Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

The Last Laugh: Might Corbyn outpoll Starmer? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,917
edited June 8 in General
imageThe Last Laugh: Might Corbyn outpoll Starmer? – politicalbetting.com

Labour activists may never stop arguing about 2017. Was it an almost-victory prevented only by centrist sabotage or a dead cat bounce which proved Jeremy Corbyn couldn’t even beat ‘The Maybot’ with several lucky breaks?

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    edited May 23
    SITE NOTICE.

    We have implemented a new set up regarding embedded photos.

    PBers are now only permitted to embed one photo per calendar day. This does not mean multiple photos in one post.

    The issue was too many photos were being embedded and it was causing rendering issues.

    If PBers stick to this we will consider increasing the limit.

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    Thanks Pip.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106
    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.
  • Options
    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.
  • Options

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    It's not really in our gift. Russia wants victory, and that, for the time being, remains that.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Inevitable counterpoint: Jo Swinson also increased her party’s absolute votes and share in 2019, but lost seats.
  • Options
    SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 6,930
    On topic, I agree that is a very good price. It's ultimately meaningless and a bit much to say it would involve Corbyn having the last laugh - the fact is there was an exceptionally high two party vote, and rather crucially more of that two party vote went to May. But it's a good price.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157
    Great article!
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    Sean_F said:

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    It's not really in our gift. Russia wants victory, and that, for the time being, remains that.
    I expect Russia wants a negotiated settlement on its terms. Not one it has to compromise on. Not that you could trust them anyway.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    So for my patch of Norfolk, here are my initial predictions (will update mid campaign after getting some feedback and seeing polling)
    Norwich North - Lab gain
    Norwich South (my constituency) - Lab Hold, Greens second
    NW Nofollk - Con Hold
    SW Norfolk (Truss) - Con Hold
    Mid Norfolk - Con Hold
    South Norfolk - Lab Gain
    Broadland and Fakenham - Toss up Lab/Con lean Con
    Great Yarmouth - Toss up Lab/Con lean Lab
    North Norfolk - Toss up LD/Con lean LD
    Waveney Valley- Con win (new seat)
  • Options

    SITE NOTICE.

    We have implemented a new set up regarding embedded photos.

    PBers are now only permitted to embed one photo per calendar day. This does not mean multiple photos in one post.

    The issue was too many photos were being embedded and it was causing rendering issues.

    If PBers stick to this we will consider increasing the limit.

    Can't we just link photos using URLs and then you can view them externally? E.g. Imgur has a nice image viewer.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 30,247
    fpt
    Leon said:

    Stats like this are just mindboggling

    "total net migration in the whole of the 1980s and 1990s was 606,000. In short the UK is experiencing more net immigration in a single year than we had in the last two decades of the 20th century."

    Starmer will have to do something about it, whether his party likes it or not.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,486
    edited May 23

    SITE NOTICE.

    We have implemented a new set up regarding embedded photos.

    PBers are now only permitted to embed one photo per calendar day. This does not mean multiple photos in one post.

    The issue was too many photos were being embedded and it was causing rendering issues.

    If PBers stick to this we will consider increasing the limit.

    Thank-you.

    I now consider myself well-informed.

    And thank you @Quincel for a great header.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,605

    SITE NOTICE.

    We have implemented a new set up regarding embedded photos.

    PBers are now only permitted to embed one photo per calendar day. This does not mean multiple photos in one post.

    The issue was too many photos were being embedded and it was causing rendering issues.

    If PBers stick to this we will consider increasing the limit.

    The Eagles has spoken!!!
  • Options
    SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 6,930

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    They wouldn't if Starmer was PM, would they?

    I mean, Blair got fewer votes in his 2001 landslide than Kinnock in his 1992 defeat. The only thing that mattered is he got enough of the votes cast in the seats where it counted - the rest is trivia.
  • Options
    The Tories are challenging Keir Starmer to debate Rishi Sunak **every week** in the campaign.

    That would be six TV debates, a record.

    Source close to Sunak tells me: “We will do as many as we can get. We will do one every week if he wants.”

    https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1793606332811264456
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 30,247

    SITE NOTICE.

    We have implemented a new set up regarding embedded photos.

    PBers are now only permitted to embed one photo per calendar day. This does not mean multiple photos in one post.

    The issue was too many photos were being embedded and it was causing rendering issues.

    If PBers stick to this we will consider increasing the limit.

    Can't we just link photos using URLs and then you can view them externally? E.g. Imgur has a nice image viewer.
    The same thing happened with Twitter posts about 5 years ago. Originally they would appear embedded in PB threads but they were taking up too much space so we just had the links instead.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,326
    FPT
    Leon said:

    HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???

    Reasons are as follows
    • I) Our current ruling classes have no tie to the physical United Kingdom, either living in other countries (Andrew Neil, Stanley Johnson, David Miliband, Nick Clegg) or wanting to (Rishi Sunak). It does not matter to them in the UK is shit
    • II) Enshittification. Having taken on large debt from foreign powers, the UK has to be forced to grow to service that debt
    • III) Distance of the political class from the working class, as previously discussed
    • IV) Cargo-cult management of abstractions. By becoming reliant on indicators on a screen they attempt to tune the economy to those indicators, whilst neglecting the things that really matter to people.
    • V) other stuff I forgot
    So they don't know how to run an economy, consider their clients to be foreigners not the locals, don't know the locals enough to assess anyway, and will fuck off when it becomes too difficult.

    I could throw this into a PowerPoint if you'd like.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    They wouldn’t, least of all ‘certainly’

    I know you’re keen to grasp any straw you can but I don’t think Labour will give the faintest fig about esoteric stats so long as they secure a decent majority.

    In 2005 Tony Blair won a 66 seat majority on a 35.4% share.
    In 2010 Cameron became PM on a 36.2% share
    In 2015 he won a majority on 36.9%

    … and so it goes on.

    IF Labour win this time there are bound to be some quirks in the stats of various kinds. We have a first past the post system in this country. It is what it is and whoever plays it correctly and wins a majority, wins. After that, the rest is froth.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,743
    Andy_JS said:

    fpt

    Leon said:

    Stats like this are just mindboggling

    "total net migration in the whole of the 1980s and 1990s was 606,000. In short the UK is experiencing more net immigration in a single year than we had in the last two decades of the 20th century."

    Starmer will have to do something about it, whether his party likes it or not.
    I think if a journalist gave Starmer five representative biographies of recent immigrants and was told to pick two to approve and three to reject he wouldn't or couldn't do it. He'd find it too unpleasant and politically difficult to do so. But that's the sort of harshness required to get back to the ballpark of what was already perceived as too much immigration.

  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,326
    Oooh, good catch @Quincel. And nice to see you back Pip.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    Snap CHB. I was posting my reply when you did.

    Casino Royale will not be able to explain why because he, like a few of the last rump of the right, are trying desperately to grasp at straws on what looks, at this stage, like an inevitable drubbing.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460
    Maybe. But what would that matter? It's outcome that counts.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    viewcode said:

    Oooh, good catch @Quincel. And nice to see you back Pip.

    I've got a second Quincel piece ready for publication (likely tomorrow).
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    Those odds are an absolute gift. I assume they won't last much longer, if they aren't already gone.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 23
    glw said:

    Andy_JS said:

    fpt

    Leon said:

    Stats like this are just mindboggling

    "total net migration in the whole of the 1980s and 1990s was 606,000. In short the UK is experiencing more net immigration in a single year than we had in the last two decades of the 20th century."

    Starmer will have to do something about it, whether his party likes it or not.
    I think if a journalist gave Starmer five representative biographies of recent immigrants and was told to pick two to approve and three to reject he wouldn't or couldn't do it. He'd find it too unpleasant and politically difficult to do so. But that's the sort of harshness required to get back to the ballpark of what was already perceived as too much immigration.

    The problem is no member of the ruling classes can or will either. Too scared of being labelled racist, elitist, or worried about being unpopular with whatever sector of business / public sector their choices might signal a restriction.

    And of course, there will always be edge cases, see attempts at raising the minimum salary required for a visa. And again every politician folds immediately. Sunak's £35k a year policy got binned within weeks.
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    Snap CHB. I was posting my reply when you did.

    Casino Royale will not be able to explain why because he, like a few of the last rump of the right, are trying desperately to grasp at straws on what looks, at this stage, like an inevitable drubbing.
    I strongly disagree. Casino has been saying it's going to be a drubbing for ages.

    Casino is of the right, I don't think doesn't pretend he isn't and posts from that perspective. I am of the centre/centre left, I post from that perspective. It's when people try and imply they are impartial that I get a bit baffled.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    edited May 23

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    A negotiated settlement is further away now than at any point in the war. The most likely outcome is that the war simply continues, at least for another year, exact timescale depending on the result of the US election and other choices.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645
    I tend to agree that vote totals don't matter, provided Labour win, which they will.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460
    Andy_JS said:

    fpt

    Leon said:

    Stats like this are just mindboggling

    "total net migration in the whole of the 1980s and 1990s was 606,000. In short the UK is experiencing more net immigration in a single year than we had in the last two decades of the 20th century."

    Starmer will have to do something about it, whether his party likes it or not.
    Not for years he won't. Until there's electoral consequences
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    @mikeysmith

    Rishi Sunak, the day after perhaps the most botched election announcement of all time, is currently visiting a brewery in South Wales.

    Because apparently there weren't enough jokes.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    A negotiated settlement is further away now than at any point in the war. The most likely outcome is that the war simply continues, at least for another year, exact timescale depending on the result of the US election and other choices.
    It will become the new normal, and Russia's control accepted as unpleasant but nothing more to be done about it.
  • Options

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    A negotiated settlement is further away now than at any point in the war. The most likely outcome is that the war simply continues, at least for another year, exact timescale depending on the result of the US election and other choices.
    What exactly do you think the outcome of the war will be, at some point in the future? You either think Russia will win and take everything, Ukraine will win and take everything, something in the middle or the war will go on forever - but that's surely not a sustainable.

    What do you think the outcome will be?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645
    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???

    Reasons are as follows
    • I) Our current ruling classes have no tie to the physical United Kingdom, either living in other countries (Andrew Neil, Stanley Johnson, David Miliband, Nick Clegg) or wanting to (Rishi Sunak). It does not matter to them in the UK is shit
    • II) Enshittification. Having taken on large debt from foreign powers, the UK has to be forced to grow to service that debt
    • III) Distance of the political class from the working class, as previously discussed
    • IV) Cargo-cult management of abstractions. By becoming reliant on indicators on a screen they attempt to tune the economy to those indicators, whilst neglecting the things that really matter to people.
    • V) other stuff I forgot
    So they don't know how to run an economy, consider their clients to be foreigners not the locals, don't know the locals enough to assess anyway, and will fuck off when it becomes too difficult.

    I could throw this into a PowerPoint if you'd like.
    Our governing class is of poor quality, for sure. As @Gardenwalker points out, they seem not to like this country very much.

    There is something pretty rotten - we know - in the state of the Conservatives' candidate list, but I suspect the same is true of Labour and Lib Dems.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    fpt

    Leon said:

    Stats like this are just mindboggling

    "total net migration in the whole of the 1980s and 1990s was 606,000. In short the UK is experiencing more net immigration in a single year than we had in the last two decades of the 20th century."

    Starmer will have to do something about it, whether his party likes it or not.
    Not for years he won't. Until there's electoral consequences
    Starmer will not do anything about it. Labour are perfectly happy with high levels of inward migration. There is a a significant chunk in labour that are "no human is illegal, open doors" and they think setting entry level standards like wage levels or job types discriminate too.

    I do not doubt this view will prevail to a degree within labour. It has been the political consensus since 1997.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    As I noted at the end of the last thread, the Korean war ended when the Koreans had enough of it; similarly with Vietnam and Afghanistan.
    (Though each of those conflicts was different from the others in various respects.)

    For now, Ukraine does not wish to give in to Putin - which is what a deal now would require. And that's not going to happen unless the west actively forces them to do so.

    It's pretty well meaningless to say that a negotiated settlement is the most realistic outcome, as that's true of the vast majority of conflicts. What we're arguing about is what happens before that.
  • Options
    'What are the top three priorities for people in Grimsby going into this general election?' -
    @skysarahjane


    Owner of The Canopy Kitchen Michelle Cook says...
    🏫 Schools
    📈 Cost of living
    🩺 NHS

    https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1793608635358060975
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,146
    Whilst the topic of this thread is interesting in a pub quiz type way, the more intriguing vote total for anyone to tilt at is John Major’s 14m vote haul in 1992. Bojo fell a tad short last time, not sure anyone is going to get close to it this time so wonder how long it will take to go past that level.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157
    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???

    Reasons are as follows
    • I) Our current ruling classes have no tie to the physical United Kingdom, either living in other countries (Andrew Neil, Stanley Johnson, David Miliband, Nick Clegg) or wanting to (Rishi Sunak). It does not matter to them in the UK is shit
    • II) Enshittification. Having taken on large debt from foreign powers, the UK has to be forced to grow to service that debt
    • III) Distance of the political class from the working class, as previously discussed
    • IV) Cargo-cult management of abstractions. By becoming reliant on indicators on a screen they attempt to tune the economy to those indicators, whilst neglecting the things that really matter to people.
    • V) other stuff I forgot
    So they don't know how to run an economy, consider their clients to be foreigners not the locals, don't know the locals enough to assess anyway, and will fuck off when it becomes too difficult.

    I could throw this into a PowerPoint if you'd like.
    My take is that an economy structured to benefit the wealthy and old at the expense of earners and the young is built on sand.

    The fertility rate crashes. 18 years later, a hole needs to be plugged. So you simply import people to replace those who were never born.

    Those people primarily move to the big cities. Instead of even growth across the country, the working age population concentrates in a few hot spots. There isn't enough housing in those spots to go around, so no one has kids... and so on.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072

    Heathener said:

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    Snap CHB. I was posting my reply when you did.

    Casino Royale will not be able to explain why because he, like a few of the last rump of the right, are trying desperately to grasp at straws on what looks, at this stage, like an inevitable drubbing.
    I strongly disagree. Casino has been saying it's going to be a drubbing for ages.

    Casino is of the right, I don't think doesn't pretend he isn't and posts from that perspective. I am of the centre/centre left, I post from that perspective. It's when people try and imply they are impartial that I get a bit baffled.
    He, like one or two others, are consoling themselves with the apparent foreknowledge that Starmer will fail. And they look for any signs that this will happen, even before they appear. It’s not only tedious, it’s far from impartial.

    No one knows what SKS will be like as PM, should he be elected. He is just as likely to surprise on the upside as the opposite. It’s desperation to find solace in this.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,427

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    A negotiated settlement is further away now than at any point in the war. The most likely outcome is that the war simply continues, at least for another year, exact timescale depending on the result of the US election and other choices.
    What exactly do you think the outcome of the war will be, at some point in the future? You either think Russia will win and take everything, Ukraine will win and take everything, something in the middle or the war will go on forever - but that's surely not a sustainable.

    What do you think the outcome will be?
    "or the war will go on forever - but that's surely not a sustainable" - Korea says hello.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    As I noted at the end of the last thread, the Korean war ended when the Koreans had enough of it; similarly with Vietnam and Afghanistan.
    (Though each of those conflicts was different from the others in various respects.)

    For now, Ukraine does not wish to give in to Putin - which is what a deal now would require. And that's not going to happen unless the west actively forces them to do so.

    It's pretty well meaningless to say that a negotiated settlement is the most realistic outcome, as that's true of the vast majority of conflicts. What we're arguing about is what happens before that.
    People are disagreeing about even that, as above.

    The war cannot go on forever can it? The money will run out at some point. Do you think they'll be fighting for decades? What's your timeline?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460
    Sean_F said:

    I tend to agree that vote totals don't matter, provided Labour win, which they will.

    I get people like a high vote share, but I remain baffled at the shrinking core of people who not only prize it but disregard the inconvenience of the actual election results.

    Besides anything else Theresa May was still more popular than Corbyn. Starmer will not be less popular than Sunak.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    @JournoStephen
    Set aside the questions of procedural correctness. This is just terrible politics. The ordinary voter is going to see this as Swinney protecting his mate. Six weeks out from a general election, it’s hard to fathom how this will help already struggling SNP MPs.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    Sean_F said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???

    Reasons are as follows
    • I) Our current ruling classes have no tie to the physical United Kingdom, either living in other countries (Andrew Neil, Stanley Johnson, David Miliband, Nick Clegg) or wanting to (Rishi Sunak). It does not matter to them in the UK is shit
    • II) Enshittification. Having taken on large debt from foreign powers, the UK has to be forced to grow to service that debt
    • III) Distance of the political class from the working class, as previously discussed
    • IV) Cargo-cult management of abstractions. By becoming reliant on indicators on a screen they attempt to tune the economy to those indicators, whilst neglecting the things that really matter to people.
    • V) other stuff I forgot
    So they don't know how to run an economy, consider their clients to be foreigners not the locals, don't know the locals enough to assess anyway, and will fuck off when it becomes too difficult.

    I could throw this into a PowerPoint if you'd like.
    Our governing class is of poor quality, for sure. As @Gardenwalker points out, they seem not to like this country very much.

    There is something pretty rotten - we know - in the state of the Conservatives' candidate list, but I suspect the same is true of Labour and Lib Dems.
    I wonder how many Jared O'Mara's we will end up with given both main parties have well over 100 candidates to find in a fortnight or so.

    Also how many SPAD's and pals of the leader get parachuted into safe seats.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    ToryJim said:

    Whilst the topic of this thread is interesting in a pub quiz type way, the more intriguing vote total for anyone to tilt at is John Major’s 14m vote haul in 1992. Bojo fell a tad short last time, not sure anyone is going to get close to it this time so wonder how long it will take to go past that level.

    As mentioned in the header, you can actually bet on this, so it is not just pub quiz trivia.
    8/1 less than 2017
    50/1 less than 2019
  • Options
    Scott_xP said:

    @JournoStephen
    Set aside the questions of procedural correctness. This is just terrible politics. The ordinary voter is going to see this as Swinney protecting his mate. Six weeks out from a general election, it’s hard to fathom how this will help already struggling SNP MPs.

    He saw what Johnson did which brought him down and has decided to copy it. Baffling.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    @TomLarkinSky

    Rishi Sunak taking a brave approach to small talk at a brewery in Wales.

    He asked workers if they're looking forward to 'all the football'. One quickly pointed out that Wales haven't qualified for the Euros 😬
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    “Honest” (sic) John

    Calamitous FMQs for John Swinney. Immediately after his extraordinary decision to back Michael Matheson, he repeats the thoroughly debunked claim that 100% of electricity consumption in Scotland is from renewable sources. This is unambiguously false.

    https://x.com/staylorish/status/1793608427522187740
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    Sean_F said:

    I tend to agree that vote totals don't matter, provided Labour win, which they will.

    For me it is how big the labour win is, not if they will win.

    Starmer does not need to debate Sunak or anyone. He is in pole position after all. Sunak has nothing to lose.
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,478

    Heathener said:

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    Snap CHB. I was posting my reply when you did.

    Casino Royale will not be able to explain why because he, like a few of the last rump of the right, are trying desperately to grasp at straws on what looks, at this stage, like an inevitable drubbing.
    I strongly disagree. Casino has been saying it's going to be a drubbing for ages.

    Casino is of the right, I don't think doesn't pretend he isn't and posts from that perspective. I am of the centre/centre left, I post from that perspective. It's when people try and imply they are impartial that I get a bit baffled.
    I think we often confuse ideology for practicality. Casino is obviously deeply affected by the VAT on schools issue, and if I had kids I might be thinking the same way. As it is, I don't, but I am deeply affected by the Conservatives continual, repeated backtracking on leasehold reform, leaving me with a largely unsaleable flat, which is my primary motivator for sticking my X in the Labour box this time, though I'm not sure they won't be hobbled by the developer lobby too. Will probably wait to see if Labour make manifesto commitments before deciding whether to vote or just stay home.

    TL;DR I think a lot more people vote on practical issues than their core ideology than you might think.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,030

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    A negotiated settlement is further away now than at any point in the war. The most likely outcome is that the war simply continues, at least for another year, exact timescale depending on the result of the US election and other choices.
    Forever war is just one of the depressing predictions of 1984. It’s possible that Russia-Ukraine could go on for a lot longer than another year since neither side really wants compromised peace.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    Dylan Difford
    @Dylan_Difford
    ·
    51m
    The disproportionate number of 2019 Con -> Don't Knows (13%, vs 5% Lab) in current polls should provide room for a small poll boost for the Tories. Based on previous pre-campaign BES waves, we can see about half return home. Such a pattern today would close Labour's lead by 3pts.

    https://x.com/Dylan_Difford
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    OT we've vaguely mentioned this before. WFH from foreign climes risks foreign taxes (and foreign employment law).

    British employees working from the beach face shock tax bills
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/british-employees-working-from-the-beach-face-shock-tax-bills/ar-BB1mQKzq
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 23

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    A negotiated settlement is further away now than at any point in the war. The most likely outcome is that the war simply continues, at least for another year, exact timescale depending on the result of the US election and other choices.
    What exactly do you think the outcome of the war will be, at some point in the future? You either think Russia will win and take everything, Ukraine will win and take everything, something in the middle or the war will go on forever - but that's surely not a sustainable.

    What do you think the outcome will be?
    "or the war will go on forever - but that's surely not a sustainable" - Korea says hello.
    Well Ukraine vs Russia has been ongoing since 2014 already. People seem to forget that after Crimea, there has been a war in Donbas and Luhansk.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908

    Nigelb said:

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    As I noted at the end of the last thread, the Korean war ended when the Koreans had enough of it; similarly with Vietnam and Afghanistan.
    (Though each of those conflicts was different from the others in various respects.)

    For now, Ukraine does not wish to give in to Putin - which is what a deal now would require. And that's not going to happen unless the west actively forces them to do so.

    It's pretty well meaningless to say that a negotiated settlement is the most realistic outcome, as that's true of the vast majority of conflicts. What we're arguing about is what happens before that.
    People are disagreeing about even that, as above.

    The war cannot go on forever can it? The money will run out at some point. Do you think they'll be fighting for decades? What's your timeline?
    That depends on whether we give Ukraine the tools to defeat the invasion or not.
    They either win, or they lose; how long that takes is largely down to us. Unless Putin simply gives up, which seems highly unlikely.
  • Options
    BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 3,041
    edited May 23
    kyf_100 said:

    Heathener said:

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    Snap CHB. I was posting my reply when you did.

    Casino Royale will not be able to explain why because he, like a few of the last rump of the right, are trying desperately to grasp at straws on what looks, at this stage, like an inevitable drubbing.
    I strongly disagree. Casino has been saying it's going to be a drubbing for ages.

    Casino is of the right, I don't think doesn't pretend he isn't and posts from that perspective. I am of the centre/centre left, I post from that perspective. It's when people try and imply they are impartial that I get a bit baffled.
    I think we often confuse ideology for practicality. Casino is obviously deeply affected by the VAT on schools issue, and if I had kids I might be thinking the same way. As it is, I don't, but I am deeply affected by the Conservatives continual, repeated backtracking on leasehold reform, leaving me with a largely unsaleable flat, which is my primary motivator for sticking my X in the Labour box this time, though I'm not sure they won't be hobbled by the developer lobby too. Will probably wait to see if Labour make manifesto commitments before deciding whether to vote or just stay home.

    TL;DR I think a lot more people vote on practical issues than their core ideology than you might think.
    To be honest a big reason for me to vote Labour selfishly is that I think they'll do something on planning which will improve 4G/5G coverage and broadband provision which will directly impact my work. So I take your point.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157
    Scott_xP said:

    @TomLarkinSky

    Rishi Sunak taking a brave approach to small talk at a brewery in Wales.

    He asked workers if they're looking forward to 'all the football'. One quickly pointed out that Wales haven't qualified for the Euros 😬

    Bless
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    As I noted at the end of the last thread, the Korean war ended when the Koreans had enough of it; similarly with Vietnam and Afghanistan.
    (Though each of those conflicts was different from the others in various respects.)

    For now, Ukraine does not wish to give in to Putin - which is what a deal now would require. And that's not going to happen unless the west actively forces them to do so.

    It's pretty well meaningless to say that a negotiated settlement is the most realistic outcome, as that's true of the vast majority of conflicts. What we're arguing about is what happens before that.
    People are disagreeing about even that, as above.

    The war cannot go on forever can it? The money will run out at some point. Do you think they'll be fighting for decades? What's your timeline?
    That depends on whether we give Ukraine the tools to defeat the invasion or not.
    They either win, or they lose; how long that takes is largely down to us. Unless Putin simply gives up, which seems highly unlikely.
    Okay so let's interrogate this a bit more, what tools do Ukraine need to win?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    Have we heard from Brenda yet?
  • Options
    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    Scott_xP said:

    @TomLarkinSky

    Rishi Sunak taking a brave approach to small talk at a brewery in Wales.

    He asked workers if they're looking forward to 'all the football'. One quickly pointed out that Wales haven't qualified for the Euros 😬

    Six weeks of haplessness campaigning.

    Pass the popcorn.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554

    kyf_100 said:

    Heathener said:

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    Snap CHB. I was posting my reply when you did.

    Casino Royale will not be able to explain why because he, like a few of the last rump of the right, are trying desperately to grasp at straws on what looks, at this stage, like an inevitable drubbing.
    I strongly disagree. Casino has been saying it's going to be a drubbing for ages.

    Casino is of the right, I don't think doesn't pretend he isn't and posts from that perspective. I am of the centre/centre left, I post from that perspective. It's when people try and imply they are impartial that I get a bit baffled.
    I think we often confuse ideology for practicality. Casino is obviously deeply affected by the VAT on schools issue, and if I had kids I might be thinking the same way. As it is, I don't, but I am deeply affected by the Conservatives continual, repeated backtracking on leasehold reform, leaving me with a largely unsaleable flat, which is my primary motivator for sticking my X in the Labour box this time, though I'm not sure they won't be hobbled by the developer lobby too. Will probably wait to see if Labour make manifesto commitments before deciding whether to vote or just stay home.

    TL;DR I think a lot more people vote on practical issues than their core ideology than you might think.
    To be honest a big reason for me to vote Labour selfishly is that I think they'll do something on planning which will improve 4G/5G coverage and broadband provision which will directly impact my work. So I take your point.
    Got to ask what work do you do where 4G/5G and broadband are so important?
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    Do you actually think the majority of voters will even register this ? Or care ?
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    So what, who really cares. People are not stupid. They will know this sort of thing goes on. This will not drive a single vote.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    Question. If you Baxter today's YouGov poll you get to about 43 seats for the Tories.

    Is there anyone who thinks this, or something approaching it, will actually occur?
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    The charge against Richi is that he is unable to connect with real people

    The CCHQ response to that is to show him interacting with a fake voter

    Yes, people will register this. Yes, they will care.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,427

    kyf_100 said:

    Heathener said:

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    Snap CHB. I was posting my reply when you did.

    Casino Royale will not be able to explain why because he, like a few of the last rump of the right, are trying desperately to grasp at straws on what looks, at this stage, like an inevitable drubbing.
    I strongly disagree. Casino has been saying it's going to be a drubbing for ages.

    Casino is of the right, I don't think doesn't pretend he isn't and posts from that perspective. I am of the centre/centre left, I post from that perspective. It's when people try and imply they are impartial that I get a bit baffled.
    I think we often confuse ideology for practicality. Casino is obviously deeply affected by the VAT on schools issue, and if I had kids I might be thinking the same way. As it is, I don't, but I am deeply affected by the Conservatives continual, repeated backtracking on leasehold reform, leaving me with a largely unsaleable flat, which is my primary motivator for sticking my X in the Labour box this time, though I'm not sure they won't be hobbled by the developer lobby too. Will probably wait to see if Labour make manifesto commitments before deciding whether to vote or just stay home.

    TL;DR I think a lot more people vote on practical issues than their core ideology than you might think.
    To be honest a big reason for me to vote Labour selfishly is that I think they'll do something on planning which will improve 4G/5G coverage and broadband provision which will directly impact my work. So I take your point.
    It's worth noting that it is possible to get things done without throwing the planning system in the bin.

    Offshore wind worked because of streamlining the process in a common sense manner. If you have all the reports on wrecks, fishery impact etc lined up, then it goes through is a sensible amount of time.

    The screaming from the Enquiristas, on this, is rarely heard. I did enjoy talking to a chap who specialised in such enquiries - according to him, multi year enquires are a human right. Well, given that he was paid by the hour....
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 30,247
    edited May 23
    O/T

    Amusing.

    "I do not give, or even attend, many public lectures, but I have noticed that, whenever I do, there is always someone present who, during the question-and-answer session afterward, makes a speech that he is determined to deliver and was obviously prepared long before the lecture whether or not it be relevant to whatever the lecturer has said. Often the moderator has to recall him to the fact that he is supposed to be asking a question, at which point (depending on the forcefulness of the moderator’s personality) he either continues as before or asks a brief and banal question that he could just as well have asked without all that he has previously said. Such a person is obviously a lecturer manqué: At some level in his mind, he thinks that he should really have been the one giving the lecture, not the lecturer, a poor creature by comparison with himself."

    https://shorturl.at/Cinrv
  • Options
    eek said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Heathener said:

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    Snap CHB. I was posting my reply when you did.

    Casino Royale will not be able to explain why because he, like a few of the last rump of the right, are trying desperately to grasp at straws on what looks, at this stage, like an inevitable drubbing.
    I strongly disagree. Casino has been saying it's going to be a drubbing for ages.

    Casino is of the right, I don't think doesn't pretend he isn't and posts from that perspective. I am of the centre/centre left, I post from that perspective. It's when people try and imply they are impartial that I get a bit baffled.
    I think we often confuse ideology for practicality. Casino is obviously deeply affected by the VAT on schools issue, and if I had kids I might be thinking the same way. As it is, I don't, but I am deeply affected by the Conservatives continual, repeated backtracking on leasehold reform, leaving me with a largely unsaleable flat, which is my primary motivator for sticking my X in the Labour box this time, though I'm not sure they won't be hobbled by the developer lobby too. Will probably wait to see if Labour make manifesto commitments before deciding whether to vote or just stay home.

    TL;DR I think a lot more people vote on practical issues than their core ideology than you might think.
    To be honest a big reason for me to vote Labour selfishly is that I think they'll do something on planning which will improve 4G/5G coverage and broadband provision which will directly impact my work. So I take your point.
    Got to ask what work do you do where 4G/5G and broadband are so important?
    I am sure you can guess.

    Also, it's something as a topic I find interesting and something which we lag behind our competitors significantly. As a driver of productivity it's a big one.

    I know others here don't care much about it but I do.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    algarkirk said:

    Question. If you Baxter today's YouGov poll you get to about 43 seats for the Tories.

    Is there anyone who thinks this, or something approaching it, will actually occur?

    No.

    175-200 I think is their range.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    Scott_xP said:

    The charge against Richi is that he is unable to connect with real people

    The CCHQ response to that is to show him interacting with a fake voter

    Yes, people will register this. Yes, they will care.

    Kevin Schofield
    @KevinASchofield
    ·
    3h
    The Conservatives' strategy is to put Rishi Sunak front and centre of a presidential-style campaign.

    That's certainly bold, given his poor personal ratings.

    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1793552183923003545
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    A negotiated settlement is further away now than at any point in the war. The most likely outcome is that the war simply continues, at least for another year, exact timescale depending on the result of the US election and other choices.
    What exactly do you think the outcome of the war will be, at some point in the future? You either think Russia will win and take everything, Ukraine will win and take everything, something in the middle or the war will go on forever - but that's surely not a sustainable.

    What do you think the outcome will be?
    I think the outcome depends on what the West does.

    So far the West hadn't done enough to support Ukraine to achieve victory. Russia is still producing more artillery shells than the West. Russia is still importing Western components for its missiles via third countries. Russia is still selling its oil to the West via third countries.

    I think that the West has within its power the potential to produce more war material, of a higher quality than Russia. This would enable Ukraine to win the war, and to win the war with fewer casualties the better the equipment provided to Ukraine.

    The West can also do more diplomatically to hinder Russian trade, and to deter Chinese support.

    But this is a choice. It's a choice that, despite a lot of rhetoric, the West hasn't yet made. Depending on the outcome of the elections in the US, the choice might be to reduce Western support, and Ukraine would then slide to a slow and costly defeat.

    I hope for better choices that would free all of Ukraine from Russian occupation, and teach China a lesson about the willingness of the West to defend fellow democracies - a lesson that is very relevant when the Chinese armed forces are today surrounding Taiwan with a military exercise as a "punishment" for their choice of President.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,427

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    As I noted at the end of the last thread, the Korean war ended when the Koreans had enough of it; similarly with Vietnam and Afghanistan.
    (Though each of those conflicts was different from the others in various respects.)

    For now, Ukraine does not wish to give in to Putin - which is what a deal now would require. And that's not going to happen unless the west actively forces them to do so.

    It's pretty well meaningless to say that a negotiated settlement is the most realistic outcome, as that's true of the vast majority of conflicts. What we're arguing about is what happens before that.
    People are disagreeing about even that, as above.

    The war cannot go on forever can it? The money will run out at some point. Do you think they'll be fighting for decades? What's your timeline?
    That depends on whether we give Ukraine the tools to defeat the invasion or not.
    They either win, or they lose; how long that takes is largely down to us. Unless Putin simply gives up, which seems highly unlikely.
    Okay so let's interrogate this a bit more, what tools do Ukraine need to win?
    This

    image
  • Options

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    Do you actually think the majority of voters will even register this ? Or care ?
    Absolutely not. But it doesn't suggest to me that they've got a very component campaigning team, which does matter.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 23
    Taz said:
    I wonder what percentage are fruitcakes? I presume some journalist has now been tasked with the exciting job of reading through all their social media accounts.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    It was a joke.
  • Options

    My post seems to have been lost.

    Stewart - nor me - are saying we want a negotiated settlement in Russia/Ukraine, only that is the most realistic thing that will happen at this stage. I don't think any serious person honestly believes at this stage that this war will end unless that happens.

    It's not what I want - and I am happy to be called an appeaser by the usual people, fine - but I don't think pointing out a realistic outcome is a bad thing.

    A negotiated settlement is further away now than at any point in the war. The most likely outcome is that the war simply continues, at least for another year, exact timescale depending on the result of the US election and other choices.
    What exactly do you think the outcome of the war will be, at some point in the future? You either think Russia will win and take everything, Ukraine will win and take everything, something in the middle or the war will go on forever - but that's surely not a sustainable.

    What do you think the outcome will be?
    I think the outcome depends on what the West does.

    So far the West hadn't done enough to support Ukraine to achieve victory. Russia is still producing more artillery shells than the West. Russia is still importing Western components for its missiles via third countries. Russia is still selling its oil to the West via third countries.

    I think that the West has within its power the potential to produce more war material, of a higher quality than Russia. This would enable Ukraine to win the war, and to win the war with fewer casualties the better the equipment provided to Ukraine.

    The West can also do more diplomatically to hinder Russian trade, and to deter Chinese support.

    But this is a choice. It's a choice that, despite a lot of rhetoric, the West hasn't yet made. Depending on the outcome of the elections in the US, the choice might be to reduce Western support, and Ukraine would then slide to a slow and costly defeat.

    I hope for better choices that would free all of Ukraine from Russian occupation, and teach China a lesson about the willingness of the West to defend fellow democracies - a lesson that is very relevant when the Chinese armed forces are today surrounding Taiwan with a military exercise as a "punishment" for their choice of President.
    BTW thanks for not just calling me an appeaser and actually discussing this with me.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106
    Heathener said:

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    They wouldn’t, least of all ‘certainly’

    I know you’re keen to grasp any straw you can but I don’t think Labour will give the faintest fig about esoteric stats so long as they secure a decent majority.

    In 2005 Tony Blair won a 66 seat majority on a 35.4% share.
    In 2010 Cameron became PM on a 36.2% share
    In 2015 he won a majority on 36.9%

    … and so it goes on.

    IF Labour win this time there are bound to be some quirks in the stats of various kinds. We have a first past the post system in this country. It is what it is and whoever plays it correctly and wins a majority, wins. After that, the rest is froth.
    You need to work on your sense of humour.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106
    Many thanks to Pip @Quincel - great tip.

    I'm on.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    Do you actually think the majority of voters will even register this ? Or care ?
    Absolutely not. But it doesn't suggest to me that they've got a very component campaigning team, which does matter.
    This happens at almost every event at every election. Politicians don't allow themselves to be exposed to bear traps
  • Options

    kyf_100 said:

    Heathener said:

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    Snap CHB. I was posting my reply when you did.

    Casino Royale will not be able to explain why because he, like a few of the last rump of the right, are trying desperately to grasp at straws on what looks, at this stage, like an inevitable drubbing.
    I strongly disagree. Casino has been saying it's going to be a drubbing for ages.

    Casino is of the right, I don't think doesn't pretend he isn't and posts from that perspective. I am of the centre/centre left, I post from that perspective. It's when people try and imply they are impartial that I get a bit baffled.
    I think we often confuse ideology for practicality. Casino is obviously deeply affected by the VAT on schools issue, and if I had kids I might be thinking the same way. As it is, I don't, but I am deeply affected by the Conservatives continual, repeated backtracking on leasehold reform, leaving me with a largely unsaleable flat, which is my primary motivator for sticking my X in the Labour box this time, though I'm not sure they won't be hobbled by the developer lobby too. Will probably wait to see if Labour make manifesto commitments before deciding whether to vote or just stay home.

    TL;DR I think a lot more people vote on practical issues than their core ideology than you might think.
    To be honest a big reason for me to vote Labour selfishly is that I think they'll do something on planning which will improve 4G/5G coverage and broadband provision which will directly impact my work. So I take your point.
    It's worth noting that it is possible to get things done without throwing the planning system in the bin.

    Offshore wind worked because of streamlining the process in a common sense manner. If you have all the reports on wrecks, fishery impact etc lined up, then it goes through is a sensible amount of time.

    The screaming from the Enquiristas, on this, is rarely heard. I did enjoy talking to a chap who specialised in such enquiries - according to him, multi year enquires are a human right. Well, given that he was paid by the hour....
    I don't think Labour nor me are advocating throwing it in the bin but reforming it to allow things to be built more easily.

    For example if people hate masts, the simple solution is allow taller masts to be built and you need fewer of them. In the EU our requirements on mast height are still amongst the most restrictive, especially in urban areas.

    I think within the urban environment, frankly if an MNO wants to build a mast they should be allowed to assuming they do something like paint it green. But rejecting masts really is too common a practice and then people complain about poor provision.
  • Options

    Well, SKS fans would certainly have to explain that.

    Can you explain why? All that matters is whether you win a majority or not. As somebody formally of the "2017 was actually a win" narrative, I can see how insane it now sounds.
    It was a joke.
    Can I suggest an emoticon? I didn't read it as a joke and you often post in a serious manner so it is hard to read it.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    Do you actually think the majority of voters will even register this ? Or care ?
    Absolutely not. But it doesn't suggest to me that they've got a very component campaigning team, which does matter.
    Well that would match their inability to do much as a government.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982

    This happens at almost every event at every election. Politicians don't allow themselves to be exposed to bear traps

    @mikeysmith

    There it is.

    Literally day one of the campaign, failing to organise a piss-up in a brewery.

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106
    Sean_F said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???

    Reasons are as follows
    • I) Our current ruling classes have no tie to the physical United Kingdom, either living in other countries (Andrew Neil, Stanley Johnson, David Miliband, Nick Clegg) or wanting to (Rishi Sunak). It does not matter to them in the UK is shit
    • II) Enshittification. Having taken on large debt from foreign powers, the UK has to be forced to grow to service that debt
    • III) Distance of the political class from the working class, as previously discussed
    • IV) Cargo-cult management of abstractions. By becoming reliant on indicators on a screen they attempt to tune the economy to those indicators, whilst neglecting the things that really matter to people.
    • V) other stuff I forgot
    So they don't know how to run an economy, consider their clients to be foreigners not the locals, don't know the locals enough to assess anyway, and will fuck off when it becomes too difficult.

    I could throw this into a PowerPoint if you'd like.
    Our governing class is of poor quality, for sure. As @Gardenwalker points out, they seem not to like this country very much.

    There is something pretty rotten - we know - in the state of the Conservatives' candidate list, but I suspect the same is true of Labour and Lib Dems.
    But, who would want to be an MP?

    There aren't many rational reasons so, in the absence of that, it will attract a mix of those who do it out of public duty, but quiet a few more oddballs and narcissists - and those who think they can make it work for them.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 23

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    Do you actually think the majority of voters will even register this ? Or care ?
    Absolutely not. But it doesn't suggest to me that they've got a very component campaigning team, which does matter.
    This happens at almost every event at every election. Politicians don't allow themselves to be exposed to bear traps
    Actually i think if politicians can handle it, it can be a positive. Obviously Major and his soap box, but Cameron got ambushed by the Lib Dem activist who tried to use his disabled kid to shame Dave, but despite the media getting all excited at such a mic drop event, Cameron in the end came out of it fairly well as he was polite and engaged (despite the guy not doing it in good faith), and came across fairly well.

    What is weird about Sunak is his family background was fairly normal upto 16 (pretty much same as Starmer), but he is mow clearly massively detached from normal life.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645
    Taz said:

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    So what, who really cares. People are not stupid. They will know this sort of thing goes on. This will not drive a single vote.
    That has gone on from time immemorial. The afficionados seem to think that things like this are killer points, and game changers, when they aren't. Not even something like Brown's encounter with Mrs. Duffy actually had any impact on the vote.
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,705
    edited May 23
    kle4 said:

    Maybe. But what would that matter? It's outcome that counts.

    I think we lose sight sometime this is a betting site - one of the best GE tips so far is in the header. That 8/1 with skybet on labour getting less absolute votes than in 2017 is huge
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    @Smyth_Chris

    Messy on Rishi Sunak's legacy smoking ban

    It's not included in bills confirmed for wash up so far, so may well die

    But govt sources insist they are still pressing to get it through

    Reports of ministers begging Labour to help pass it

    To fit timetable of election PM called
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    Do you actually think the majority of voters will even register this ? Or care ?
    Absolutely not. But it doesn't suggest to me that they've got a very component campaigning team, which does matter.
    This happens at almost every event at every election. Politicians don't allow themselves to be exposed to bear traps
    Actually i think if politicians can handle it, it can be a positive. Obviously Major and his soap box, but Cameron got ambushed by the Lib Dem activist who tried to use his disabled kid to shame Dave, but despite the media getting all excited at such a mic drop event, Cameron in the end came out of it fairly well as he was polite and engaged (despite the guy not doing it in good faith).
    Gordon Brown and Mrs Duffy has to be one of the bigger clangers.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Taz said:

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    So what, who really cares. People are not stupid. They will know this sort of thing goes on. This will not drive a single vote.
    That has gone on from time immemorial. The afficionados seem to think that things like this are killer points, and game changers, when they aren't. Not even something like Brown's encounter with Mrs. Duffy actually had any impact on the vote.
    I think it did to be honest.
  • Options
    GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,152

    So for my patch of Norfolk, here are my initial predictions (will update mid campaign after getting some feedback and seeing polling)
    Norwich North - Lab gain
    Norwich South (my constituency) - Lab Hold, Greens second
    NW Nofollk - Con Hold
    SW Norfolk (Truss) - Con Hold
    Mid Norfolk - Con Hold
    South Norfolk - Lab Gain
    Broadland and Fakenham - Toss up Lab/Con lean Con
    Great Yarmouth - Toss up Lab/Con lean Lab
    North Norfolk - Toss up LD/Con lean LD
    Waveney Valley- Con win (new seat)

    Thanks for sharing. The ones that I am most interested in are South Norfolk and Broadland. I have to admit that I understand the polling calculators show Lab winning, but I really struggle to actually see Lab winning these big rural seats. The one I would have expected to be more likely is NW Norfolk as at least there's a reasonable sized town in King's Lynn
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 20,296
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @lizziedearden

    It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign

    Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July

    And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because

    These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
    Nothing magic about it, migration plummeted as an issue following 23/06/2016.

    Net migration of over 1.2 million people in the past two years and the overwhelming majority of the country, unlike you, just shrugs their shoulders and gets on with their life and doesn't care obsessively.

    Most people do care about other things like can they get a GP appointment, or the state of their roads, or can they get a train, or can they get a house etc - migration without corresponding investment does make those problems worse, but its entirely possible to have a growing population and have those problems get better not worse - indeed we've done so for centuries.

    Failing to invest in infrastructure, failure to construct enough housing etc is a political choice not an economic or demographic necessity.
    No, it's nonsense. Polls show that migration is resurging as an issue

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13448151/Immigration-living-costs-NHS-key-issues-Rishi-Keir-need-convince-say-voters-despite-split-party-theyre-united-one-thing-Britain-ready-polls.html

    And why? Because voters are only now waking up to the scale of what is happening


    "Cut immigration levels, say voters in nine out of 10 constituencies
    Polling also shows public underestimating scale of net migration by almost 10 times"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/13/cut-immigration-levels-voters-nine-of-10-constituencies/
    It would help your claim that polls show that if you had linked to you know an actual poll, with actual figures, instead of a Daily Fail article without one.

    Like IPSOS for instance: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-04/ipsos-uk-issues-index-april-2024-charts.pdf

    Immigration was named as an issue by almost 60% of the public in 2015.
    In April 2024 it was named by 24% of the public.

    Three quarters of the country are keeping calm and carrying on.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645

    Sean_F said:

    Taz said:

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    So what, who really cares. People are not stupid. They will know this sort of thing goes on. This will not drive a single vote.
    That has gone on from time immemorial. The afficionados seem to think that things like this are killer points, and game changers, when they aren't. Not even something like Brown's encounter with Mrs. Duffy actually had any impact on the vote.
    I think it did to be honest.
    Labour still wound up on 30% which is pretty much where they started.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    What a great tip from Q. If I wasn't banned from SkyBet I'd certainly do it.

    Matched betting got me stake limited eventually on Sky
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 23

    BREAKING: Byline Times has now identified a second hi-viz jacket-wearing man asking questions of Rishi Sunak at this morning's event as local Conservative councillor Ben Hall-Evans

    https://x.com/BylineTimes/status/1793603212630769816

    Could they have started this campaign worse?

    Do you actually think the majority of voters will even register this ? Or care ?
    Absolutely not. But it doesn't suggest to me that they've got a very component campaigning team, which does matter.
    This happens at almost every event at every election. Politicians don't allow themselves to be exposed to bear traps
    Actually i think if politicians can handle it, it can be a positive. Obviously Major and his soap box, but Cameron got ambushed by the Lib Dem activist who tried to use his disabled kid to shame Dave, but despite the media getting all excited at such a mic drop event, Cameron in the end came out of it fairly well as he was polite and engaged (despite the guy not doing it in good faith).
    Gordon Brown and Mrs Duffy has to be one of the bigger clangers.
    His problem was that he got caught letting out his real feelings for that demographic of people afterwards. The actual encounter was tricky, but not terrible.
This discussion has been closed.