Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Lessons from history – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,733
edited May 12 in General
Lessons from history – politicalbetting.com

?? NEW: How likely is a hung parliament?Local elections gave some Tories hope that the election will be close. But when all is said and done, national opinion polls – which give a 21pt Labour lead – are rarely *that* wrongIn today’s @thetimes https://t.co/GQHRHgqvYO pic.twitter.com/4aJILsnQqo

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,573
    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,260
    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    They will be no better than current lot , can only hope and pray that the useless Scottish sockpuppets do well which should ensure their wipeout in the real election in 2026 as they will carpetbag on London orders.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 7,593
    edited May 12
    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,050
    FPT

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: looking forward quite a lot to the next race. Last time, Norris just drove away from Verstappen. I do think Red Bull botched the setup, but that also seems to have occurred in Australia. If the new McLaren can repeat that, it bodes well.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,318
    If the LDs poll as high as they did in the local elections or Sunak squeezes the LD local and Reform national vote it could be a hung parliament. However it is a tough challenge for him
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,133

    FPT

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: looking forward quite a lot to the next race. Last time, Norris just drove away from Verstappen. I do think Red Bull botched the setup, but that also seems to have occurred in Australia. If the new McLaren can repeat that, it bodes well.

    Ferrari and Mercedes are bringing large upgrades to Imola as well, could see everyone closer to Red Bull.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635
    Gaining 130 seats all in one go is a big ask. Only Tony Blair has done that since VJ Day.

    The polls point to a Blair style swing - and of course Starmer is facing not just the Tories but the SNP as well which makes his task rather easier.

    But I am dubious. Starmer is no Blair.

    If he picks up 100 seats he's done well and will be PM.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,050
    Sandpit said:

    50,000th!

    n00b.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,047
    edited May 12

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
    I don't think so. There has only been one parliament since the war the government didn't win two elections, and the pattern is often a big majority second time. Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, basically all the "seachange" elections.

    PB Tories comfort themselves with the idea that they will soon be back, but it is a fantasy based on delusion and arrogance.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,885
    All this analysis shows is the Conservatives are likely to get more than 100 seats contrary to current poll predictions.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,158
    Sandpit said:

    50,000th!

    That's a lot of typing.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,050
    Mr. Sandpit, it's interesting that Red Bull appear to have badly cocked up the setup twice now. Hopefully the rest of the big teams, and McLaren, can give them a run for their money.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,658
    Sandpit said:

    50,000th!

    That bad? I thought we were 18th.

    (Congratulations.)
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,047
    FF43 said:

    All this analysis shows is the Conservatives are likely to get more than 100 seats contrary to current poll predictions.

    I reckon Tories on 150ish seats myself, +/- 75
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,402
    Thanks for the helpful thread, TSE.

    Unfortunately for me it discourages punters from backing NOM and therby helping to top up the PtP Pension Fund, but I guess as a lawyer you have your scruples.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,732
    Oof. That graph of 1992/1997/2024 makes it pretty clear that it's more late Major than early Major.

    Except that in 1997, most pollsters weren't getting Shy Tory Adjustments right- hence the overshoot comparing the polls with reality. So being 20 points behind in the polls now is worse than being 20 points behind then, because it's more likely to be a real deficit.

    And whilst good news for the government (Britain Is Booming, Flights to Rwanda) may have an effect, so may bad news (mortgages going up for another million, Boats unstopped, sudden explosive failure of a public service).

    Maybe Rishi should just haul the lectern out Monday and get this over with.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,610
    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.









  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,732
    edited May 12
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
    I don't think so. There has only been one parliament since the war the government didn't win two elections, and the pattern is often a big majority second time. Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, basically all the "seachange" elections.

    PB Tories comfort themselves with the idea that they will soon be back, but it is a fantasy based on delusion and arrogance.
    It's possible for Labour to screw up in an election-losing way, maybe it's likely. But the other term in the equation is "will the Conservatives look like a government in waiting in 2028?" With hindsight, Labour's class of 2019 had a reasonable selection of MPs hiding in plain sight. The Conservatives... Who have they got?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,081
    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 7,593
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
    I don't think so. There has only been one parliament since the war the government didn't win two elections, and the pattern is often a big majority second time. Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, basically all the "seachange" elections.

    PB Tories comfort themselves with the idea that they will soon be back, but it is a fantasy based on delusion and arrogance.
    Just 5 years till we find out. The only time Labour have ever increased their majority was going to the electorate after 2 years in '66, so I don't think it's pie in the sky to suggest 50 and they might struggle to retain a majority or power, especially with the headwinds in place.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,985
    Good morning everyne, even slugabeds, or people on holiday drinking wine for breakfast.
  • Options
    Doogle1941Doogle1941 Posts: 14
    ydoethur said:

    Gaining 130 seats all in one go is a big ask. Only Tony Blair has done that since VJ Day.

    The polls point to a Blair style swing - and of course Starmer is facing not just the Tories but the SNP as well which makes his task rather easier.

    But I am dubious. Starmer is no Blair.

    If he picks up 100 seats he's done well and will be PM.

    The size of the Conservatives betrayal of their core vote must be amongst the greatest in recorded history.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,288
    Hyundai Motor beats Volkswagen in quarterly profit for 1st time
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=374452
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,318
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
    I don't think so. There has only been one parliament since the war the government didn't win two elections, and the pattern is often a big majority second time. Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, basically all the "seachange" elections.

    PB Tories comfort themselves with the idea that they will soon be back, but it is a fantasy based on delusion and arrogance.
    It depends largely on how Labour manage the economy, muck it up with high taxes, inflation and strikes and unemployment and the Tories will be back in far sooner than the New Labour years. As they were in 1950 and 1970 and 1979
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,098
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
    I don't think so. There has only been one parliament since the war the government didn't win two elections, and the pattern is often a big majority second time. Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, basically all the "seachange" elections.

    PB Tories comfort themselves with the idea that they will soon be back, but it is a fantasy based on delusion and arrogance.
    Both main UK parties indulge in a bunker mentality when things go wrong. Corbynism and Small Boatism.

    The counter-example is the SNP, who went for two establishment figures in Yousaf and Swinney instead. They could have easily ended up with a UDI advocate or a Green-style left winger. That's why they are only just behind Labour in a crowded centre-left field.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,732
    ydoethur said:

    Gaining 130 seats all in one go is a big ask. Only Tony Blair has done that since VJ Day.

    The polls point to a Blair style swing - and of course Starmer is facing not just the Tories but the SNP as well which makes his task rather easier.

    But I am dubious. Starmer is no Blair.

    If he picks up 100 seats he's done well and will be PM.

    But the counterpoint is that, to limit Labour gains to 100 or so, the Conservatives have got to hold around 280 seats. And that also seems dubious, especially since Sunak is no Major.

    Basically, something insane has to happen as the electoral consequence of all the insane events since 2019. Only question is what form that insanity takes.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,985
    edited May 12

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".

    Though it's not one I have really followed, being in a far away county of which I know little. If Natalie Elphicke has had a metanoia, I'd love to hear about it.

    At present I'd suggest she's changed her hat.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,431
    edited May 12
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
    I don't think so. There has only been one parliament since the war the government didn't win two elections, and the pattern is often a big majority second time. Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, basically all the "seachange" elections.

    PB Tories comfort themselves with the idea that they will soon be back, but it is a fantasy based on delusion and arrogance.
    It depends largely on how Labour manage the economy, muck it up with high taxes, inflation and strikes and unemployment and the Tories will be back in far sooner than the New Labour years. As they were in 1950 and 1970 and 1979
    How would the voters cope!?

    I guess if they kept unemployment to 1979 levels rather than Thatcher’s they’d be doing ok,
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,081
    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,431

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Just checking, do you REALLY believe that Elphicke has had a sincere change of heart and now shares Labour values?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,857
    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 7,593
    The other factor to factor in for the election after this is the assumption that a Starmer govt couldn't possibly be worse than this one.
    It could. As unlikely as that seems right now. And that doesn't necessarily have to be due to incompetence or corruption, just events, dear boy, events.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,848
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyne, even slugabeds, or people on holiday drinking wine for breakfast.

    Cappuccino. Looking across the Adriatic to Puglia

    Boun giorno


  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,885

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    But if it is the father who now seems to have lost his way and started associating with a bad lot who has nothing to do with the family, shouldn't the dutiful son say, wait a minute?
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,907
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
    I don't think so. There has only been one parliament since the war the government didn't win two elections, and the pattern is often a big majority second time. Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, basically all the "seachange" elections.

    PB Tories comfort themselves with the idea that they will soon be back, but it is a fantasy based on delusion and arrogance.
    It depends largely on how Labour manage the economy, muck it up with high taxes, inflation and strikes and unemployment and the Tories will be back in far sooner than the New Labour years. As they were in 1950 and 1970 and 1979
    I doubt Starmer is going to do any of that. It’ll be a case of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. Just with a little more managerial competence than Sunak, which is a pretty low bar to clear.

    The interesting question over the next four years will be if anyone articulates a coherent opposition to this. It won’t be the Tories, who will be tearing themselves apart with glee. I would like to think there’s room for an alternative from the centre-left, but Ed Davey is no Charles Kennedy and the more thoughtful elements of Labour have meekly lined up behind Starmer.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,857
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
    I don't think so. There has only been one parliament since the war the government didn't win two elections, and the pattern is often a big majority second time. Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, basically all the "seachange" elections.

    PB Tories comfort themselves with the idea that they will soon be back, but it is a fantasy based on delusion and arrogance.
    But that's conjecture.

    Past performance is no guide to the future and it's just as possible Labour get complacent. Labour haven't made massive gains; it's just the Right have split and gone on strike and opposition to the Government has rallied round them. Starmer isn't close to owning the room like Blair did.

    Bear in mind we've gone from Tory wipeout to Tory majority to Tory by-election gains to prospective Tory wipeout in barely 5 years.

    We have no idea what will happen by 2028 or 2029, and that includes both me and you.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,573

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
    I don't think so. There has only been one parliament since the war the government didn't win two elections, and the pattern is often a big majority second time. Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, basically all the "seachange" elections.

    PB Tories comfort themselves with the idea that they will soon be back, but it is a fantasy based on delusion and arrogance.
    It's possible for Labour to screw up in an election-losing way, maybe it's likely. But the other term in the equation is "will the Conservatives look like a government in waiting in 2028?" With hindsight, Labour's class of 2019 had a reasonable selection of MPs hiding in plain sight. The Conservatives... Who have they got?
    I am not seeing much in the way of talent in the shadow cabinet. Rayner is a feisty speaker but can you really see her running anything? Reeves is one of the major risks to a large Labour majority. Her excess of caution has already driven most of Labour's ideas from policies to vague aspirations. Except new taxes of course. Yvette Cooper and Ed Miliband both failed as ministers before but do add some intelligence and experience.

    And then there is Starmer himself. A man of few convictions (which is a plus of a sort, I suppose), who changes with the wind and doesn't seem to understand the word "no" , preferring what his immediate audience wants to hear.

    I am not saying the Tories are any better, they aren't. But I am really struggling to remember a weaker shadow cabinet. Blair and Cameron both had far more firepower at their disposal.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193
    edited May 12

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    Like Blair, PM Starmer would benefit from an economy significantly on the up. However, all of those who have supported him getting to be PM will have their hand out. And he will have to disappoint most.

    And Labour has no answer to the small boats. Expect it to become an armada of bigger boats. What then?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    Id agree there. 50 seat majority and imo theyll get mauled in 2029, 150 seat majority and its a 10 year reich minimum
    Edit - my own projected range at the moment is 50 to 150 weighted slightly to the lower figure
    I don't think so. There has only been one parliament since the war the government didn't win two elections, and the pattern is often a big majority second time. Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, basically all the "seachange" elections.

    PB Tories comfort themselves with the idea that they will soon be back, but it is a fantasy based on delusion and arrogance.
    It's possible for Labour to screw up in an election-losing way, maybe it's likely. But the other term in the equation is "will the Conservatives look like a government in waiting in 2028?" With hindsight, Labour's class of 2019 had a reasonable selection of MPs hiding in plain sight. The Conservatives... Who have they got?
    Alas, they have a Braverman, and there's no braver man/woman to take her on.
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,907

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    Like Blair, PM Starmer would benefit from an economy significantly on the up. However, all of those who have supported him getting to be PM will have their hand out. And he will have to disappoint most.

    And Labour has no answer to the small boats. Expect it to become an armada of bigger boats. What then?
    I suspect ID cards are going to make a reappearance in the next parliament.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,857
    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.









    If another Conservative MP comes up to Labour, Sir Keir will roll out the red carpet. You can count on it.

    Political leaders do not turn down defections.

    Any defection.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,227
    @gettingbetter . did you win your bet last night?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,573

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Just checking, do you REALLY believe that Elphicke has had a sincere change of heart and now shares Labour values?
    Well, she is allegedly trying to make a quick turn on housing.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,985
    edited May 12

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,081

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Just checking, do you REALLY believe that Elphicke has had a sincere change of heart and now shares Labour values?
    I think defecting is a difficult thing to do. She’s not just done this for a laugh.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635
    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Just checking, do you REALLY believe that Elphicke has had a sincere change of heart and now shares Labour values?
    Well, she is allegedly trying to make a quick turn on housing.
    Sunak's probably bricking it, which sounds like a good start on that.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,133
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyne, even slugabeds, or people on holiday drinking wine for breakfast.

    Marhaba!

  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,081
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
    Well, Elphicke has not been put in charge of anything. She’s standing down at the election. She’s not writing the manifesto!
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,732

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.









    If another Conservative MP comes up to Labour, Sir Keir will roll out the red carpet. You can count on it.

    Political leaders do not turn down defections.

    Any defection.
    Yup. And the same is true in all directions.

    NE may not be a good person, and she may have very mixed motives for defecting. But she is legitimately the MP for Dover. And had Starmer spurned her, there would have been people, here and elsewhere, banging on about lah-di-dah Starmer, who does he think he is? Better than the voters of Dover?
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,658

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.









    If another Conservative MP comes up to Labour, Sir Keir will roll out the red carpet. You can count on it.

    Political leaders do not turn down defections.

    Any defection.
    We (Labour) would turn down Tommy Robinson or Laurence Fox.
    But generally, I agree.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147
    I see that the Telegraph is reporting that the VOA have been asked to create a new valuation model for council tax in Wales.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/11/welsh-labour-to-hike-council-tax-by-spying-on-homeowners/

    Things that may increase house values, home improvements, good schools....

    I mean isn't it obvious that houses that the general public are willing to pay more for or worth more so end up in a higher council tax band...

    Just a shame it's a revaluation and not a complete redesign of the whole tax system around housing but that could only be done by the UK Government...
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147
    edited May 12

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    Like Blair, PM Starmer would benefit from an economy significantly on the up. However, all of those who have supported him getting to be PM will have their hand out. And he will have to disappoint most.

    And Labour has no answer to the small boats. Expect it to become an armada of bigger boats. What then?
    I suspect ID cards are going to make a reappearance in the next parliament.
    No problems with ID cards - but it needs to be better sold and the ID card used to just verify the person is who they claim to be and nothing more...

    The system should confirm I am the person on the card I presented - recording who made the request and when and stop at the point.

    The system that contains the information I'm discussing at that time does not need to merged into 1 global system of 500 different data sources, each system should be a self contained data source with a link into the verification API...
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,766
    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Just checking, do you REALLY believe that Elphicke has had a sincere change of heart and now shares Labour values?
    Well, she is allegedly trying to make a quick turn on housing.
    Last night I posted this.

    Anyhoo, I am not joking, but I have been told the genuine reason why Natalie Elphicke defected.

    She's trying to get planning permission to convert a garage into flats that she owns in her constituency but locals have objected to her plans.

    The Labour run council can overrule the local objections so defecting to Labour she thinks they will support one of their own.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,985
    edited May 12
    Good header, @TSE .

    I think the difference between the national polls and the local election results should perhaps have less weight, since the collection of seats being voted on had quite a different profile. If I recall the maps from last week, the seats being voted upon were weighted to the South.

    It's interesting that the only changes going the other ways (Tories going backwards in the final 2 weeks) were 1 - the post Falklands election in 1983 (the Falklands War effect wearing off?) and 2 - Get Brexit Done / Corbyn.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,081
    MattW said:

    Good header, @TSE .

    I think the difference between the national polls and the local election results should perhaps have less weight, since the collection of seats being voted on had quite a different profile. If I recall the maps from last week, the seats being voted upon were weighted to the South.

    It's interesting that the only changes going the other ways (Tories going backwards in the final 2 weeks) were 1 - the post Falklands election in 1983 (the Falklands War effect wearing off?) and 2 - Get Brexit Done / Corbyn.

    The national equivalent vote figures adjust for such things.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,766
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    Like Blair, PM Starmer would benefit from an economy significantly on the up. However, all of those who have supported him getting to be PM will have their hand out. And he will have to disappoint most.

    And Labour has no answer to the small boats. Expect it to become an armada of bigger boats. What then?
    I suspect ID cards are going to make a reappearance in the next parliament.
    No problems with ID cards - but it needs to be better sold and the ID card used to just verify the person is who they claim to be and nothing more...
    Nope, never.

    Do we really want to give the police more powers to harass people because they do not have their papers on them?
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,135
    edited May 12

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    Like Blair, PM Starmer would benefit from an economy significantly on the up. However, all of those who have supported him getting to be PM will have their hand out. And he will have to disappoint most.

    And Labour has no answer to the small boats. Expect it to become an armada of bigger boats. What then?
    The boats aren't an irrelevant issue but nor are they nearly as vital as one might be led to believe by the amount of sound and fury that the issue generates. Locking the boat people out is a relatively fringe culture wars topic that mainly animates the hard right and a minority of voters of that persuasion: the vast majority of Britain's completely out of control net immigration rate is courtesy of students and, especially, workers brought in to prop up our decaying health and social care sectors. There's no mass groundswell of opinion against this amongst the great mass of the population of which I am aware.

    The next government will be judged predominantly on its efforts to improve economic security and restore decrepit public services. The fate of a few thousand randoms turning up in leaky dinghies is quite low down the list of voter concerns.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,766
    So the Telegraph have this.

    It has also emerged that Ms Elphicke is seeking planning permission to convert a garage she owns in Dover into a two-storey house, and needs the support of the Labour-run local council to overrule objections from neighbours.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/10/sue-gray-faces-questions-role-natalie-elphicke/
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,573
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    Like Blair, PM Starmer would benefit from an economy significantly on the up. However, all of those who have supported him getting to be PM will have their hand out. And he will have to disappoint most.

    And Labour has no answer to the small boats. Expect it to become an armada of bigger boats. What then?
    I suspect ID cards are going to make a reappearance in the next parliament.
    Three requirements for the database:

    1) Accessible to the public so they can check and challenge any inaccuracies in their records;

    2) Full record of who has accessed it so we can check who is looking at our info and challenge anyone who has done so for an improper purpose.

    3) Criminal prosecutions for any breach of 2.

    And two for the ID card:

    1) Supersedes all other forms of ID including driving licences, DBS clearances and NI numbers;

    2) Does not have to be carried at all times.

    If those five criteria are met we can be reasonably confident that our rights are protected and Satan is wondering what the fuck to do with his new ice rink.
    You get some fantastically daft questions from Juries but a rather smart one recently was "how did they know to check the accused's DNA?" which, curiously enough matched the DNA left at the scene.

    The answer, as someone had worked out, was of course that he was already on the DNA database, as are several million others for a variety of reasons, mostly to do with previous criminal events but we were not allowed to tell them that. It does make me wonder, however, what the point of an ID system would be. We already have so many ways of either vouching or having our IDs checked I am really not sure I can see what we get for the cost.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,395

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.









    If another Conservative MP comes up to Labour, Sir Keir will roll out the red carpet. You can count on it.

    Political leaders do not turn down defections.

    Any defection.
    We (Labour) would turn down Tommy Robinson or Laurence Fox.
    But generally, I agree.
    You'd take Galloway?
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,985
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyne, even slugabeds, or people on holiday drinking wine for breakfast.

    Marhaba!

    Sod :smile: .

    I'm sitting here looking at my solar panels that need a jet wash later, so I've got to sort out the 6m extendi-right-angle-device for the jetwasher so that my kind friend who has offered to go on next-door's carport roof to do it can be given the tool to do the job.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,098
    edited May 12
    eek said:

    I see that the Telegraph is reporting that the VOA have been asked to create a new valuation model for council tax in Wales.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/11/welsh-labour-to-hike-council-tax-by-spying-on-homeowners/

    Things that may increase house values, home improvements, good schools....

    I mean isn't it obvious that houses that the general public are willing to pay more for or worth more so end up in a higher council tax band...

    Just a shame it's a revaluation and not a complete redesign of the whole tax system around housing but that could only be done by the UK Government...

    Using council tax as a method to increase taxes on housing wealth seems obvious to me. At a UK/E&W level, Labour can spin it as giving councils more revenue raising powers while cutting both the grant to councils and NICs for earners.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    Like Blair, PM Starmer would benefit from an economy significantly on the up. However, all of those who have supported him getting to be PM will have their hand out. And he will have to disappoint most.

    And Labour has no answer to the small boats. Expect it to become an armada of bigger boats. What then?
    I suspect ID cards are going to make a reappearance in the next parliament.
    Three requirements for the database:

    1) Accessible to the public so they can check and challenge any inaccuracies in their records;

    2) Full record of who has accessed it so we can check who is looking at our info and challenge anyone who has done so for an improper purpose.

    3) Criminal prosecutions for any breach of 2.

    And two for the ID card:

    1) Supersedes all other forms of ID including driving licences, DBS clearances and NI numbers;

    2) Does not have to be carried at all times.

    If those five criteria are met we can be reasonably confident that our rights are protected and Satan is wondering what the fuck to do with his new ice rink.
    My issue is that the way you've written 1 implies a super database again - but that's not required.

    The ID card confirms who you are - that by itself should be sufficient for the user to then pull up the driving licence / DBS clearance / NI number from the driving licence / DBS clearance / NI number independently separate database.

  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,658

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.









    If another Conservative MP comes up to Labour, Sir Keir will roll out the red carpet. You can count on it.

    Political leaders do not turn down defections.

    Any defection.
    We (Labour) would turn down Tommy Robinson or Laurence Fox.
    But generally, I agree.
    You'd take Galloway?
    Only if the Tories took Corbyn. (My list of two wasn't meant to be exhaustive).
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,682
    The elephant in the room here is 2017. Looking at how accurate the polls were two weeks out rather obscures they data point, and we're certainly more than two weeks from an election.

    A comparison of the polls in the month before an election was called would be more relevant.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,133
    edited May 12
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyne, even slugabeds, or people on holiday drinking wine for breakfast.

    Marhaba!

    Sod :smile: .

    I'm sitting here looking at my solar panels that need a jet wash later, so I've got to sort out the 6m extendi-right-angle-device for the jetwasher so that my kind friend who has offered to go on next-door's carport roof to do it can be given the tool to do the job.
    First time we’ve been away anywhere for months, just a local hotel with a good all-inclusive promotion now that we’re out of season. Place is busy though, with a combination of local staycationers and tourists, and the weather is still just about bearable outside, at least in the shade, 37ºC and 33% humidity at 13:00.

    Buying (or renting) the right tool for the job always pays dividends in the end.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147
    edited May 12

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    Like Blair, PM Starmer would benefit from an economy significantly on the up. However, all of those who have supported him getting to be PM will have their hand out. And he will have to disappoint most.

    And Labour has no answer to the small boats. Expect it to become an armada of bigger boats. What then?
    I suspect ID cards are going to make a reappearance in the next parliament.
    No problems with ID cards - but it needs to be better sold and the ID card used to just verify the person is who they claim to be and nothing more...
    Nope, never.

    Do we really want to give the police more powers to harass people because they do not have their papers on them?
    Where did I say it should be required to have them. Remember that in the past I've designed replacement core counter banking systems for multiple European banks. The default customer identification systems outside of the UK are always way more simple, take ID card check photo - good to go...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,573

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    I am old enough to remember the 60s and70s when governments changed frequently, not least because we did not have a particularly clear idea of where we should be going. Since then it has taken some major cock ups or sheer exhaustion to remove a sitting government.

    You may be right that we are heading into another period of uncertainty and increased volatility but the last 40 years have pointed in the other direction. If Labour get a majority over 150 it will be almost impossible for the Tories to remove them in a single swipe, just like Cameron failed to do in 2010, requiring the coalition.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,337
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyne, even slugabeds, or people on holiday drinking wine for breakfast.

    Marhaba!

    Sod :smile: .

    I'm sitting here looking at my solar panels that need a jet wash later, so I've got to sort out the 6m extendi-right-angle-device for the jetwasher so that my kind friend who has offered to go on next-door's carport roof to do it can be given the tool to do the job.
    Are you using purified water to avoid getting hard water stains on them?
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,885
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
    I suspect you and @DavidL in his comment just above underestimate Starmer. Fundamentally he's a traditionalist and is motivated by his working class roots. He sees the Red Wall as his kind of people and thinks the Labour Party has abandoned them in recent years. Happily, and this is a very politician thing, he also thinks engaging them is how he's going to win the election.

    If he believed university educated social liberals was the way forward would be still be as keen on the Red Wall? Because I think there's a danger in his, I believe deliberately and quite ruthlessly, rejecting liberalism.

    Firstly almost his entire party is made up of such people. They will go along with Starmer if he wins them an election but after that?

    Secondly graduates are a large and increasingly large demographic looking for a political home. Does he really want to repel them.

    Thirdly Starmer is a traditionalist not a populist. The Elphicke defection muddies the distinction.

    But I don't think Starmer is triangulating or just saying what people want to hear. If anything he's not triangulating enough
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,573
    edited May 12

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Just checking, do you REALLY believe that Elphicke has had a sincere change of heart and now shares Labour values?
    Well, she is allegedly trying to make a quick turn on housing.
    Last night I posted this.

    Anyhoo, I am not joking, but I have been told the genuine reason why Natalie Elphicke defected.

    She's trying to get planning permission to convert a garage into flats that she owns in her constituency but locals have objected to her plans.

    The Labour run council can overrule the local objections so defecting to Labour she thinks they will support one of their own.
    I know, that is what I was referring to in my "joke".

    Edit, its never a good sign when you have to explain it, is it?
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,472
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
    Good morning

    Trevor Phillips interviewing Jonathan Ashworth on Sky this morning said that if the Elphicke story is true then Starmer would need to withdraw the whip and Ashworth response was Elphicke has denied it

    Phillips then turned to his panel of three discussing the mornings political interviews, and Andrew Marr said if it was the word of Buckland v Elphicke then he would take Buckland's position as he is one of the few respected conservative mps left
  • Options
    I think there is an assumption that Labour will go to shit as soon as they are elected but I want to play devil’s advocate and suggest that the country will give them a very long honeymoon because of how much they want the Tories gone.

    The Tories will have to change a lot to get back in, in one term. And based on Labour from 2010 onwards that does not seem likely.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,985
    edited May 12
    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    I see that the Telegraph is reporting that the VOA have been asked to create a new valuation model for council tax in Wales.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/11/welsh-labour-to-hike-council-tax-by-spying-on-homeowners/

    Things that may increase house values, home improvements, good schools....

    I mean isn't it obvious that houses that the general public are willing to pay more for or worth more so end up in a higher council tax band...

    Just a shame it's a revaluation and not a complete redesign of the whole tax system around housing but that could only be done by the UK Government...

    Using council tax as a method to increase taxes on housing wealth seems obvious to me. At a UK/E&W level, Labour can spin it as giving councils more revenue raising powers while cutting both the grant to councils and NICs for earners.
    There will need to be a geographical balancing mechanism of some sort, but there are steps that can be taken if they initially want to be cautious and just do a revaluation or simply and/or remove the 1:3 ratio cap between minimum and maximum. Rather than going for a straight value based system.

    If I have my relative regional property price movements over the last 15 years right, it will be somewhat less painful for London etc than would have been the case a few years ago - regional price ratios having tightened up to a degree.

    It will be interesting to see how he would seek to repair local authority budgets and services, and over what period of time.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,682
    2017 stands out in another way. Along with 1983, it's the only election where the Tories did worse in the election than the polls said two weeks from polling day.

    My lesson from 2017 is not about possible polling error, but for the potential for the election campaign to change minds. It is not hard for me to see Starmer having a poor campaign, and for negative online adverts to rally some reluctant Tory voters.

    I wonder whether the 15/2 available for no overall majority is now value?

    It lies in the gap between 41 Tory losses and 123 Labour gains. That feels like a large landing zone to me.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,992
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    I am old enough to remember the 60s and70s when governments changed frequently, not least because we did not have a particularly clear idea of where we should be going. Since then it has taken some major cock ups or sheer exhaustion to remove a sitting government.

    You may be right that we are heading into another period of uncertainty and increased volatility but the last 40 years have pointed in the other direction. If Labour get a majority over 150 it will be almost impossible for the Tories to remove them in a single swipe, just like Cameron failed to do in 2010, requiring the coalition.

    Despite specific differences, there was a level of general consensus in the UK that ran through from the late 1940s to the late 1970s that saw broad agreement on things such as welfare, education, health, immigration and foreign policy. I suspect that the broad consensus remains within the wider population but is no longer reflected by the major political parties. Labour's reaction to defeat in 2015 was to decide that the electorate was wrong. The Tories are giving every indication currently that their reaction will be similar if they lose the next GE.

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,857

    2017 stands out in another way. Along with 1983, it's the only election where the Tories did worse in the election than the polls said two weeks from polling day.

    My lesson from 2017 is not about possible polling error, but for the potential for the election campaign to change minds. It is not hard for me to see Starmer having a poor campaign, and for negative online adverts to rally some reluctant Tory voters.

    I wonder whether the 15/2 available for no overall majority is now value?

    It lies in the gap between 41 Tory losses and 123 Labour gains. That feels like a large landing zone to me.

    It's not value. Labour will win big.

    But, a hung parliament is a very real possibility next time.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,992
    FF43 said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
    I suspect you and @DavidL in his comment just above underestimate Starmer. Fundamentally he's a traditionalist and is motivated by his working class roots. He sees the Red Wall as his kind of people and thinks the Labour Party has abandoned them in recent years. Happily, and this is a very politician thing, he also thinks engaging them is how he's going to win the election.

    If he believed university educated social liberals was the way forward would be still be as keen on the Red Wall? Because I think there's a danger in his, I believe deliberately and quite ruthlessly, rejecting liberalism.

    Firstly almost his entire party is made up of such people. They will go along with Starmer if he wins them an election but after that?

    Secondly graduates are a large and increasingly large demographic looking for a political home. Does he really want to repel them.

    Thirdly Starmer is a traditionalist not a populist. The Elphicke defection muddies the distinction.

    But I don't think Starmer is triangulating or just saying what people want to hear. If anything he's not triangulating enough

    Starmer controls the Labour party to an extent that not even Blair managed. It may be unwise to underestimate someone who can achieve that in the space of four years.

  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,682

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    Like Blair, PM Starmer would benefit from an economy significantly on the up. However, all of those who have supported him getting to be PM will have their hand out. And he will have to disappoint most.

    And Labour has no answer to the small boats. Expect it to become an armada of bigger boats. What then?
    I suspect ID cards are going to make a reappearance in the next parliament.
    Britain does not have spare billions of pounds for a bureaucrats hobbyhorse.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,857

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    I am old enough to remember the 60s and70s when governments changed frequently, not least because we did not have a particularly clear idea of where we should be going. Since then it has taken some major cock ups or sheer exhaustion to remove a sitting government.

    You may be right that we are heading into another period of uncertainty and increased volatility but the last 40 years have pointed in the other direction. If Labour get a majority over 150 it will be almost impossible for the Tories to remove them in a single swipe, just like Cameron failed to do in 2010, requiring the coalition.

    Despite specific differences, there was a level of general consensus in the UK that ran through from the late 1940s to the late 1970s that saw broad agreement on things such as welfare, education, health, immigration and foreign policy. I suspect that the broad consensus remains within the wider population but is no longer reflected by the major political parties. Labour's reaction to defeat in 2015 was to decide that the electorate was wrong. The Tories are giving every indication currently that their reaction will be similar if they lose the next GE.

    Focus groups are pretty consensus and Labour and Conservative politicians largely agree on this: they lean softly Left economically but also softly socially conservative as well.

    The trouble is that the offerings of the two main political parties have been almost precisely the wrong way round.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,047
    edited May 12

    The elephant in the room here is 2017. Looking at how accurate the polls were two weeks out rather obscures they data point, and we're certainly more than two weeks from an election.

    A comparison of the polls in the month before an election was called would be more relevant.

    Or six months before perhaps, which is why this graph in the header is the most important one.



    The elections of 2017 and 2019 were unusually volatile in the months before because Brexit crossed previous party allegiances and completely dominated. This GE is more conventional, and while some volatility is possible there is no sign of it at present, nor an obvious precipitating factor. Some slow drift back to the Tories is probable in the final weeks and months as per 1997, but if anything the trend is away.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,857
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    I am old enough to remember the 60s and70s when governments changed frequently, not least because we did not have a particularly clear idea of where we should be going. Since then it has taken some major cock ups or sheer exhaustion to remove a sitting government.

    You may be right that we are heading into another period of uncertainty and increased volatility but the last 40 years have pointed in the other direction. If Labour get a majority over 150 it will be almost impossible for the Tories to remove them in a single swipe, just like Cameron failed to do in 2010, requiring the coalition.
    Why?
  • Options
    CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 256

    FF43 said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
    I suspect you and @DavidL in his comment just above underestimate Starmer. Fundamentally he's a traditionalist and is motivated by his working class roots. He sees the Red Wall as his kind of people and thinks the Labour Party has abandoned them in recent years. Happily, and this is a very politician thing, he also thinks engaging them is how he's going to win the election.

    If he believed university educated social liberals was the way forward would be still be as keen on the Red Wall? Because I think there's a danger in his, I believe deliberately and quite ruthlessly, rejecting liberalism.

    Firstly almost his entire party is made up of such people. They will go along with Starmer if he wins them an election but after that?

    Secondly graduates are a large and increasingly large demographic looking for a political home. Does he really want to repel them.

    Thirdly Starmer is a traditionalist not a populist. The Elphicke defection muddies the distinction.

    But I don't think Starmer is triangulating or just saying what people want to hear. If anything he's not triangulating enough

    Starmer controls the Labour party to an extent that not even Blair managed. It may be unwise to underestimate someone who can achieve that in the space of four years.

    Agreed, Starmer seems extremely capable. Also he is organized and speaks with actions over mere rhetoric. You can tell he has been the leader of a large organisation.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,431
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    50,000th!

    n00b.
    Whoooaaaa, you just replied to a post!!!
    We're in 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse territory.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,948

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Just checking, do you REALLY believe that Elphicke has had a sincere change of heart and now shares Labour values?
    About 40-50% of Tory 2019 voters no longer support the Tories and a substantial number now support Labour.

    It would be pretty weird if there werent quite a few Tory MPs who are now closer to Labour than their own government. That doesn't mean that they are at the heart of Labour, or even have changed their own values, it just is what it is, they no longer believe in this Tory government, whether for reasons of credibility, competence or policy.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,985
    edited May 12
    FF43 said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
    I suspect you and @DavidL in his comment just above underestimate Starmer. Fundamentally he's a traditionalist and is motivated by his working class roots. He sees the Red Wall as his kind of people and thinks the Labour Party has abandoned them in recent years. Happily, and this is a very politician thing, he also thinks engaging them is how he's going to win the election.

    If he believed university educated social liberals was the way forward would be still be as keen on the Red Wall? Because I think there's a danger in his, I believe deliberately and quite ruthlessly, rejecting liberalism.

    Firstly almost his entire party is made up of such people. They will go along with Starmer if he wins them an election but after that?

    Secondly graduates are a large and increasingly large demographic looking for a political home. Does he really want to repel them.

    Thirdly Starmer is a traditionalist not a populist. The Elphicke defection muddies the distinction.

    But I don't think Starmer is triangulating or just saying what people want to hear. If anything he's not triangulating enough
    It's possible - I don't know Mr Starmer.

    I would quite like to see a profile of Labour GE candidates, around backgrounds and experience - eg SPADs and insiders vs people who have experience in jobs and careers outside politics.

    Also where they are with All Women Shortlists? Over time the rhetoric shifted from eg "10% of women MPs are not enough" to eg "35% of women MPs are not enough", and now for Labour women have been a majority of Labour MPs since 2019. So I think it's probably time to drop the sex-quota.

    I never liked the measure at the time because it was a deliberate and embarrassing gerrymander inserted into a law to declare an activity found to be illegal to be OK.
  • Options
    CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 256

    2017 stands out in another way. Along with 1983, it's the only election where the Tories did worse in the election than the polls said two weeks from polling day.

    My lesson from 2017 is not about possible polling error, but for the potential for the election campaign to change minds. It is not hard for me to see Starmer having a poor campaign, and for negative online adverts to rally some reluctant Tory voters.

    I wonder whether the 15/2 available for no overall majority is now value?

    It lies in the gap between 41 Tory losses and 123 Labour gains. That feels like a large landing zone to me.

    It's not value. Labour will win big.

    But, a hung parliament is a very real possibility next time.
    I think this is when Starmer will throw red meat to his overwhelmingly pro eu voting base to keep them onside.... going in to a second term.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,431

    So the Telegraph have this.

    It has also emerged that Ms Elphicke is seeking planning permission to convert a garage she owns in Dover into a two-storey house, and needs the support of the Labour-run local council to overrule objections from neighbours.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/10/sue-gray-faces-questions-role-natalie-elphicke/

    Values, but property ones.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,573
    edited May 12
    FF43 said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
    I suspect you and @DavidL in his comment just above underestimate Starmer. Fundamentally he's a traditionalist and is motivated by his working class roots. He sees the Red Wall as his kind of people and thinks the Labour Party has abandoned them in recent years. Happily, and this is a very politician thing, he also thinks engaging them is how he's going to win the election.

    If he believed university educated social liberals was the way forward would be still be as keen on the Red Wall? Because I think there's a danger in his, I believe deliberately and quite ruthlessly, rejecting liberalism.

    Firstly almost his entire party is made up of such people. They will go along with Starmer if he wins them an election but after that?

    Secondly graduates are a large and increasingly large demographic looking for a political home. Does he really want to repel them.

    Thirdly Starmer is a traditionalist not a populist. The Elphicke defection muddies the distinction.

    But I don't think Starmer is triangulating or just saying what people want to hear. If anything he's not triangulating enough
    I don't agree but I genuinely hope that you are right. We urgently need some competent government that is focused on more than the welfare of London. The failure of Boris and his successors to deliver for the red wall through levelling up is a stain on our politics. Things might have gone differently if we had not had the cost of Covid but them's the breaks. A party that was genuinely interested in economic growth outwith London would be a good thing both economically and for social cohesion.

    Even although I was appalled by our entry in the Eurovision and commented that if we got nul points it would be too many (which is exactly what the popular vote gave us) I want our country to do well and if Starmer delivers I will be delighted.

    I'd also like Man Utd to do better too but that really is asking for too much.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,885

    FF43 said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
    I suspect you and @DavidL in his comment just above underestimate Starmer. Fundamentally he's a traditionalist and is motivated by his working class roots. He sees the Red Wall as his kind of people and thinks the Labour Party has abandoned them in recent years. Happily, and this is a very politician thing, he also thinks engaging them is how he's going to win the election.

    If he believed university educated social liberals was the way forward would be still be as keen on the Red Wall? Because I think there's a danger in his, I believe deliberately and quite ruthlessly, rejecting liberalism.

    Firstly almost his entire party is made up of such people. They will go along with Starmer if he wins them an election but after that?

    Secondly graduates are a large and increasingly large demographic looking for a political home. Does he really want to repel them.

    Thirdly Starmer is a traditionalist not a populist. The Elphicke defection muddies the distinction.

    But I don't think Starmer is triangulating or just saying what people want to hear. If anything he's not triangulating enough

    Starmer controls the Labour party to an extent that not even Blair managed. It may be unwise to underestimate someone who can achieve that in the space of four years.

    One of the many similarities between Starmer and early Thatcher is both challenge the liberal consensus within their respective parties.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,047

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    I am old enough to remember the 60s and70s when governments changed frequently, not least because we did not have a particularly clear idea of where we should be going. Since then it has taken some major cock ups or sheer exhaustion to remove a sitting government.

    You may be right that we are heading into another period of uncertainty and increased volatility but the last 40 years have pointed in the other direction. If Labour get a majority over 150 it will be almost impossible for the Tories to remove them in a single swipe, just like Cameron failed to do in 2010, requiring the coalition.
    Why?
    Because there is no sign that the Tories will learn the lessons of defeat.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147
    edited May 12

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
    Good morning

    Trevor Phillips interviewing Jonathan Ashworth on Sky this morning said that if the Elphicke story is true then Starmer would need to withdraw the whip and Ashworth response was Elphicke has denied it

    Phillips then turned to his panel of three discussing the mornings political interviews, and Andrew Marr said if it was the word of Buckland v Elphicke then he would take Buckland's position as he is one of the few respected conservative mps left
    So heres the application

    https://publicaccess.dover.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=RNEJS9FZJFV00&activeTab=summary

    Scanning through the application the biggest issue appears to be that Kent County Council Highways department are as useless and contradictory as they have always been - when writing things down put all your objections in the first one and don't contradict yourself.

    And highways are the people who will kill an application, so at the moment the issue is not with Dover, until the highways objections are resolved the application isn't going to get approved...

    Side note - 1 of the complaints notes that the responsible planning officer has changed multiple times - not surprising because I suspect no planning officer can live on the wages Dover council pays when the private sector will pay twice as much..
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,948
    MattW said:

    FF43 said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, via warm sunny Emilia:

    When the MP for Dover and Deal was presented to Sir Keir as interested in defection, it is not hard to see why he and the tight group of aides he discussed it with reckoned that this was an offer too salivating to refuse. “ I’m completely fine with it,” says one of the non-squeamish members of the shadow cabinet. “We’ve got an election to win. The name of the game is beating the Tories. When an opportunity like this comes along, you can’t pass it up.” What they did not anticipate was the scale and the intensity of the backlash.

    This might have been foreseen because Ms Elphicke has landed in Labour with more baggage than a luggage carousel at Heathrow during the school summer holidays. As for her politics, she once attacked Marcus Rashford for campaigning for free school meals, one of many reasons to doubt whether she has any genuine affinity with her new party.

    The broader reason for the unease rippling through Labour’s ranks is that it feeds into the anxiety that there is no compromise with their party’s values that the leadership might not make in pursuit of what it sees as potential electoral advantage. Voters may have a general preference for broad-church parties, but they also tend to like them to come with sturdy walls and some pillars of principle.

    What’s not settled, as we approach the election, is a consensus view about Sir Keir. It is still up for argument both within his party and among voters whether he is a firmly anchored leader of genuine conviction, the case made by his allies. Or is he, as enemies to both right and left contend, a ruthless opportunist who will say or do anything to get power? The willingness to clasp hands with someone with the history of Natalie Elphicke is much easier for his foes to explain than it is for his friends.

    The next time, if there’s a next time, a Conservative MP of her ilk offers to come over to Labour, Sir Keir might be better advised to say thanks, but no thanks.

    Doesn’t Luke 15:11-32 kinda apply?
    The parable of the Lost Son.

    That shows the lost son a) Leaving home b) Regretting that and repenting. c) Returning in regret.

    I don't see Natalie Elphicke as a "lost son of Labour who has repented her reckless, dissolute ways and returned home".
    It’s not quite the same, but the parable tells us that it is good to celebrate the one who was lost and has now found their way, over those who piously criticise.
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is over "found their way", and not being naive. There seems to be an issue around the lobbying of Robert Buckland, for example - it was clear that her former party would tip a bucket of doodoo over her, Bad 'Al style, but was Sit Keir properly aware what was coming? That should guide his actions.

    I think what I have said on PB in the past is that the proof of the pudding on conversions can only be over time, since like Elisabeth 1 we can't make windows into men's and women's souls.

    Perhaps Matthew 10:16 applies :smile: "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."

    In the case of the lost son, for example, it might not be wise to put him in charge of managing his father's wealth for a few years.

    My take on Sir Keir is probably that he deems any potential damage is less for him than the benefits of keeping the Conservatives in confusion and doubt, and he has a stop-loss of NE standing down at the next election.

    I think his calculation is quite Machiavellian / cold blooded. After all, he's a lawyer !
    I suspect you and @DavidL in his comment just above underestimate Starmer. Fundamentally he's a traditionalist and is motivated by his working class roots. He sees the Red Wall as his kind of people and thinks the Labour Party has abandoned them in recent years. Happily, and this is a very politician thing, he also thinks engaging them is how he's going to win the election.

    If he believed university educated social liberals was the way forward would be still be as keen on the Red Wall? Because I think there's a danger in his, I believe deliberately and quite ruthlessly, rejecting liberalism.

    Firstly almost his entire party is made up of such people. They will go along with Starmer if he wins them an election but after that?

    Secondly graduates are a large and increasingly large demographic looking for a political home. Does he really want to repel them.

    Thirdly Starmer is a traditionalist not a populist. The Elphicke defection muddies the distinction.

    But I don't think Starmer is triangulating or just saying what people want to hear. If anything he's not triangulating enough
    It's possible - I don't know Mr Starmer.

    I would quite like to see a profile of Labour GE candidates, around backgrounds and experience - eg SPADs and insiders vs people who have experience in jobs and careers outside politics.

    Also where they are with All Women Shortlists. Over time the rhetoric shifted from eg "10% of women MPs are not enough" to eg "35% of women MPs are not enough", and now for women are a majority of Labour MPs. So I think it's probably time to drop the sex-quota.
    Yes, quotas can be useful as temporary adjustments to drive change. They should not be permanent.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,732

    I think there is an assumption that Labour will go to shit as soon as they are elected but I want to play devil’s advocate and suggest that the country will give them a very long honeymoon because of how much they want the Tories gone.

    The Tories will have to change a lot to get back in, in one term. And based on Labour from 2010 onwards that does not seem likely.

    a) will they want to? I don't see much sign of a party willing to compromise with the wider electorate.

    b) even if they want to change, do they have the people and ideas to do so? Canadian Tories managed it by going YIMBY, but Starmer looks like landing on that space first.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,164
    Good morning everyone; much brighter this morning than yesterday, and that turned out very well!

    On topic, more or less, as a lifelong Leftist I wouldn’t be happy to be in the same party as Ms Elphicke. On the other hand, she’s entitled to change her mind, always assuming that said ‘change’ isn’t motivated by some base motive, such as influencing the local council!
    I don’t think Sir Keir should have gone down to Dover and ‘encouraged’ her, and, come to that, he should have made as much fuss as was made of her floor-crossing.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,133
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Labour majority is nailed on but the size of that majority is very much up for grabs and could well affect the election after the next one.

    My view? Rather than a "tradeable bank" that Labour can dine off for 2 or 3 parliamentary terms, depending on how big the majority is, my view is that it's essentially irrelevant and that boot will go on the other foot as soon as he's in.
    Like Blair, PM Starmer would benefit from an economy significantly on the up. However, all of those who have supported him getting to be PM will have their hand out. And he will have to disappoint most.

    And Labour has no answer to the small boats. Expect it to become an armada of bigger boats. What then?
    I suspect ID cards are going to make a reappearance in the next parliament.
    Three requirements for the database:

    1) Accessible to the public so they can check and challenge any inaccuracies in their records;

    2) Full record of who has accessed it so we can check who is looking at our info and challenge anyone who has done so for an improper purpose.

    3) Criminal prosecutions for any breach of 2.

    And two for the ID card:

    1) Supersedes all other forms of ID including driving licences, DBS clearances and NI numbers;

    2) Does not have to be carried at all times.

    If those five criteria are met we can be reasonably confident that our rights are protected and Satan is wondering what the fuck to do with his new ice rink.
    My issue is that the way you've written 1 implies a super database again - but that's not required.

    The ID card confirms who you are - that by itself should be sufficient for the user to then pull up the driving licence / DBS clearance / NI number from the driving licence / DBS clearance / NI number independently separate database.

    Yes, the ID card itself doesn’t need the super database, it just needs to have sufficient security measures to be trusted by someone who looks at it.

    There are arguments in favour of linking everything up together, including that it’s pretty much impossible to live as an illegal without one, but that brings privacy and abuse problems that need to be thought through and properly debated beforehand. There’s also the issue of scope creep, for example business refusing to accept anything except the ID card or passport as ID, even if it’s not technically compulsory.
    (I live in a country with the big database, and can see both sides of the argument, the libertarian in me being against such things, but the pragmatist in me understanding how useful it can make interaction with the State).
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,047

    2017 stands out in another way. Along with 1983, it's the only election where the Tories did worse in the election than the polls said two weeks from polling day.

    My lesson from 2017 is not about possible polling error, but for the potential for the election campaign to change minds. It is not hard for me to see Starmer having a poor campaign, and for negative online adverts to rally some reluctant Tory voters.

    I wonder whether the 15/2 available for no overall majority is now value?

    It lies in the gap between 41 Tory losses and 123 Labour gains. That feels like a large landing zone to me.

    It's possible for Starmer to have a poor campaign, but seems nailed on that Sunak will be far worse.
Sign In or Register to comment.