schiphol a few years ago. Was ensured by the company making the booking that 45 mins was enough to make a connection. It wasn't, and to make matters worse the airline didn't offload our bags, which I think is against regulations. Only time I've ever missed a plane.
    I did it in 40 minutes in July last year, but my baggage didn't!
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,919
    nico679 said:

    As much as I’d like to see the Tories wiped out I think it will be much closer than current polls suggest .

    This isn’t a particularly helpful insight but I’m not quite sure what way it will go. I could very easily see it going both ways. I think though, that I am of the view that the campaign will have a focussing effect and will have an impact this time.

    That impact could either be that when the crunch comes some people reluctantly decide to come out and support the Tories, leading to a pretty heavy but not catastrophic defeat (let’s say 210-230 seats).

    On the other hand if Farage steps into the fray and Sunak continues to completely mess things up then I could see further leaching of votes to Reform and indeed possibly even crossover. That would obviously be the catastrophic result and lead to a post election significant realignment on the right of British politics.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899
    edited April 26
    Fourteenth.

    Like the Tories :wink: or BoJo's next mistress.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    I would be betting against this, not for it. Blair started with 273 seats. Starmer is starting sub 200, depending on how you count those that have fallen by the wayside.

    2010 was a change election against a government in chaos whose economic fantasies had been shredded. Cameron won just over 100 seats, a remarkable achievement, but, like Starmer he started a long way back. Our politics seems to become ever more volatile but I just can't see Starmer getting more seats from the Tories than Cameron did from Labour. Add on maybe 30 from the SNP and he gets a majority but in my view 420 is just fantasy.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    I guess we'll have a better idea on 3rd May. If, in practice, Reform hardly trouble the scorers, then one would expect the Conservatives to finish on 200+ seats.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,000
    FPT
    nico679 said:

    It’s not clear re no confidence in the government whether a simple majority is enough to force new elections in Scotland .

    And I can’t see it passing if that was the case as the Greens and Alba wouldn’t want to have new elections .

    The SGP could vote for the VONC in the Scottish Government, but then vote for the SNP's replacement First Minister. If that happens, no 28 day period then an election scenario applies.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,861
    On the old boundaries 420 seats=losing none and adding 218 seats. The 218th target seat is Derbyshire Dales, requiring a swing of 17.43%; the majority is 18,797.

    I don't think so, but it's not impossible.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,214
    Assuming a Lab majority is already highly likely, this is one of a few interesting sub-plots isn't it? Plus:

    - Will Con get a lower seat total than Major in 97
    - Will Ref win any seats
    - Will Lib Dems overtake SNP into 3rd place
    - Will Lib Dems hang on to any of their byelection gains
    - Will Green win any seats
    - Will Mogg (+ various others) lose their seats
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899
    edited April 26
    On Darktrace and the alleged demise of the LSE, what reason would the current generation of Neo-Thatcherite Conservatives have to make them address it?
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 701
    i've seen my first Conservative Party poster in my ward for the coming local elections. It is on the wire fence in front of a building being demolished. A Conservative poster in front of a wrecked house seems an appropriate image.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,449
    algarkirk said:

    On the old boundaries 420 seats=losing none and adding 218 seats. The 218th target seat is Derbyshire Dales, requiring a swing of 17.43%; the majority is 18,797.

    I don't think so, but it's not impossible.

    17-18% is the ballpark swing we are seeing at the moment. And whilst there ought, surely, to be some swingback towards the government, we've all been saying that for a year or so and there's no sign of it yet. If anything, there is continuing swingaway.

    It is crazy to imagine Labour gaining 200+ seats in one go, especially given that SKS is worthy but dull. But looked at from a different direction, it's crazy to imagine the Conservatives successfully defending 200 seats.

    And something like one of those two crazy things has to happen, because the number of MPs has to total 650.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,214
    DavidL said:

    I would be betting against this, not for it. Blair started with 273 seats. Starmer is starting sub 200, depending on how you count those that have fallen by the wayside.

    2010 was a change election against a government in chaos whose economic fantasies had been shredded. Cameron won just over 100 seats, a remarkable achievement, but, like Starmer he started a long way back. Our politics seems to become ever more volatile but I just can't see Starmer getting more seats from the Tories than Cameron did from Labour. Add on maybe 30 from the SNP and he gets a majority but in my view 420 is just fantasy.

    Do we know what the largest ever number of seat flips is in an election? I'm assuming Blair 97 must be up there but Starmer must have a good chance of beating 97 on flips.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    nico679 said:

    As much as I’d like to see the Tories wiped out I think it will be much closer than current polls suggest .

    This isn’t a particularly helpful insight but I’m not quite sure what way it will go. I could very easily see it going both ways. I think though, that I am of the view that the campaign will have a focussing effect and will have an impact this time.

    That impact could either be that when the crunch comes some people reluctantly decide to come out and support the Tories, leading to a pretty heavy but not catastrophic defeat (let’s say 210-230 seats).

    On the other hand if Farage steps into the fray and Sunak continues to completely mess things up then I could see further leaching of votes to Reform and indeed possibly even crossover. That would obviously be the catastrophic result and lead to a post election significant realignment on the right of British politics.
    The campaign is more likely to highlight just how nutty Reform are. Expect several of their candidates to be provoked into saying some mind-bogglingly awful stuff and have to be disowned.

    Mind you, there might be some dodgy Labour candidates provoked into saying some stuff about Israel that Starmer will have to disown.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,145
    ToryJim said:

    Looking at Starmer’s task you can see that there is an initial group of seats will fall relatively easily. There’s a second bigger group that will take a degree of effort to achieve, and then there is a final group that if the Conservative vote completely disintegrates probably falls into his lap with ease again. In other words I suspect it is easy for Starmer to run his score from 200 up to 280, harder to push it from 280 up to 400 but once he’s there the slog from 400-500 isn’t as complicated.

    Yes, FPTP works against the Tories at current levels so that last block of seats falls pretty sharply. Politicos aren't used to seeing FPTP work against the Tories so it stretches credulity but its correct imo.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,909
    The last three MRPs, the only ones with all fieldwork in 2024, give Labour seat totals of: 452, 468, 403.

    So an initial glance would conclude that 5/4 on >420 seats is quite generous.

    But these MRPs also have implied Reform UK shares of: 10%, 8.5%, 12%.

    I wouldn't say that it was guaranteed that these voters will end up mostly voting Tory at the GE, but I would say it's the largest and most obvious source of uncertainty.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,145

    nico679 said:

    As much as I’d like to see the Tories wiped out I think it will be much closer than current polls suggest .

    This isn’t a particularly helpful insight but I’m not quite sure what way it will go. I could very easily see it going both ways. I think though, that I am of the view that the campaign will have a focussing effect and will have an impact this time.

    That impact could either be that when the crunch comes some people reluctantly decide to come out and support the Tories, leading to a pretty heavy but not catastrophic defeat (let’s say 210-230 seats).

    On the other hand if Farage steps into the fray and Sunak continues to completely mess things up then I could see further leaching of votes to Reform and indeed possibly even crossover. That would obviously be the catastrophic result and lead to a post election significant realignment on the right of British politics.
    The campaign is more likely to highlight just how nutty Reform are. Expect several of their candidates to be provoked into saying some mind-bogglingly awful stuff and have to be disowned.

    Mind you, there might be some dodgy Labour candidates provoked into saying some stuff about Israel that Starmer will have to disown.
    I believe the majority shareholder of Reform is so nutty he is often seen dancing and singing with Tory cabinet ministers at their conference. He really should be more careful than to associate with dodgy characters like that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    In Scotland (damn, lost the audience already) it looks as if Ross's motion was enrolled after discussion with the Greens who wanted Yousaf's head for telling them how useless they were (admittedly a bit of a cheek). Labour have now enrolled a motion of no confidence in the entire government. Whether the Greens are willing to go quite that far remains to be seen but it seems unlikely.

    So the price for the SNP remaining in government for the next 2 years is likely to be Yousaf's head. As he somewhat unwisely said about Ash Regan when she defected to Alba, that seems a very small loss.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,861

    algarkirk said:

    On the old boundaries 420 seats=losing none and adding 218 seats. The 218th target seat is Derbyshire Dales, requiring a swing of 17.43%; the majority is 18,797.

    I don't think so, but it's not impossible.

    17-18% is the ballpark swing we are seeing at the moment. And whilst there ought, surely, to be some swingback towards the government, we've all been saying that for a year or so and there's no sign of it yet. If anything, there is continuing swingaway.

    It is crazy to imagine Labour gaining 200+ seats in one go, especially given that SKS is worthy but dull. But looked at from a different direction, it's crazy to imagine the Conservatives successfully defending 200 seats.

    And something like one of those two crazy things has to happen, because the number of MPs has to total 650.
    Yes. Rational guesswork can end up with Labour having 310 seats (that's still an awful lot of gains) and Labour having over 500 seats. I am still guessing at the lowest end, and think NOM remains possible, with Labour on about 315-320 seats. Though at this point I think a Tory wipe out may be best for both party and country. And I still think July or September are the likely months for a GE.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146

    Sturgeon bears a lot of responsibility for the mess the SNP find themselves in right now but it is hard to see her being so politically tin-eared as to think that transitioning to a minority government requires you to upset, attack and denigrate all other parties in the parliament as your first move…

    Do we know yet if she's standing again?
    We don’t know (along with a whole lot of other stuff) whether there’s going to be an unscheduled election yet..
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,832

    Though the key bit of the story is more will Sunak do worse than Major?

    (Not quite the same thing, because of changes in places like North Britain. But in the vast majority of constituencies, the election will still be some sort of Two Horse Race between Red and Blue horses.)

    Major only held on to one Scots seat IIRC. Sunak could do worse, but it wouldn't make a lot of difference.
    More pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs, wasn't it? For a time.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899
    edited April 26
    TimS said:

    Assuming a Lab majority is already highly likely, this is one of a few interesting sub-plots isn't it? Plus:

    - Will Con get a lower seat total than Major in 97
    Hard to call

    - Will Ref win any seats
    No. Which are their suggested seats to win? Except maybe by defection before or after the election - but I've no idea where.
    Is Tice going to be upstanding, bearing in mind that the Reform Party Company defines him as a "person of no significant control"?


    - Will Lib Dems overtake SNP into 3rd place
    Probably given current events in SNP-land and in the Tory-sack, plus I hope so.

    - Will Lib Dems hang on to any of their byelection gains
    Yes. Suggest Chesham and Amersham, North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, Somerton and Frome ie all of them. AFAICS all of the second places are Conservatives - how would they lose?

    - Will Green win any seats
    Tricky. I'm not sure.

    - Will Mogg (+ various others) lose their seats
    Perhaps 50% will, depending on your list.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146

    nico679 said:

    As much as I’d like to see the Tories wiped out I think it will be much closer than current polls suggest .

    This isn’t a particularly helpful insight but I’m not quite sure what way it will go. I could very easily see it going both ways. I think though, that I am of the view that the campaign will have a focussing effect and will have an impact this time.

    That impact could either be that when the crunch comes some people reluctantly decide to come out and support the Tories, leading to a pretty heavy but not catastrophic defeat (let’s say 210-230 seats).

    On the other hand if Farage steps into the fray and Sunak continues to completely mess things up then I could see further leaching of votes to Reform and indeed possibly even crossover. That would obviously be the catastrophic result and lead to a post election significant realignment on the right of British politics.
    The campaign is more likely to highlight just how nutty Reform are. Expect several of their candidates to be provoked into saying some mind-bogglingly awful stuff and have to be disowned.

    Mind you, there might be some dodgy Labour candidates provoked into saying some stuff about Israel that Starmer will have to disown.
    I believe the majority shareholder of Reform is so nutty he is often seen dancing and singing with Tory cabinet ministers at their conference. He really should be more careful than to associate with dodgy characters like that.
    Tbf he only boogied with political colossi like Priti, Suella and conquered by a lettuce Liz would surely be beyond the pale.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    I would be betting against this, not for it. Blair started with 273 seats. Starmer is starting sub 200, depending on how you count those that have fallen by the wayside.

    2010 was a change election against a government in chaos whose economic fantasies had been shredded. Cameron won just over 100 seats, a remarkable achievement, but, like Starmer he started a long way back. Our politics seems to become ever more volatile but I just can't see Starmer getting more seats from the Tories than Cameron did from Labour. Add on maybe 30 from the SNP and he gets a majority but in my view 420 is just fantasy.

    Do we know what the largest ever number of seat flips is in an election? I'm assuming Blair 97 must be up there but Starmer must have a good chance of beating 97 on flips.
    You'd be better asking @ydoethur questions like that but Blair won 178 seats in 1997. Cameron actually won 96 but I think some of those were from the Lib Dems. I would be genuinely amazed if Starmer beat Blair's record and that would still leave him well short of 420.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704

    Though the key bit of the story is more will Sunak do worse than Major?

    (Not quite the same thing, because of changes in places like North Britain. But in the vast majority of constituencies, the election will still be some sort of Two Horse Race between Red and Blue horses.)

    Major only held on to one Scots seat IIRC. Sunak could do worse, but it wouldn't make a lot of difference.
    No he didnt. Tories were wiped out in Scotland and Wales in 97. That's unlikely next time, at least in Scotland.
    Ah yes, you're right. Stand corrected!
    As far as next time is concerned we might get a better idea if there's a Scottish GE early this summer, but I suspect you are right.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    In the last round of by-elections before next week, the SCons have just gained one in Angus, off the SNP.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    OTOH, the economy was in pretty good shape, and while something of a figure of fun, Major was not actively despised.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,963
    Will be fascinating to see if ScotCon and ScotLab can agree on a unified no-confidence motion. Both want either to see Ash Reagan as FM Puppetmaster or an early election. So best not squabble on whose motion gets supremacy.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,861

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    Seats are not distributed on enthusiasm levels. The unenthusiasm for the Tories - who have lost hugely on both wings - is greater than ever. SFAICS almost no-one in the Tory tribe (I'm a life member) unequivocally supports them. The populist wing is more to Reform, even if they won't actually vote for them on the day, and the One Nationers are shaking their heads in disbelief that Labour are looking like the Buttskellite party.

    Starmer may do better than Blair without the charisma. People are looking for competence and direction, not, at the moment, sunlit uplands.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,390
    Oh, I just got the drug reference. I am stupid.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,909

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    At the moment Starmer is getting a Labour voteshare similar to Blair pre 1997 but will likely get an even bigger majority due to ReformUK eating more into the Sunak Tories voteshare than the Referendum party did into the Major Tories voteshare.

    However Starmer is not as charismatic or as good a campaigned as Blair was and in the campaign itself and maybe the debates I expect Sunak to narrow the gap. If the new visa salary requirements for migrants and Rwanda destination for asylum seekers reduces immigration the Tories should also squeeze the Reform vote too
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,240
    DavidL said:

    I would be betting against this, not for it. Blair started with 273 seats. Starmer is starting sub 200, depending on how you count those that have fallen by the wayside.

    2010 was a change election against a government in chaos whose economic fantasies had been shredded. Cameron won just over 100 seats, a remarkable achievement, but, like Starmer he started a long way back. Our politics seems to become ever more volatile but I just can't see Starmer getting more seats from the Tories than Cameron did from Labour. Add on maybe 30 from the SNP and he gets a majority but in my view 420 is just fantasy.

    Elections are point in time events. The previous one is not a guide to the next one. Given current polling figures I would think 420 Labour seats looks to be ballpark on the maths. The Labour polling advantage might not hold if people drift back to the Conservatives between now and the election. This is entirely possible but there's no sign of it happening. Otherwise the polls may simply be wrong.

    On the data such as it is, 420 seats looks likely I think
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,919
    DavidL said:

    In Scotland (damn, lost the audience already) it looks as if Ross's motion was enrolled after discussion with the Greens who wanted Yousaf's head for telling them how useless they were (admittedly a bit of a cheek). Labour have now enrolled a motion of no confidence in the entire government. Whether the Greens are willing to go quite that far remains to be seen but it seems unlikely.

    So the price for the SNP remaining in government for the next 2 years is likely to be Yousaf's head. As he somewhat unwisely said about Ash Regan when she defected to Alba, that seems a very small loss.

    True, though this is all happening because the SNP’s broad church is crumbling, and I’m not sure a new leader is going to be able to resolve that.

    Sturgeon decided that a coalition for independence was going to be built among the liberal, ‘progressive’, pro-EU voter base and she was exceptionally successful at harnessing the anger of that bloc at a right wing government in Westminster, until her policies tripped her up. Humza is going the same way. But finding a replacement who can both keep that coalition and the more moderate wing on side is going to be practically impossible. Forbes is decent, but I have said it before that she potentially creates more problems for them than she solves.

    They are in for a bumpy ride whatever happens.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    I would be betting against this, not for it. Blair started with 273 seats. Starmer is starting sub 200, depending on how you count those that have fallen by the wayside.

    2010 was a change election against a government in chaos whose economic fantasies had been shredded. Cameron won just over 100 seats, a remarkable achievement, but, like Starmer he started a long way back. Our politics seems to become ever more volatile but I just can't see Starmer getting more seats from the Tories than Cameron did from Labour. Add on maybe 30 from the SNP and he gets a majority but in my view 420 is just fantasy.

    Do we know what the largest ever number of seat flips is in an election? I'm assuming Blair 97 must be up there but Starmer must have a good chance of beating 97 on flips.
    You'd be better asking @ydoethur questions like that but Blair won 178 seats in 1997. Cameron actually won 96 but I think some of those were from the Lib Dems. I would be genuinely amazed if Starmer beat Blair's record and that would still leave him well short of 420.
    The Cons gained 194 in 1931, and Labour lost 237.

    Labour gained 223 in 1945, and the Cons lost 186.

    Those are the two records, I think.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    HYUFD said:

    At the moment Starmer is getting a Labour voteshare similar to Blair pre 1997 but will likely get an even bigger majority due to ReformUK eating more into the Sunak Tories voteshare than the Referendum party did into the Major Tories voteshare.

    However Starmer is not as charismatic or as good a campaigned as Blair was and in the campaign itself and maybe the debates I expect Sunak to narrow the gap. If the new visa salary requirements for migrants and Rwanda destination for asylum seekers reduces immigration the Tories should also squeeze the Reform vote too

    In 97 the Lin Dems also got 17.8% of the vote. Really can't see them managing that this time. This may help some Tories in the west country hold on.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,682

    algarkirk said:

    On the old boundaries 420 seats=losing none and adding 218 seats. The 218th target seat is Derbyshire Dales, requiring a swing of 17.43%; the majority is 18,797.

    I don't think so, but it's not impossible.

    17-18% is the ballpark swing we are seeing at the moment. And whilst there ought, surely, to be some swingback towards the government, we've all been saying that for a year or so and there's no sign of it yet. If anything, there is continuing swingaway.

    It is crazy to imagine Labour gaining 200+ seats in one go, especially given that SKS is worthy but dull. But looked at from a different direction, it's crazy to imagine the Conservatives successfully defending 200 seats.

    And something like one of those two crazy things has to happen, because the number of MPs has to total 650.
    I know that Reform voters (polled) say they are not all dissaffected Tories, and that if Reform don't stand they will split, but I am not convinced. I also think that swingback will be late, and may only start when the election campaign proper starts.

    Lots of the public are sick of the Tories (including this voter). I don't yet think that they are enamoured of Starmer. What you see in the polling is, in my view, an anti-government sentiment. When Labour start to get more scrutiny (and it is happening now) then I think the high leads will drop to some extent. I still expect to see a substantial swing from Tory majority to Labour majority, partly because the SNP are imploding, so the Scotland issue for Labour has moderated.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,919

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    Conversely though, Major was running a government a damn sight more competent than Sunak (as much as people thought it was crap at the time).
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899

    The last three MRPs, the only ones with all fieldwork in 2024, give Labour seat totals of: 452, 468, 403.

    So an initial glance would conclude that 5/4 on >420 seats is quite generous.

    But these MRPs also have implied Reform UK shares of: 10%, 8.5%, 12%.

    I wouldn't say that it was guaranteed that these voters will end up mostly voting Tory at the GE, but I would say it's the largest and most obvious source of uncertainty.

    How many candidates can we expect from Reform UK, and what impact will that have?

    They are reported (wiki) as having 430 in place as of 17 April.

    They are reported (Groan) by 10 April as having lost 10 candidates "who were reported to have made or liked racist, sexist and homophobic comments on social media."
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/08/reform-uk-published-candidates-list-early-media-help-vet
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    algarkirk said:

    On the old boundaries 420 seats=losing none and adding 218 seats. The 218th target seat is Derbyshire Dales, requiring a swing of 17.43%; the majority is 18,797.

    I don't think so, but it's not impossible.

    17-18% is the ballpark swing we are seeing at the moment. And whilst there ought, surely, to be some swingback towards the government, we've all been saying that for a year or so and there's no sign of it yet. If anything, there is continuing swingaway.

    It is crazy to imagine Labour gaining 200+ seats in one go, especially given that SKS is worthy but dull. But looked at from a different direction, it's crazy to imagine the Conservatives successfully defending 200 seats.

    And something like one of those two crazy things has to happen, because the number of MPs has to total 650.
    I know that Reform voters (polled) say they are not all dissaffected Tories, and that if Reform don't stand they will split, but I am not convinced. I also think that swingback will be late, and may only start when the election campaign proper starts.

    Lots of the public are sick of the Tories (including this voter). I don't yet think that they are enamoured of Starmer. What you see in the polling is, in my view, an anti-government sentiment. When Labour start to get more scrutiny (and it is happening now) then I think the high leads will drop to some extent. I still expect to see a substantial swing from Tory majority to Labour majority, partly because the SNP are imploding, so the Scotland issue for Labour has moderated.
    Such polling as we have for the local elections suggests that indeed, Reform voters are switching to the Conservatives, but we'll know if that's true or not a week from now.

    Overall, the centre-right vote share, in polling, is 33-39%.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    edited April 26
    DavidL said:

    In Scotland (damn, lost the audience already) it looks as if Ross's motion was enrolled after discussion with the Greens who wanted Yousaf's head for telling them how useless they were (admittedly a bit of a cheek). Labour have now enrolled a motion of no confidence in the entire government. Whether the Greens are willing to go quite that far remains to be seen but it seems unlikely.

    So the price for the SNP remaining in government for the next 2 years is likely to be Yousaf's head. As he somewhat unwisely said about Ash Regan when she defected to Alba, that seems a very small loss.

    Also, whether the Scons are willing. It'd be cutting their own throat. The entire Conservative Party approach to cooperation with other parties since 2010, and for all I know longer, has been to let the other Unionists be left with the illegitimate babies.

    Edit: it's not as if they could see how many other people were going into the Holyrood voting lobbies and then adjusting their own decision. There aren't any lobbies.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    In Scotland (damn, lost the audience already) it looks as if Ross's motion was enrolled after discussion with the Greens who wanted Yousaf's head for telling them how useless they were (admittedly a bit of a cheek). Labour have now enrolled a motion of no confidence in the entire government. Whether the Greens are willing to go quite that far remains to be seen but it seems unlikely.

    So the price for the SNP remaining in government for the next 2 years is likely to be Yousaf's head. As he somewhat unwisely said about Ash Regan when she defected to Alba, that seems a very small loss.

    True, though this is all happening because the SNP’s broad church is crumbling, and I’m not sure a new leader is going to be able to resolve that.

    Sturgeon decided that a coalition for independence was going to be built among the liberal, ‘progressive’, pro-EU voter base and she was exceptionally successful at harnessing the anger of that bloc at a right wing government in Westminster, until her policies tripped her up. Humza is going the same way. But finding a replacement who can both keep that coalition and the more moderate wing on side is going to be practically impossible. Forbes is decent, but I have said it before that she potentially creates more problems for them than she solves.

    They are in for a bumpy ride whatever happens.
    The rumours are that Neil Gray (no, me neither) is being lined up as another continuity replacement. Another Minister for Health being promoted to First Minister. What could possibly go wrong?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,861

    DavidL said:

    In Scotland (damn, lost the audience already) it looks as if Ross's motion was enrolled after discussion with the Greens who wanted Yousaf's head for telling them how useless they were (admittedly a bit of a cheek). Labour have now enrolled a motion of no confidence in the entire government. Whether the Greens are willing to go quite that far remains to be seen but it seems unlikely.

    So the price for the SNP remaining in government for the next 2 years is likely to be Yousaf's head. As he somewhat unwisely said about Ash Regan when she defected to Alba, that seems a very small loss.

    True, though this is all happening because the SNP’s broad church is crumbling, and I’m not sure a new leader is going to be able to resolve that.

    Sturgeon decided that a coalition for independence was going to be built among the liberal, ‘progressive’, pro-EU voter base and she was exceptionally successful at harnessing the anger of that bloc at a right wing government in Westminster, until her policies tripped her up. Humza is going the same way. But finding a replacement who can both keep that coalition and the more moderate wing on side is going to be practically impossible. Forbes is decent, but I have said it before that she potentially creates more problems for them than she solves.

    They are in for a bumpy ride whatever happens.
    I think the chance of an unscheduled Scottish election is very slim. It is only in Labour's interest, and they cannot force it alone by any route. And actually it hard to believe that the other parties want to dislodge Yousef, as his replacement is almost certain to be better; and almost certain to be Forbes.

    So I think it is quite likely that a way will be found for Yousef to cling on. It suits enough people for now.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,449

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
    How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?

    I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,350
    Just to piss on the parade of those that would love a huge Labour majority: Theresa May had a 20 point lead over Labour in 2017. We all remember what happened to that lead shortly afterwards.

    Big majorities are always disastrous for the country, whether they are Labour or Conservative. I hope the "wisdom of the crowd" provides Starmer with a very very small majority so the country does not have to suffer the pain of a Labour government any longer than it needs to, and that if Labour are deserving of government (which they rarely are) they have to work very hard to get a second term.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    Ah, Labour motion against SG would presumably be performative waste of time. Alba will vote it down: just reported.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,890

    SKS fans please explain.

    I'm still on with your Labour have got a mountain to climb just to make most GE seats

    Although the Conservatives might get a right royal spanking next week, I suspect they will do nowhere near as badly as the polls are suggesting. Street and Lord T. Dan Smith of Teesworks will retain their fiefdoms and Susan Hall will run Khan close.

    The polls do not reflect reality.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    That the BBC. Even worse than PBScotchExperts.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,108

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    To be fair, it was formal agreement that wasn't a coalition. Absolutely no coalition. No sir. None of that.

    It wasn't they were friends or anything - just spent all their time hanging out behind the bike sheds sharing a smoke. Everyone does that.

    Any voting in the same direction at the same time was a complete coincidence. Just happens that way.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    Sorry to veer off topic (is SKS like TB? Hell no. Next.)

    Just catching up on the PO Inquiry. They are dealing with the death of Martin Griffiths. Beer is being absolutely devastating. He is or seems to be genuinely furious.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,909
    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    I would be betting against this, not for it. Blair started with 273 seats. Starmer is starting sub 200, depending on how you count those that have fallen by the wayside.

    2010 was a change election against a government in chaos whose economic fantasies had been shredded. Cameron won just over 100 seats, a remarkable achievement, but, like Starmer he started a long way back. Our politics seems to become ever more volatile but I just can't see Starmer getting more seats from the Tories than Cameron did from Labour. Add on maybe 30 from the SNP and he gets a majority but in my view 420 is just fantasy.

    Do we know what the largest ever number of seat flips is in an election? I'm assuming Blair 97 must be up there but Starmer must have a good chance of beating 97 on flips.
    There were some big swings in 19th century elections.

    In reverse chronological order, number of seats gained by party that gains most seats:
    48, 30, 50, 96, 33, 6, 146, 42, 20, 58, 62, 18, 14, 77, 47, 59, 20, 23, 23, 90, 239 (1945).

    Amusing that Heath gained more seats in 1970 (77) than Thatcher did in any single election (62 in 1979).

    I tend to think that precedent is a poor guide to the next election, because the experience of the current Parliament is so unique.

    The reason there's a good chance of Starmer's Labour making ~200 gains is not because that's what normally happens with a fag end government, but because we went through the pandemic, except the PM who told everyone to stay at home stayed partying, his replacement lasted only 49 days and nearly destroyed the pension industry and caused a Sterling crisis, and the leader of Labour's other main opposition had to resign before being arrested in an embezzlement case, that has seen her husband charged, and her replacement may also be about to be given the heave.

    In some respects it would be surprising not to have an unprecedentedly large change in seats following such an unprecedented series of events that are so bad for the incumbents.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,650

    nico679 said:

    As much as I’d like to see the Tories wiped out I think it will be much closer than current polls suggest .

    This isn’t a particularly helpful insight but I’m not quite sure what way it will go. I could very easily see it going both ways. I think though, that I am of the view that the campaign will have a focussing effect and will have an impact this time.

    That impact could either be that when the crunch comes some people reluctantly decide to come out and support the Tories, leading to a pretty heavy but not catastrophic defeat (let’s say 210-230 seats).

    On the other hand if Farage steps into the fray and Sunak continues to completely mess things up then I could see further leaching of votes to Reform and indeed possibly even crossover. That would obviously be the catastrophic result and lead to a post election significant realignment on the right of British politics.
    The campaign is more likely to highlight just how nutty Reform are. Expect several of their candidates to be provoked into saying some mind-bogglingly awful stuff and have to be disowned.

    Mind you, there might be some dodgy Labour candidates provoked into saying some stuff about Israel that Starmer will have to disown.
    Although Israel are making things easy for their critics atm. You can lambast them without departing from the truth.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,350

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
    How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?

    I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
    I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    To be fair, it was formal agreement that wasn't a coalition. Absolutely no coalition. No sir. None of that.

    It wasn't they were friends or anything - just spent all their time hanging out behind the bike sheds sharing a smoke. Everyone does that.

    Any voting in the same direction at the same time was a complete coincidence. Just happens that way.
    You'rse forgetting that that was what was supposed to happen in the Scottish Parliament. Everything and anything was built in to stop the SNP ever ruling. It could easily have been Scon support for a minority Slab-LD coalition.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    If you accept a ministerial post on account of an inter-party agreement, I think you have passed the bar for coalition regardless of who may sit at cabinet. Lots of SNP MSPs aren't at cabinet.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,145

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
    How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?

    I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
    I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
    Do the Corbynites hold more power if Starmer has a 30 majority or 200 majority?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,145

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
    How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?

    I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
    I suspect polling mid term would be more useful for betting purposes if the options were Labour, Conservative, anti-Labour, anti-Conservative.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,811
    More bad news for Humza. Council by-election result in Angus.

    ANGUS UA; Arbroath West, Letham & Friockheim (Ind resigned)

    First Prefs:

    Con 41.9 (+10.5)
    SNP 29.3 (-6.9)
    Lab 16.1 (+9.6)
    LD 8.3 (+3.9)
    Grn 4.3 (New)
    No ind as prev

    Con 1682
    SNP 1175
    Lab 644
    LD 333
    Green 176

    His unbroken run of by-election fails continues.

    The ward has been moved out of Angus for Westminster and is in the new Arbroath and Broughty Ferry seat, which is the successor to Dundee East, one of the safest SNP seats.

    Howeve rit has interesting implications for the next door Angus & Perthshire Glens seat which is a Tory target (and being contested by Stephen Kerr MSP, the former \Tory MP for Stirling)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,890
    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    Assuming a Lab majority is already highly likely, this is one of a few interesting sub-plots isn't it? Plus:

    - Will Con get a lower seat total than Major in 97
    Hard to call

    - Will Ref win any seats
    No. Which are their suggested seats to win? Except maybe by defection before or after the election - but I've no idea where.
    Is Tice going to be upstanding, bearing in mind that the Reform Party Company defines him as a "person of no significant control"?


    - Will Lib Dems overtake SNP into 3rd place
    Probably given current events in SNP-land and in the Tory-sack, plus I hope so.

    - Will Lib Dems hang on to any of their byelection gains
    Yes. Suggest Chesham and Amersham, North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, Somerton and Frome ie all of them. AFAICS all of the second places are Conservatives - how would they lose?

    - Will Green win any seats
    Tricky. I'm not sure.

    - Will Mogg (+ various others) lose their seats
    -
    Perhaps 50% will, depending on your list.
    There is talk that Thangham Debonnaire will lose in Bristol. A shame as she is a cut above many Labour MPs and candidates.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880

    Just to piss on the parade of those that would love a huge Labour majority: Theresa May had a 20 point lead over Labour in 2017. We all remember what happened to that lead shortly afterwards.

    Big majorities are always disastrous for the country, whether they are Labour or Conservative. I hope the "wisdom of the crowd" provides Starmer with a very very small majority so the country does not have to suffer the pain of a Labour government any longer than it needs to, and that if Labour are deserving of government (which they rarely are) they have to work very hard to get a second term.

    Not always, the Blair government of 1997-2001, the Thatcher government of 1983-1987 and the Attlee government of 1945-1950 and the Macmillan government of 1959-1964 were all elected by landslides and reasonably competent
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    Do we know what effort the Tories are putting in to the middle band of seats that they *might* hold if various things go right? In Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), everyone has had a personal questionnaire from Sunak - lots of multicoloured material in a personally addressed envelope, not targeted (unless they think I'm a potential Tory). In Didcot and Wantage, there was a glossy Royal Mail-delivered leaflet a few months ago, but no other sign of activity. What are other people experiencing?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899
    edited April 26
    Off-topic and on the Post Office.

    What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?

    Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,832
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    In Scotland (damn, lost the audience already) it looks as if Ross's motion was enrolled after discussion with the Greens who wanted Yousaf's head for telling them how useless they were (admittedly a bit of a cheek). Labour have now enrolled a motion of no confidence in the entire government. Whether the Greens are willing to go quite that far remains to be seen but it seems unlikely.

    So the price for the SNP remaining in government for the next 2 years is likely to be Yousaf's head. As he somewhat unwisely said about Ash Regan when she defected to Alba, that seems a very small loss.

    True, though this is all happening because the SNP’s broad church is crumbling, and I’m not sure a new leader is going to be able to resolve that.

    Sturgeon decided that a coalition for independence was going to be built among the liberal, ‘progressive’, pro-EU voter base and she was exceptionally successful at harnessing the anger of that bloc at a right wing government in Westminster, until her policies tripped her up. Humza is going the same way. But finding a replacement who can both keep that coalition and the more moderate wing on side is going to be practically impossible. Forbes is decent, but I have said it before that she potentially creates more problems for them than she solves.

    They are in for a bumpy ride whatever happens.
    The rumours are that Neil Gray (no, me neither) is being lined up as another continuity replacement. Another Minister for Health being promoted to First Minister. What could possibly go wrong?
    Yousaf eased out by Gray man in suit?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,108
    Carnyx said:

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    To be fair, it was formal agreement that wasn't a coalition. Absolutely no coalition. No sir. None of that.

    It wasn't they were friends or anything - just spent all their time hanging out behind the bike sheds sharing a smoke. Everyone does that.

    Any voting in the same direction at the same time was a complete coincidence. Just happens that way.
    You'rse forgetting that that was what was supposed to happen in the Scottish Parliament. Everything and anything was built in to stop the SNP ever ruling. It could easily have been Scon support for a minority Slab-LD coalition.
    My point was the agreement between the Greens and the SNP was pretty coalition like - formal agreement(s) to vote together and power distributed and policies agreed on.

    Slater and Harvie served as ministers in the government until yesterday. When they left as a result of the end of the agreement.

    If it has a bill, webbed feet and quacks. It is obviously a cat. Ask Londo Mollari.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,919
    edited April 26
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    In Scotland (damn, lost the audience already) it looks as if Ross's motion was enrolled after discussion with the Greens who wanted Yousaf's head for telling them how useless they were (admittedly a bit of a cheek). Labour have now enrolled a motion of no confidence in the entire government. Whether the Greens are willing to go quite that far remains to be seen but it seems unlikely.

    So the price for the SNP remaining in government for the next 2 years is likely to be Yousaf's head. As he somewhat unwisely said about Ash Regan when she defected to Alba, that seems a very small loss.

    True, though this is all happening because the SNP’s broad church is crumbling, and I’m not sure a new leader is going to be able to resolve that.

    Sturgeon decided that a coalition for independence was going to be built among the liberal, ‘progressive’, pro-EU voter base and she was exceptionally successful at harnessing the anger of that bloc at a right wing government in Westminster, until her policies tripped her up. Humza is going the same way. But finding a replacement who can both keep that coalition and the more moderate wing on side is going to be practically impossible. Forbes is decent, but I have said it before that she potentially creates more problems for them than she solves.

    They are in for a bumpy ride whatever happens.
    I think the chance of an unscheduled Scottish election is very slim. It is only in Labour's interest, and they cannot force it alone by any route. And actually it hard to believe that the other parties want to dislodge Yousef, as his replacement is almost certain to be better; and almost certain to be Forbes.

    So I think it is quite likely that a way will be found for Yousef to cling on. It suits enough people for now.
    Possibly you are right. There is more chance of the parties accidentally stumbling into an election than deliberately engineering one IMHO.

    I think Yousaf’s card is marked now whether or not he survives this vote (it feels 50-50 to me right now). He’s going to be a lame duck if he clings on. For the SNP it might be best tactically for him to take the GE hit and then they can look to refresh afterwards. I don’t really see any great prospect of him seeing out the next 12 months, but I may be wrong.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,390
    Carnyx said:

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    That the BBC. Even worse than PBScotchExperts.
    Um, hold on a tick. If there are other party members in Cabinet - the executive - and an agreement with that other party, then it's a coalition, even if they deny it

    This is different from a caucus, where they vote together in the legislature
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899

    Do we know what effort the Tories are putting in to the middle band of seats that they *might* hold if various things go right? In Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), everyone has had a personal questionnaire from Sunak - lots of multicoloured material in a personally addressed envelope, not targeted (unless they think I'm a potential Tory). In Didcot and Wantage, there was a glossy Royal Mail-delivered leaflet a few months ago, but no other sign of activity. What are other people experiencing?

    I think I had a personal questionnaire from Sunak, but that was probably before Lee Anderson exited stage right, pursued by a glare.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,948

    More bad news for Humza. Council by-election result in Angus.

    ANGUS UA; Arbroath West, Letham & Friockheim (Ind resigned)

    First Prefs:

    Con 41.9 (+10.5)
    SNP 29.3 (-6.9)
    Lab 16.1 (+9.6)
    LD 8.3 (+3.9)
    Grn 4.3 (New)
    No ind as prev

    Con 1682
    SNP 1175
    Lab 644
    LD 333
    Green 176

    His unbroken run of by-election fails continues.

    The ward has been moved out of Angus for Westminster and is in the new Arbroath and Broughty Ferry seat, which is the successor to Dundee East, one of the safest SNP seats.

    Howeve rit has interesting implications for the next door Angus & Perthshire Glens seat which is a Tory target (and being contested by Stephen Kerr MSP, the former \Tory MP for Stirling)

    The Tories are almost as popular in Scotland as in England according to some polling. 20% in both.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,650
    Well I'm very 'enthusiastic' about a big Labour win.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,350

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
    How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?

    I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
    I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
    Do the Corbynites hold more power if Starmer has a 30 majority or 200 majority?
    I would suggest that it would be more with a 200 seat majority because the chance of Labour losing office at a subsequent GE is massively lower. I quite like Starmer, but I am not convinced he is a moderate, I think it very likely he will move sharply to the left if he has that type of majority because he will know he is unassailable. I also find it disturbing that he was prepared to proactively support the idea of Corbyn as PM, particularly when he must have been aware of Corbyn's alleged anti-Semitism.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,890

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
    How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?

    I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
    I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
    If everyone has that attitude we.get ourselves another 5 years of inch-perfect Rishi Government. Surely a Monster Raving Loony protest vote would make more sense, as would their policies.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,682

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    Assuming a Lab majority is already highly likely, this is one of a few interesting sub-plots isn't it? Plus:

    - Will Con get a lower seat total than Major in 97
    Hard to call

    - Will Ref win any seats
    No. Which are their suggested seats to win? Except maybe by defection before or after the election - but I've no idea where.
    Is Tice going to be upstanding, bearing in mind that the Reform Party Company defines him as a "person of no significant control"?


    - Will Lib Dems overtake SNP into 3rd place
    Probably given current events in SNP-land and in the Tory-sack, plus I hope so.

    - Will Lib Dems hang on to any of their byelection gains
    Yes. Suggest Chesham and Amersham, North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, Somerton and Frome ie all of them. AFAICS all of the second places are Conservatives - how would they lose?

    - Will Green win any seats
    Tricky. I'm not sure.

    - Will Mogg (+ various others) lose their seats
    -
    Perhaps 50% will, depending on your list.
    There is talk that Thangham Debonnaire will lose in Bristol. A shame as she is a cut above many Labour MPs and candidates.
    And also has an awesome name. A factor not to be sniffed at in life.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    edited April 26

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    To be fair, it was formal agreement that wasn't a coalition. Absolutely no coalition. No sir. None of that.

    It wasn't they were friends or anything - just spent all their time hanging out behind the bike sheds sharing a smoke. Everyone does that.

    Any voting in the same direction at the same time was a complete coincidence. Just happens that way.
    Oh aye, a metaphorical coalition is it? A bit of a waste of time BBC Shortbread trying to define a literal coalition in that case.

    I remember a couple of hours of my life on here I’ll never get back.

    The SNP-SCon coalition of 2007..

    No

    Well, confidence & supply..

    No

    It was an unspoken agreement then, the SCons backed Salmond for FM after all..

    No, it was the Greens.

    Etc
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,909

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
    How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?

    I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
    I think FPTP definitely pushes people towards voting against a thing, rather than for a thing, but if there's a positive alternative then it's easier for voting against to coalesce in such a way that increases the efficiency of the anti-government vote under FPTP.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,240

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    Arguable. The Agreement included formal alignment on most policy, participation of the junior partner in government as ministers as well as confidence and supply. There's no constitutional definition of coalition in Scotland as far as I know, but the SNP/Green partnership looked very much like one.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,650

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
    How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?

    I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
    I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
    Yet you didn't vote Tory when Labour actually was the party of Corbyn?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    To be fair, it was formal agreement that wasn't a coalition. Absolutely no coalition. No sir. None of that.

    It wasn't they were friends or anything - just spent all their time hanging out behind the bike sheds sharing a smoke. Everyone does that.

    Any voting in the same direction at the same time was a complete coincidence. Just happens that way.
    And Slater and Harvey both ministers, albeit not in the Cabinet, announcing and lording it over one catastrophic failure after another. I must confess I am still shocked that the Greens contrived to get short money during this Parliament as @Donkey pointed out to me last night. An outrageous abuse of the public purse.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,027
    SandraMc said:

    i've seen my first Conservative Party poster in my ward for the coming local elections. It is on the wire fence in front of a building being demolished. A Conservative poster in front of a wrecked house seems an appropriate image.

    I have had a flyer from Labour and seen a youtube ad for Labour. North East Mayor.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,350

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
    How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?

    I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
    I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
    If everyone has that attitude we.get ourselves another 5 years of inch-perfect Rishi Government. Surely a Monster Raving Loony protest vote would make more sense, as would their policies.
    But everyone will not have that attitude. And despite the gnashing of teeth and the childish hyperbolic bollox put out by Labour supporters , the Rishi government is not really that terrible (sorry to break it to you) and a Labour government is highly unlikely to be any more professional, particularly with all the second raters (that would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world) on their front bench.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,909
    Carnyx said:

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    To be fair, it was formal agreement that wasn't a coalition. Absolutely no coalition. No sir. None of that.

    It wasn't they were friends or anything - just spent all their time hanging out behind the bike sheds sharing a smoke. Everyone does that.

    Any voting in the same direction at the same time was a complete coincidence. Just happens that way.
    You'rse forgetting that that was what was supposed to happen in the Scottish Parliament. Everything and anything was built in to stop the SNP ever ruling. It could easily have been Scon support for a minority Slab-LD coalition.
    There's a difference between a confidence and supply arrangement, and a coalition. That difference is when a party has it's members take Executive posts as ministers. There were two Green Party ministers. They may not have called it a coalition, but that meets the definition of a coalition.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,108
    FF43 said:

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    Arguable. The Agreement included formal alignment on most policy, participation of the junior partner in government as ministers as well as confidence and supply. There's no constitutional definition of coalition in Scotland as far as I know, but the SNP/Green partnership looked very much like one.
    Is there a formal definition of coalition in any level of government in the UK?

    Apart from the NI executive, which is Special Politics for the Special People.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    viewcode said:

    Carnyx said:

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    That the BBC. Even worse than PBScotchExperts.
    Um, hold on a tick. If there are other party members in Cabinet - the executive - and an agreement with that other party, then it's a coalition, even if they deny it

    This is different from a caucus, where they vote together in the legislature
    THe Greens weren't in Cabinet. Just played around in their own spheres, so to speak.

    Carnyx said:

    Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?


    To be fair, it was formal agreement that wasn't a coalition. Absolutely no coalition. No sir. None of that.

    It wasn't they were friends or anything - just spent all their time hanging out behind the bike sheds sharing a smoke. Everyone does that.

    Any voting in the same direction at the same time was a complete coincidence. Just happens that way.
    You'rse forgetting that that was what was supposed to happen in the Scottish Parliament. Everything and anything was built in to stop the SNP ever ruling. It could easily have been Scon support for a minority Slab-LD coalition.
    My point was the agreement between the Greens and the SNP was pretty coalition like - formal agreement(s) to vote together and power distributed and policies agreed on.

    Slater and Harvie served as ministers in the government until yesterday. When they left as a result of the end of the agreement.

    If it has a bill, webbed feet and quacks. It is obviously a cat. Ask Londo Mollari.
    The point is whether as ministers they had a vote in the cabinet. THey didn't even attend the cabinet meetings normally.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,027
    MattW said:

    Off-topic and on the Post Office.

    What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?

    Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?

    God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,390
    edited April 26

    In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.

    That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.

    It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.

    Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
    How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?

    I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
    I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
    So you'll only vote for Labour when you feel they won't win? :)
This discussion has been closed.