After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.
Pretty shocked, thinking about it, that the first black woman MP was elected in 1987. Within my lifetime.
According to Wikipedia, she (and others in 1987) were also the first black MPs since the 19th Century (4 in 18th and 19th centuries). First black cabinet member Boateng in 2002. No Muslim MP until 1997.
James Carville: "The message from Biden is 'you should be happy with what you got' and the message from Trump is 'you should be happy with what you had'."
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Only two years ago we were wondering how and when Labour would be able to deny the Tories another majority.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
An ideal number for me would be about 60 unexpected one nation Tories returned from which the nucleus of a Tory party can be rebuilt.
100-175 would be 1997-style drifting and internal warfare. Which would be a shame.
My fear is that we end up with 60-80 headbangers. Enough to keep going as is: a powerless, moral vacuum.
I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.
If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?
Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
My previous address it was a mile and a half. No public transport.
A mile and a half is walking distance.
Three miles in total, to get there and back - so almost 5km, and would be a challenge for many. We should certainly do better than that, at least in urban areas.
Depending on the weather, too. No joke in winter darkness.
Just turned the heating on - but it's 1st June tomorrow!
PA have updated their count of the number of MPs standing down at the next election, after Aaron Bell said he would not stand, and Julian Knight announced he would be standing as an independent.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Only two years ago we were wondering how and when Labour would be able to deny the Tories another majority.
Yes it is a stunning collapse, and - worse - it is completely deserved
Congrats to those PBers who called Hartlepool as the Tory peak and predicted the descent thereafter
Personally I didn’t foresee anything this dramatic but now it is happening I don’t give a toss. If the Tories die so be it, and it’s probably for the best. We need a serious right wing party with confident right wing policies, not high tax pseudo blairism which eagerly accepts 2m migrants in 3 years. What did the Tories fucking expect when they did that? Morons
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
PB Tories on cracking form over the last few days:
1. Although Abbott is a left-wing lunatic, we all love her and she's a national treasure and Starmer is a heartless bastard for not letting her stand.
2. Weak, weak, weak of Starmer to let that left-wing lunatic racist Abbott stand.
Both could be true at once if it weren’t for the ‘national treasure’ bit.
Frankly, I think this has been badly mishandled and coming on top of two other similar farces it doesn’t inspire confidence in Starmer’s judgement or his control of Labour’s machinery.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'
I take it you’re not a fan
If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
An ideal number for me would be about 60 unexpected one nation Tories returned from which the nucleus of a Tory party can be rebuilt.
100-175 would be 1997-style drifting and internal warfare. Which would be a shame.
My fear is that we end up with 60-80 headbangers. Enough to keep going as is: a powerless, moral vacuum.
The latest poll from Techne, baxtered, with no tactical voting, gives Labour 512 seats, Lib Dems second with 57, 46 Tories, 12 Scot Nats, 3 Welsh Nats and 2 Greens. Plus 18 from NI.
So that's 138 opposition MPs, and you could have a Labour rebellion numbering 180 and the government would still win the vote comfortably.
Might we actually see Labour splitting in that circumstance? You could have a large new Labour party as the official opposition, and the Starmer Labour party would still have a majority.
New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL
“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”
If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history
Ummmm: could that possibly be because electoral fraud is actually very rare?
I mean, I'm as sceptical as you about these charges. But that is not a good reason to be dismissive of them.
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
Transnistria is Russian-occupied (since the early 1990s)!
I’m not in transnistria - yet. I’m staying on the posh purcari wine estate, in the Tower Suite (the best hotel room in Moldova, probably) whence you can SEE Transnistria over the Dniester (hence the name)
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'
I take it you’re not a fan
If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories
HYUFD gave up some time ago, round about the same time as he realised invading Scotland was not a viable option.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'
I take it you’re not a fan
If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories
Are there any actual Tories left in the village?
What's the most optimistic Conservative score anyone wants to bid for?
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
What constituency is Penny Mordaunt standing in, I'm not sure whether it has changed due to boundary changes, if she is still in the same portsmouth constituency, that will be my first individual constituency bet.On recent polling she would be nailed on to lose, but I'm convinced she will hang on there
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
An ideal number for me would be about 60 unexpected one nation Tories returned from which the nucleus of a Tory party can be rebuilt.
100-175 would be 1997-style drifting and internal warfare. Which would be a shame.
My fear is that we end up with 60-80 headbangers. Enough to keep going as is: a powerless, moral vacuum.
The latest poll from Techne, baxtered, with no tactical voting, gives Labour 512 seats, Lib Dems second with 57, 46 Tories, 12 Scot Nats, 3 Welsh Nats and 2 Greens. Plus 18 from NI.
So that's 138 opposition MPs, and you could have a Labour rebellion numbering 180 and the government would still win the vote comfortably.
Might we actually see Labour splitting in that circumstance? You could have a large new Labour party as the official opposition, and the Starmer Labour party would still have a majority.
Suppose those 46 Tories end up with Braverman as leader? How many of them might be off? There wouldn't be a great deal of incentive to stay if your views were closer to LOTO Davey than your own Party. I don't think this is a likely scenario. But I don't think the implications of what is at least possible have been thought through.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'
I take it you’re not a fan
If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories
He was better than Liz, that will be his epitath.
However had the Tories kept Boris, for all his faults, the Conservatives would almost certainly have still got over 200 seats even had Starmer still won and Reform would not be polling 10-15%.
Anyway, we are where we are, the focus now is just saving the furniture and rebuild in opposition
Transnistria is Russian-occupied (since the early 1990s)!
I’m not in transnistria - yet. I’m staying on the posh purcari wine estate, in the Tower Suite (the best hotel room in Moldova, probably) whence you can SEE Transnistria over the Dniester (hence the name)
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 11m "I'm encouraged by the over-the-top hysteria we’re seeing from MAGA world. It suggests worry, even panic. And in any case, there’s nothing like the squealing of stuck pigs (along with your first cup of coffee) to cheer you up in the morning."
I have long thought that the more time Trump/GOP talk about Trump's legal difficulties, the less time they talk about how they're going to make voters' lives better, and that will hurt them in an election.
New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL
“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”
If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history
In a moment of inattention I thought you were referring to the New Yorker. I see New York Magazine is something quite..er..different. A selection of sidebar morsels:
Celebrities React to Donald Trump’s Guilty Verdict
From Katy Perry to Cynthia Nixon, these notables are ready to party in the name of justice.
Can You Handle Another Bennifer Breakup?
Now it’s J.Lo who’s missing her wedding ring.
When Will Kate Middleton Return to Public Life?
Sources claim she’s “turned a corner” in her treatment.
New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL
“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”
If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history
Ummmm: could that possibly be because electoral fraud is actually very rare?
I mean, I'm as sceptical as you about these charges. But that is not a good reason to be dismissive of them.
I’m not actually that skeptical - I haven’t looked into then enough to make a confident opinion. They smell a little iffy but that could simply be my British aversion to the politicised American legal system
However I do take @DavidL’s opinion seriously and he makes an articulate case that this is bad jurisprudence
And now this opinion in New York mag? Hmmm
What I DO know a lot about is the lab leak hypothesis and how THAT was politicised and suppressed - to a potentially criminal extent - to benefit Biden and hinder Trump. That happened, without question
PB Tories on cracking form over the last few days:
1. Although Abbott is a left-wing lunatic, we all love her and she's a national treasure and Starmer is a heartless bastard for not letting her stand.
2. Weak, weak, weak of Starmer to let that left-wing lunatic racist Abbott stand.
They were all playing PB Tory quoits at the equestrian club and have suffered a peculiar incident of mass getting hit over the head with horseshoes.
Not sure if I count as a PB Tory but I was consistent in backing Starmer vs Abbott. It is pathetic for him now to u-turn.
Surely it came as a surprise to him when Rayner broke ranks over Abbott? The right wing press immediately leapt on it and were going to go on and on about splits at the top so he had to concede.
It's unlikely IMO that Diane Abbott will stand as a Labour candidate. The Tory media will keep this running until 4pm next Friday (closure of nominations) if they can.
What constituency is Penny Mordaunt standing in, I'm not sure whether it has changed due to boundary changes, if she is still in the same portsmouth constituency, that will be my first individual constituency bet.On recent polling she would be nailed on to lose, but I'm convinced she will hang on there
Portsmouth North. It's one of the very few with unchanged boundaries.
I think I might actually be in the best hotel room in the country. Admittedly an extremely poor country of 2m people with virtually zero tourism but still
*adopts the fast show voice*
“Then they put me in the best hotel room in the country, which is nice”
New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL
“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”
If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history
Ummmm: could that possibly be because electoral fraud is actually very rare?
I mean, I'm as sceptical as you about these charges. But that is not a good reason to be dismissive of them.
Are payments to avoid kiss-and-tell stories rare in US electoral politics?
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.
This is bizarre. Diane Abbott is a card carrying racist. Labour are a party that tolerates racism if they allow her to stand.
Is Benjamin Netanyahu a card carrying racist?
Is he a Labour Party candidate?
Is your hero a racist or not?
I don’t think anyone on this board makes a hero of Netanyahu. I won’t go bail for one or two who seem to have positively erotic feelings for Ismail Haniyeh. But the pretty general opinion on Netanyahu is he’s a Tristram.
And although he undoubtedly is a card-carrying racist I am not sure what that’s got to do with Diane Abbott being one as well. Or indeed Lee Anderson.
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
An ideal number for me would be about 60 unexpected one nation Tories returned from which the nucleus of a Tory party can be rebuilt.
100-175 would be 1997-style drifting and internal warfare. Which would be a shame.
My fear is that we end up with 60-80 headbangers. Enough to keep going as is: a powerless, moral vacuum.
The latest poll from Techne, baxtered, with no tactical voting, gives Labour 512 seats, Lib Dems second with 57, 46 Tories, 12 Scot Nats, 3 Welsh Nats and 2 Greens. Plus 18 from NI.
So that's 138 opposition MPs, and you could have a Labour rebellion numbering 180 and the government would still win the vote comfortably.
Might we actually see Labour splitting in that circumstance? You could have a large new Labour party as the official opposition, and the Starmer Labour party would still have a majority.
I don’t think you’d see a split, but you’d probably have a little group of rebels who would grow and grow over time, and eventually become something of a party-within-a-party. This happened under Blair, who towards the end of his big majority parliaments was hosting a good chunk of MPs who were rebelling against him on a regular basis.
In all likelihood whatever happens it would be temporary and the next parliament would be much more balanced. Blair sustained his majority into a second parliament in very benign economic and geo-political circumstances. The nation is more divided than it was in 1997, and the result will correct itself in due course.
What constituency is Penny Mordaunt standing in, I'm not sure whether it has changed due to boundary changes, if she is still in the same portsmouth constituency, that will be my first individual constituency bet.On recent polling she would be nailed on to lose, but I'm convinced she will hang on there
Portsmouth North. It's one of the very few with unchanged boundaries.
Many thanks, I will eagerly await betting market's on this
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
Every poll that has been released since the campaign has been with the MOE of its previous survey, as far as I can see.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Only two years ago we were wondering how and when Labour would be able to deny the Tories another majority.
Yes it is a stunning collapse, and - worse - it is completely deserved
Congrats to those PBers who called Hartlepool as the Tory peak and predicted the descent thereafter
Personally I didn’t foresee anything this dramatic but now it is happening I don’t give a toss. If the Tories die so be it, and it’s probably for the best. We need a serious right wing party with confident right wing policies, not high tax pseudo blairism which eagerly accepts 2m migrants in 3 years. What did the Tories fucking expect when they did that? Morons
The number of unforced errors has been staggering.
I’d like to pay tribute to Lloyd Russell-Moyle who has been our MP since 2017 and who I am proud to call my friend. Following his suspension, I was asked by some local members to stand in Brighton Kemptown. They felt that as someone who had previously been selected by members; had been a local Councillor here for five years; had good local name recognition and had halved the Tory majority in 2015, that I was best placed to win the seat. I spoke to Lloyd and put myself forward to be Brighton Kemptown’s candidate with his support. Everything moved very quickly yesterday and I was pleased to be offered an online interview at 2.40pm. It was disappointing afterwards to find out that during my interview, Michael Crick had Tweeted out that Chris Ward would be the successful candidate. I have forwarded the Tweet to the General Secretary of the Labour Party and I trust that there will now be an investigation to ensure the fairness of the process. It’s important to remember that these decisions affect a wider group of people. Had I been selected I would have kept on all of Lloyd’s team who now face losing their jobs and their livelihoods. I’d like to thank all the local members and the local, regional and national trade unions that took the time to have conversations yesterday and who offered me their support.
New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL
“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”
If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history
In a moment of inattention I thought you were referring to the New Yorker. I see New York Magazine is something quite..er..different. A selection of sidebar morsels:
Celebrities React to Donald Trump’s Guilty Verdict
From Katy Perry to Cynthia Nixon, these notables are ready to party in the name of justice.
Can You Handle Another Bennifer Breakup?
Now it’s J.Lo who’s missing her wedding ring.
When Will Kate Middleton Return to Public Life?
Sources claim she’s “turned a corner” in her treatment.
Which proves what?! It’s a magazine. It runs popular stories and celebrity gossip alongside serious journalism and criticism. As does every journal in the world, if it wants to make a profit
New York magazine is not trivial. It wins Pulitzer Prizes and has a circulation of 400,000
PB Tories on cracking form over the last few days:
1. Although Abbott is a left-wing lunatic, we all love her and she's a national treasure and Starmer is a heartless bastard for not letting her stand.
2. Weak, weak, weak of Starmer to let that left-wing lunatic racist Abbott stand.
Both could be true at once if it weren’t for the ‘national treasure’ bit.
Frankly, I think this has been badly mishandled and coming on top of two other similar farces it doesn’t inspire confidence in Starmer’s judgement or his control of Labour’s machinery.
It looks like a total screw up. Abbott probably didn't want to stand and Starmer certainly didn't want her to stand. Now both have got what they didn't want because neither wished to lose face.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Only two years ago we were wondering how and when Labour would be able to deny the Tories another majority.
Yes it is a stunning collapse, and - worse - it is completely deserved
Congrats to those PBers who called Hartlepool as the Tory peak and predicted the descent thereafter
Personally I didn’t foresee anything this dramatic but now it is happening I don’t give a toss. If the Tories die so be it, and it’s probably for the best. We need a serious right wing party with confident right wing policies, not high tax pseudo blairism which eagerly accepts 2m migrants in 3 years. What did the Tories fucking expect when they did that? Morons
The number of unforced errors has been staggering.
Yes. I remember you saying once that the Tory party was apparently intent on alienating every single voting bloc in the country. They’ve basically succeeded
I’d like to pay tribute to Lloyd Russell-Moyle who has been our MP since 2017 and who I am proud to call my friend. Following his suspension, I was asked by some local members to stand in Brighton Kemptown. They felt that as someone who had previously been selected by members; had been a local Councillor here for five years; had good local name recognition and had halved the Tory majority in 2015, that I was best placed to win the seat. I spoke to Lloyd and put myself forward to be Brighton Kemptown’s candidate with his support. Everything moved very quickly yesterday and I was pleased to be offered an online interview at 2.40pm. It was disappointing afterwards to find out that during my interview, Michael Crick had Tweeted out that Chris Ward would be the successful candidate. I have forwarded the Tweet to the General Secretary of the Labour Party and I trust that there will now be an investigation to ensure the fairness of the process. It’s important to remember that these decisions affect a wider group of people. Had I been selected I would have kept on all of Lloyd’s team who now face losing their jobs and their livelihoods. I’d like to thank all the local members and the local, regional and national trade unions that took the time to have conversations yesterday and who offered me their support.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
An ideal number for me would be about 60 unexpected one nation Tories returned from which the nucleus of a Tory party can be rebuilt.
100-175 would be 1997-style drifting and internal warfare. Which would be a shame.
My fear is that we end up with 60-80 headbangers. Enough to keep going as is: a powerless, moral vacuum.
The latest poll from Techne, baxtered, with no tactical voting, gives Labour 512 seats, Lib Dems second with 57, 46 Tories, 12 Scot Nats, 3 Welsh Nats and 2 Greens. Plus 18 from NI.
So that's 138 opposition MPs, and you could have a Labour rebellion numbering 180 and the government would still win the vote comfortably.
Might we actually see Labour splitting in that circumstance? You could have a large new Labour party as the official opposition, and the Starmer Labour party would still have a majority.
Suppose those 46 Tories end up with Braverman as leader? How many of them might be off? There wouldn't be a great deal of incentive to stay if your views were closer to LOTO Davey than your own Party. I don't think this is a likely scenario. But I don't think the implications of what is at least possible have been thought through.
Actually if the Tories were reduced to those figures I suspect whoever the new leader is wouldn’t have much trouble keeping them in line. When you’ve got less people to manage it’s easier to keep everyone on message. I know it’s the Tories we’re talking about, but still.
Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.
66 Tory seats and still main opposition would be a poor Conservative result but not wipeout.
Indeed it would be even more than the 62 seats the LDs won in 2010
62 seats was in 2005 - the Lib Dems lost a few seats in 2010 and ended up with 57.
Still more than the LDs in either 2005 or 2010 then
LOL! That would in practice be a wipeout, list out who's got the 80 safest seats and see what they'd be left with. Mainly yesterday's men (and a few women). It would be 2 election cycles before they were close to recovering. It won't be that bad though.
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
Every poll that has been released since the campaign has been with the MOE of its previous survey, as far as I can see.
And with no discernable swing from Refuk to Con, it's looking increasingly like Rishi's big surprise policy announcements from last weekend have failed to do their intended job.
I wonder if they'll double down on the headline-grabbing antics, or will they pivot towards a quieter campaign based on competence / experience / "better the devil you know"?
I suspect it may not it matter, on current polling the Tories will be 3rd in Wimbledon.
Surely the barcharts are about who comes 1st? I think they are both relying on the Tories coming 3rd.
So, the LDs should agree with the Labour bar chart and squeeze the Tory vote.
In fact looking at the photo again, isn't that what the Labour poster says? Tories can't win here so vote LD if you don't want Labour? Or are Labour to the right of the LDs locally (like they are in Kingston) so are after the Tory vote to stop the wild lefty LDs?
Puzzled - if I was Labour in Wimbledon I'd ignore the LDs altogether if I wanted to win.
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL
“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”
If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history
Ummmm: could that possibly be because electoral fraud is actually very rare?
I mean, I'm as sceptical as you about these charges. But that is not a good reason to be dismissive of them.
Are payments to avoid kiss-and-tell stories rare in US electoral politics?
Either they’re common and they work, or they actually are rare. I can’t imagine Joe Biden being involved, even 50 years ago. Bill Clinton, OTOH….. Just two examples.
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
From this weeks thread you have 5 Nowcasters 1squeeze question Pollster and Zero reweighting companies
Hence your Poll includes 5 companies that produce the highest Lab leads and one that is in the middle whilst you include none from the companies with the lowest lead. I cant see why More in Common Polls which have been weekly in recent times are excluded?
Limits the usefulness IMO
Yor lead of 22.6 compares with actual mean of this weeks polls of circa 19.5
New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL
“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”
If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history
In a moment of inattention I thought you were referring to the New Yorker. I see New York Magazine is something quite..er..different. A selection of sidebar morsels:
Celebrities React to Donald Trump’s Guilty Verdict
From Katy Perry to Cynthia Nixon, these notables are ready to party in the name of justice.
Can You Handle Another Bennifer Breakup?
Now it’s J.Lo who’s missing her wedding ring.
When Will Kate Middleton Return to Public Life?
Sources claim she’s “turned a corner” in her treatment.
Which proves what?! It’s a magazine. It runs popular stories and celebrity gossip alongside serious journalism and criticism. As does every journal in the world, if it wants to make a profit
New York magazine is not trivial. It wins Pulitzer Prizes and has a circulation of 400,000
Yes, but are we really meant to believe it's a just a coincidence that the New York Magazine's HQ is just a couple of miles away from The NYU Langone Virology Institute?
Spooky.
It proves it runs clickbait. Ragebait is a common form of clickbait, which is why it is doing stupid contrarian Trump stories.
Trump was guilty. Therefore it is correct to prosecute him for such crimes. The idea that he shouldn't be charged because other cases haven't had sufficient evidence to charge is bonkers. It is arguing for ignoring the rule of law.
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL
“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”
If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history
In a moment of inattention I thought you were referring to the New Yorker. I see New York Magazine is something quite..er..different. A selection of sidebar morsels:
Celebrities React to Donald Trump’s Guilty Verdict
From Katy Perry to Cynthia Nixon, these notables are ready to party in the name of justice.
Can You Handle Another Bennifer Breakup?
Now it’s J.Lo who’s missing her wedding ring.
When Will Kate Middleton Return to Public Life?
Sources claim she’s “turned a corner” in her treatment.
Which proves what?! It’s a magazine. It runs popular stories and celebrity gossip alongside serious journalism and criticism. As does every journal in the world, if it wants to make a profit
New York magazine is not trivial. It wins Pulitzer Prizes and has a circulation of 400,000
Yebbut while they might well have the skinny on Bennifer goings on, I'm not sure I'd be going to them for state of the nation stuff. Christ, even the Spectator might be better!
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
Every poll that has been released since the campaign has been with the MOE of its previous survey, as far as I can see.
And with no discernable swing from Refuk to Con, it's looking increasingly like Rishi's big surprise policy announcements from last weekend have failed to do their intended job.
I wonder if they'll double down on the headline-grabbing antics, or will they pivot towards a quieter campaign based on competence / experience / "better the devil you know"?
New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL
“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”
If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history
Ummmm: could that possibly be because electoral fraud is actually very rare?
I mean, I'm as sceptical as you about these charges. But that is not a good reason to be dismissive of them.
Are payments to avoid kiss-and-tell stories rare in US electoral politics?
Either they’re common and they work, or they actually are rare. I can’t imagine Joe Biden being involved, even 50 years ago. Bill Clinton, OTOH….. Just two examples.
The question is whether he did it under the jurisdiction of New York law. If a Democrat commits crimes and there is sufficient evidence, they should be prosecuted. Because that is the rule of law. A shame Republicans don't believe it. Because they hate what makes Western civilization great.
Spare a thought for the Treasurer of Newcastle-Upon-Lyme Conservative Party.
Paying for all those election leaflets already being printed, paid for deliveries (Royal Mail need to be paid 2+ weeks in advance), past social media ads and leaflets etc etc.
And then having to write off the lot and start again.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Only two years ago we were wondering how and when Labour would be able to deny the Tories another majority.
Yes it is a stunning collapse, and - worse - it is completely deserved
Congrats to those PBers who called Hartlepool as the Tory peak and predicted the descent thereafter
Personally I didn’t foresee anything this dramatic but now it is happening I don’t give a toss. If the Tories die so be it, and it’s probably for the best. We need a serious right wing party with confident right wing policies, not high tax pseudo blairism which eagerly accepts 2m migrants in 3 years. What did the Tories fucking expect when they did that? Morons
The number of unforced errors has been staggering.
Hubris is the Tory poison. Factionalism the Labour one.
Personally I can't summon any outrage on behalf of Trump that he's convicted of relatively minor charges of election fraud rather than charged with the vastly more serious crime of insurrection for which there's plenty of prima facie evidence.
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
An ideal number for me would be about 60 unexpected one nation Tories returned from which the nucleus of a Tory party can be rebuilt.
100-175 would be 1997-style drifting and internal warfare. Which would be a shame.
My fear is that we end up with 60-80 headbangers. Enough to keep going as is: a powerless, moral vacuum.
The latest poll from Techne, baxtered, with no tactical voting, gives Labour 512 seats, Lib Dems second with 57, 46 Tories, 12 Scot Nats, 3 Welsh Nats and 2 Greens. Plus 18 from NI.
So that's 138 opposition MPs, and you could have a Labour rebellion numbering 180 and the government would still win the vote comfortably.
Might we actually see Labour splitting in that circumstance? You could have a large new Labour party as the official opposition, and the Starmer Labour party would still have a majority.
Suppose those 46 Tories end up with Braverman as leader? How many of them might be off? There wouldn't be a great deal of incentive to stay if your views were closer to LOTO Davey than your own Party. I don't think this is a likely scenario. But I don't think the implications of what is at least possible have been thought through.
Actually if the Tories were reduced to those figures I suspect whoever the new leader is wouldn’t have much trouble keeping them in line. When you’ve got less people to manage it’s easier to keep everyone on message. I know it’s the Tories we’re talking about, but still.
If you get down to tiny numbers but are still second in Parliament, they'll pretty much all have a Shadow job...
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'
I take it you’re not a fan
If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories
He was better than Liz, that will be his epitath.
However had the Tories kept Boris, for all his faults, the Conservatives would almost certainly have still got over 200 seats even had Starmer still won and Reform would not be polling 10-15%.
Anyway, we are where we are, the focus now is just saving the furniture and rebuild in opposition
Boris Johnson is the reason for the decline, and no opinion poll suggests he would do any better than Sunak or Truss. He was an incompetent fool who essentially hollowed out burned the reputation of the Tory Party for his own ego.
I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.
If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?
Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
My previous address it was a mile and a half. No public transport.
A mile and a half is walking distance.
Three miles in total, to get there and back - so almost 5km, and would be a challenge for many. We should certainly do better than that, at least in urban areas.
Depending on the weather, too. No joke in winter darkness.
Just turned the heating on - but it's 1st June tomorrow!
In T-shirt at the moment ... and m y neighbour is wearing "sun glasses".
Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?
If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats
“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.
If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”
The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”
100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'
I take it you’re not a fan
If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories
He was better than Liz, that will be his epitath.
However had the Tories kept Boris, for all his faults, the Conservatives would almost certainly have still got over 200 seats even had Starmer still won and Reform would not be polling 10-15%.
Anyway, we are where we are, the focus now is just saving the furniture and rebuild in opposition
Boris Johnson is the reason for the decline, and no opinion poll suggests he would do any better than Sunak or Truss. He was an incompetent fool who essentially hollowed out burned the reputation of the Tory Party for his own ego.
Without Boris Johnson there would have been no high point in 2019 from which to decline.
After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour
He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."
What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.
This is bizarre. Diane Abbott is a card carrying racist. Labour are a party that tolerates racism if they allow her to stand.
Is Benjamin Netanyahu a card carrying racist?
Yes.
With all these card carrying racists about....
1) Do the cards have unique ids? Checksums? 2) What database are they part of? 3) What databases is that database linked to? 4) Is the card valid as voting ID? 5) Is the card valid as ID to get on a ferry to Northern Ireland?
Dianne Abbott is a liar and a racist and shouldn't be allowed to stand for Labour again.
But SKS has handled this badly. He should have stuck to her not being allowed to stand again.
He's had a shocker. The Tory meme about him being under Rayner's thumb is totally deserved.
PB Tory favourite Abbott is awfully entitled. Starmer has well and truly dropped the ball.
P.S. Starmer can't afford to hand the narrative to the Tory media again. Rishi looks like a drowned rat, one news cycle. Starmer dumps on Abbott, and it's the only news story since Monday night.
Amusing (one word for it anyway) how PB's usual shit-stirrers are positively wallowing in their preferred Putinist pig-shit after the Trump guilty-as-sin verdict.
Keep up your bad work on behalf of the destruction of democracy, as it's all your good for.
I suspect it may not it matter, on current polling the Tories will be 3rd in Wimbledon.
Surely the barcharts are about who comes 1st? I think they are both relying on the Tories coming 3rd.
So, the LDs should agree with the Labour bar chart and squeeze the Tory vote.
In fact looking at the photo again, isn't that what the Labour poster says? Tories can't win here so vote LD if you don't want Labour? Or are Labour to the right of the LDs locally (like they are in Kingston) so are after the Tory vote to stop the wild lefty LDs?
Puzzled - if I was Labour in Wimbledon I'd ignore the LDs altogether if I wanted to win.
The Labour one is saying that an MRP has them winning so there's no need to vote Lib Dem to get the Tories out. It's a squeeze on the left-wing floater.
I agree with @HYUFD . If Boris were still leader I suspect we’d be looking at a narrower defeat than the Tories are facing now.
Let’s be clear, the main reason the Tories are doing so badly is because they took the p*ss with Liz Truss, replaced her with a man who can’t do politics very well, and moved beyond their 2019 messaging.
The fact that Boris might be doing a bit better, doesn’t mean that the Tories were wrong to get rid of him, however, for the good of the country.
Dianne Abbott is a liar and a racist and shouldn't be allowed to stand for Labour again.
But SKS has handled this badly. He should have stuck to her not being allowed to stand again.
He's had a shocker. The Tory meme about him being under Rayner's thumb is totally deserved.
PB Tory favourite Abbott is awfully entitled. Starmer has well and truly dropped the ball.
P.S. Starmer can't afford to hand the narrative to the Tory media again. Rishi looks like a drowned rat, one news cycle. Starmer dumps on Abbott, and it's the only news story since Monday night.
Methinks it's a GOOD news story for Starmer and Labour.
I think I might actually be in the best hotel room in the country. Admittedly an extremely poor country of 2m people with virtually zero tourism but still
*adopts the fast show voice*
“Then they put me in the best hotel room in the country, which is nice”
Amusing (one word for it anyway) how PB's usual shit-stirrers are positively wallowing in their preferred Putinist pig-shit after the Trump guilty-as-sin verdict.
Keep up your bad work on behalf of the destruction of democracy, as it's all your good for.
One of the main tenets of Putinist 'managed democracy' is that undesirable candidates who might stand a chance of winning must be prevented from running. Only controlled opposition is permitted.
The attempts to sideline Trump by non-democratic means are American Putinism.
Amusing (one word for it anyway) how PB's usual shit-stirrers are positively wallowing in their preferred Putinist pig-shit after the Trump guilty-as-sin verdict.
Keep up your bad work on behalf of the destruction of democracy, as it's all your good for.
Dianne Abbott is a liar and a racist and shouldn't be allowed to stand for Labour again.
But SKS has handled this badly. He should have stuck to her not being allowed to stand again.
He's had a shocker. The Tory meme about him being under Rayner's thumb is totally deserved.
PB Tory favourite Abbott is awfully entitled. Starmer has well and truly dropped the ball.
Rayner is almost twenty years younger than Starmer. It will be an interesting dynamic if the power struggles continue in office.
They haven't won yet.
I don't like Rayner but hats off to her she has matured into a far more measured front bencher than the ludicrous firebrand of the Corbyn campaign. She handled the James Daly nonsense well too.
I agree with @HYUFD . If Boris were still leader I suspect we’d be looking at a narrower defeat than the Tories are facing now.
Let’s be clear, the main reason the Tories are doing so badly is because they took the p*ss with Liz Truss, replaced her with a man who can’t do politics very well, and moved beyond their 2019 messaging.
The fact that Boris might be doing a bit better, doesn’t mean that the Tories were wrong to get rid of him, however, for the good of the country.
I think that assumes that Boris was not involved in further scandals in the ~2 years since he stepped down. Had he continued (I actually don't think he could have made it between then and now because something else would have brought him down) the Tories could have been in a much worse position.
Amusing (one word for it anyway) how PB's usual shit-stirrers are positively wallowing in their preferred Putinist pig-shit after the Trump guilty-as-sin verdict.
Keep up your bad work on behalf of the destruction of democracy, as it's all your good for.
One of the main tenets of Putinist 'managed democracy' is that undesirable candidates who might stand a chance of winning must be prevented from running. Only controlled opposition is permitted.
The attempts to sideline Trump by non-democratic means are American Putinism.
Another point of Putinism is the rich, well-connected and slimy get away with everything because the courts never find against them.
In this way, America convicting a rich, powerful white man of a crime through due legal process is demonstrating America is the very antithesis of Putinism.
I agree with @HYUFD . If Boris were still leader I suspect we’d be looking at a narrower defeat than the Tories are facing now.
Let’s be clear, the main reason the Tories are doing so badly is because they took the p*ss with Liz Truss, replaced her with a man who can’t do politics very well, and moved beyond their 2019 messaging.
The fact that Boris might be doing a bit better, doesn’t mean that the Tories were wrong to get rid of him, however, for the good of the country.
I think that assumes that Boris was not involved in further scandals in the ~2 years since he stepped down. Had he continued (I actually don't think he could have made it between then and now because something else would have brought him down) the Tories could have been in a much worse position.
He’d have been out of the Commons anyway, after the CPC found he’d lied to Parliament, so the point is moot.
A sane Republican comments - and gets a load of abuse for it.
Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process. At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leaders—regardless of party—must not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law. https://x.com/GovLarryHogan/status/1796283536565014873
Comments
According to Wikipedia, she (and others in 1987) were also the first black MPs since the 19th Century (4 in 18th and 19th centuries). First black cabinet member Boateng in 2002. No Muslim MP until 1997.
A different world, not so long ago.
1. Securing the pensioner vote.
2. Screwing the youth vote.
3. Law and Order: Part One: a beginner's guide to flytipping.
He is unimpressed obviously.
100-175 would be 1997-style drifting and internal warfare. Which would be a shame.
My fear is that we end up with 60-80 headbangers. Enough to keep going as is: a powerless, moral vacuum.
PA have updated their count of the number of MPs standing down at the next election, after Aaron Bell said he would not stand, and Julian Knight announced he would be standing as an independent.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/may/31/uk-general-election-2024-conservatives-labour-tories-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-diane-abbott
Congrats to those PBers who called Hartlepool as the Tory peak and predicted the descent thereafter
Personally I didn’t foresee anything this dramatic but now it is happening I don’t give a toss. If the Tories die so be it, and it’s probably for the best. We need a serious right wing party with confident right wing policies, not high tax pseudo blairism which eagerly accepts 2m migrants in 3 years. What did the Tories fucking expect when they did that? Morons
Frankly, I think this has been badly mishandled and coming on top of two other similar farces it doesn’t inspire confidence in Starmer’s judgement or his control of Labour’s machinery.
I'm not feeling refreshed.
If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories
So that's 138 opposition MPs, and you could have a Labour rebellion numbering 180 and the government would still win the vote comfortably.
Might we actually see Labour splitting in that circumstance? You could have a large new Labour party as the official opposition, and the Starmer Labour party would still have a majority.
And he seemed to be having a lovely day out. I don't think Rishi or Keir would have managed that.
I mean, I'm as sceptical as you about these charges. But that is not a good reason to be dismissive of them.
The wine is excellent, thanks
What's the most optimistic Conservative score anyone wants to bid for?
How many of them might be off?
There wouldn't be a great deal of incentive to stay if your views were closer to LOTO Davey than your own Party.
I don't think this is a likely scenario. But I don't think the implications of what is at least possible have been thought through.
However had the Tories kept Boris, for all his faults, the Conservatives would almost certainly have still got over 200 seats even had Starmer still won and Reform would not be polling 10-15%.
Anyway, we are where we are, the focus now is just saving the furniture and rebuild in opposition
However, nothing so far suggests I'm right!
Celebrities React to Donald Trump’s Guilty Verdict
From Katy Perry to Cynthia Nixon, these notables are ready to party in the name of justice.
Can You Handle Another Bennifer Breakup?
Now it’s J.Lo who’s missing her wedding ring.
When Will Kate Middleton Return to Public Life?
Sources claim she’s “turned a corner” in her treatment.
However I do take @DavidL’s opinion seriously and he makes an articulate case that this is bad jurisprudence
And now this opinion in New York mag? Hmmm
What I DO know a lot about is the lab leak hypothesis and how THAT was politicised and suppressed - to a potentially criminal extent - to benefit Biden and hinder Trump. That happened, without question
The Tory media will keep this running until 4pm next Friday (closure of nominations) if they can.
It's one of the very few with unchanged boundaries.
https://www.lfi.org.uk/keir-starmer-welcomes-israeli-president-herzog-to-london
And although he undoubtedly is a card-carrying racist I am not sure what that’s got to do with Diane Abbott being one as well. Or indeed Lee Anderson.
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
In all likelihood whatever happens it would be temporary and the next parliament would be much more balanced. Blair sustained his majority into a second parliament in very benign economic and geo-political circumstances. The nation is more divided than it was in 1997, and the result will correct itself in due course.
Following his suspension, I was asked by some local members to stand in Brighton Kemptown. They felt that as someone who had previously been selected by members; had been a local Councillor here for five years; had good local name recognition and had halved the Tory majority in 2015, that I was best placed to win the seat. I spoke to Lloyd and put myself forward to be Brighton Kemptown’s candidate with his support.
Everything moved very quickly yesterday and I was pleased to be offered an online interview at 2.40pm.
It was disappointing afterwards to find out that during my interview, Michael Crick had Tweeted out that Chris Ward would be the successful candidate.
I have forwarded the Tweet to the General Secretary of the Labour Party and I trust that there will now be an investigation to ensure the fairness of the process.
It’s important to remember that these decisions affect a wider group of people. Had I been selected I would have kept on all of Lloyd’s team who now face losing their jobs and their livelihoods.
I’d like to thank all the local members and the local, regional and national trade unions that took the time to have conversations yesterday and who offered me their support.
https://medium.com/@nancyplatts/a-statement-about-brighton-kemptown-499357be3543
New York magazine is not trivial. It wins Pulitzer Prizes and has a circulation of 400,000
I wonder if they'll double down on the headline-grabbing antics, or will they pivot towards a quieter campaign based on competence / experience / "better the devil you know"?
Puzzled - if I was Labour in Wimbledon I'd ignore the LDs altogether if I wanted to win.
I can’t imagine Joe Biden being involved, even 50 years ago. Bill Clinton, OTOH…..
Just two examples.
Hence your Poll includes 5 companies that produce the highest Lab leads and one that is in the middle whilst you include none from the companies with the lowest lead. I cant see why More in Common Polls which have been weekly in recent times are excluded?
Limits the usefulness IMO
Yor lead of 22.6 compares with actual mean of this weeks polls of circa 19.5
Trump was guilty. Therefore it is correct to prosecute him for such crimes. The idea that he shouldn't be charged because other cases haven't had sufficient evidence to charge is bonkers. It is arguing for ignoring the rule of law.
Paying for all those election leaflets already being printed, paid for deliveries (Royal Mail need to be paid 2+ weeks in advance), past social media ads and leaflets etc etc.
And then having to write off the lot and start again.
1) Do the cards have unique ids? Checksums?
2) What database are they part of?
3) What databases is that database linked to?
4) Is the card valid as voting ID?
5) Is the card valid as ID to get on a ferry to Northern Ireland?
PB Tory favourite Abbott is awfully entitled. Starmer has well and truly dropped the ball.
P.S. Starmer can't afford to hand the narrative to the Tory media again. Rishi looks like a drowned rat, one news cycle. Starmer dumps on Abbott, and it's the only news story since Monday night.
Keep up your bad work on behalf of the destruction of democracy, as it's all your good for.
Tory politicians, desperate to be able to not stand as Conservative candidates.
Let’s be clear, the main reason the Tories are doing so badly is because they took the p*ss with Liz Truss, replaced her with a man who can’t do politics very well, and moved beyond their 2019 messaging.
The fact that Boris might be doing a bit better, doesn’t mean that the Tories were wrong to get rid of him, however, for the good of the country.
The attempts to sideline Trump by non-democratic means are American Putinism.
That should say, ‘all YOU’RE good for.’
I don't like Rayner but hats off to her she has matured into a far more measured front bencher than the ludicrous firebrand of the Corbyn campaign. She handled the James Daly nonsense well too.
Sir Keir Starmer praises Diane Abbott as a "trailblazer" and says she is "free" to stand for the Labour Party at this general election.
Not quite the same as she will be the Candidate IMO but lets see.
In this way, America convicting a rich, powerful white man of a crime through due legal process is demonstrating America is the very antithesis of Putinism.
WTF happened?
Has anyone told Trump>?