Mordaunt -19 in the debate. To be honest I’d have scored her net positive so I do wonder again if it’s just another sign the public gave up with the Tories long ago.
I think so. I thought she put in an average performance but then she had very little to work with.
Jeepers, cut her some slack.
How would you like to have to defend the PM the day after he'd offended his core constituency?
The media are trying to get a “Mourdant put her stilettos in Sunak - Tory splits emerging” narrative going this morning. I am sure it will fail, as the truth was the complete opposite. Penny stuck to every one of Sunak’s lies from Tuesday, and was very canny on the D-Day Debacle “it was a mistake, but he has apologised.”
My dad says Labour in 1983 was a far worse campaign than this Tory one, because despite shedding all their social Democrat wing, they still managed to go into the 1983 with all their splits on show. There are no splits in this Tory campaign, everyone is still backing the strategy and supportive of all the answers Sunak gave on Tuesday.
There is not a single voter in the country who needs a journalist to tell them this. There is not a single poster or lurker on PB who needed you to tell us this, so why did you post it?
What do we think was the strategy? All built around the 2K Lie? Which Penny persisted with to ridicule and disbelief.
Once something like that falls apart so quickly, so cuts through not as a Labour tax rise but as a lie, each mention, billboard and advert is actually hurting the Conservative vote.
Calling a Snappy Lec without a strong campaign ready, without a strong strategy ready, is this the nub of what’s gone wrong - to the disbelief of Tory members and MPs?
I must say for me Horse's post is useful because, taken altogether, it hints that some Tories may be even be thinking of dumping Sunak now.
That would be fairly crazy at this stage, ofcourse, but then again this has been a crazy election period overall, so anything can happen,
Is it possible to dump a sitting PM? I know it might be in theory, but is there time?
He's PM until he can't command a majority in the House, but there is no House at the moment. He could be binned as leader of the Conservatives I suppose, but that would just be farcical. Prime Minister but not leader of the Conservatives (hello Chamberlain and Churchill - but that was in the middle of WWII - perhaps not that daft then given Sunak's National Service pledge).
There isn't time, and any attempt would push them into single figures in the polls.
He can’t be binned as leader of the Conservatives against his will, because there’s no 1922 committee because there’s no MPs.
Yes, it was said Sir Graham Brady fielded a lot of calls from MPs desperate to activate their no confidence letters on the day Rishi called the election, but by then it was too late.
There is not a single voter in the country who needs a journalist to tell them this. There is not a single poster or lurker on PB who needed you to tell us this, so why did you post it?
What do we think was the strategy? All built around the 2K Lie? Which Penny persisted with to ridicule and disbelief.
Once something like that falls apart so quickly, so cuts through not as a Labour tax rise but as a lie, each mention, billboard and advert is actually hurting the Conservative vote.
Calling a Snappy Lec without a strong campaign ready, without a strong strategy ready, is this the nub of what’s gone wrong - to the disbelief of Tory members and MPs?
I must say for me Horse's post is useful because, taken altogether, it hints that some Tories may be even be thinking of dumping Sunak now.
That would be fairly crazy at this stage, ofcourse, but then again this has been a crazy election period overall, so anything can happen,
Is it possible to dump a sitting PM? I know it might be in theory, but is there time?
He's PM until he can't command a majority in the House, but there is no House at the moment. He could be binned as leader of the Conservatives I suppose, but that would just be farcical. Prime Minister but not leader of the Conservatives (hello Chamberlain and Churchill - but that was in the middle of WWII - perhaps not that daft then given Sunak's National Service pledge).
There isn't time, and any attempt would push them into single figures in the polls.
He can’t be binned as leader of the Conservatives against his will, because there’s no 1922 committee because there’s no MPs.
Yes, it was said Sir Graham Brady fielded a lot of calls from MPs desperate to activate their no confidence letters on the day Rishi called the election, but by then it was too late.
That's just another sign of the party's dysfunction. There were clearly a huge number of MP's with no confidence in Sunak. But there was always another excuse why a letter could be put in at a later date. Convinced the election was called because Sunak feared for his leadership. No other explanation makes any sense.
It may be that he and other key figures in the Party wanted to ensure that the post-GE Parliamentary Party was more representative of their views and would contain fewer nutters.
This too makes sense, although if true, it may be backfiring.
Yeah. One success is that it's certainly ensured the "contain fewer" bit.
On the topic of Tory coronations, I'm struggling to remember in what happened in the various Tory changeovers of the last ten years.
Did any or several of them involve a replacement without a vote ? Is this possible according to Tory Party rules ?
If a good majority of the wannabe MPs were behind someone, I think that’s all that counts for the election. They could do the paperwork later but that person would clearly be PM (well, LoTO) elect.
I would have said it won’t happen. But it’s pretty desperate for them.
It's pretty clear from the distribution of results that ULEZ did make a difference, just not enough.
I am not sure the results do suggest that though, do they?
Didn't several ULEZ hating areas record swings to Khan?
Where were these ‘Ulez’ haters? Once the extension was implemented most people realised their motor was compliant. It seems to be an issue only for leather-gloved weirdos with shit cars who live nowhere near London and aren’t affected by it.
According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)
150 would be a little worse than 1997, which right now would be a good result.
Honestly, if/once they go under 100 then everything will crumble away very quickly to almost nothing
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.
Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.
Grr.
How is it his side? He had the whip withdrawn 5 years ago and he chose to leave the Conservative Party.
ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)
20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.
LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.
The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...
Doesn't matter - the politics of ULEZ are just really difficult anywhere outside London, Edinburgh, Bristol and so on. I should correct myself though - it's not just the few people who actually live in rural areas (20%), but everyone is provincial towns like say Peterborough.
Surely the pollution levels are pretty much inversely related to the areas where you most need a car?
Yes, that's my point.
If the Tories can bang on about ULEZ for 3 weeks and claim Labour (and Khan) are coming for the rest of the country, it will be effective. The weirdest thing is otherwise, Sunak is very keen on reducing lung disease if you consider his smoking ban. Surprised no one has pestered him on that.
(I realise that I am starting to sound like Moonrabbit... time will tell)
I guarantee you it will *not* be effective. Look at any poll on the key issues worrying voters and car restrictions will not be there. Most people are worried about 1. paying their rent/mortgage and other bills, 2. the state of the health service, 3. other public services, 4. immigration, 5. housing, 6. crime.
Relatively effective, I suppose. A percent, max? Remember this is targeting Reform and Red Wall voters, not the centre (who will likely be put off even more).
And the opposition to ULEZ stems from increased costs for low income people running old cars, so ties in with your point 1.
The weird thing about the "policy" banning 20mph zones in Wales they have no jurisdiction over, is that the target voter for this policy doesn't even live in Wales nor are they affected by it.
I do wonder if absent some really Big Thing, this election campaign is over? We have upcoming football and tennis and frankly, any other distraction you can take from politics before we vote.
I thought you were getting really good feedback on the doorstep, though?
Yes, but when the PM is blasting away at his own feet with large calibre weaponry, it is not helpful!
I just think voters generally have tuned out.
I've used you as an arbiter so far of "the other side". You gave me some confidence it might still be a tighter result than expected.
Are you therefore conceding that the Tories are going to lose too? By how much do you think?
I still think that Labour might struggle to break 40. My take was 39% - I think Farage will peel a chunk of votes from Labour on the day.
But my take of the Tories on 33%? That is looking well out of reach. Rishi has proved to be a very poor campaigner. The people around him seem to be clueless.
My sense is that the exit poll might like 1997, show Labour around 45% but in reality it will be closer to 40-43.
I think they'll get 40%, same as Corbyn got in 2017.
Outer London was significantly worse for Khan. You could attribute that to different things, but I see no reason to assume the ULEZ wasn't a meaningful part of it.
Eh? Your own data shows tiny local swings away from Khan at best. He won by a mile.
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.
Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.
Grr.
He's not a Conservative. Boris kicked him out remember?
I couldn't care less what Boris did.
It's up to him what he identifies as and the decisions he makes.
No time for turncoats.
It’s a political party, not a football team, I’m a lifelong Ipswich supporter but if the muppets who once ran the club had any influence on my life otherwise I’d have had to dump them in about 2010 at the latest.
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
I'm struggling to think of anything Rory Stewart did in his nine years in parliament.
Apart that is from giving a very bizarre performance in a Conservative leadership debate.
Yet he has somehow been elevated to the position of the hypothetical Conservative leader who people who have no intention of voting Conservative claim would persuade them to vote Conservative but in reality wouldn't.
I think he's done a fair amount of good work, partly around veterans.
It's pretty clear from the distribution of results that ULEZ did make a difference, just not enough.
I am not sure the results do suggest that though, do they?
Didn't several ULEZ hating areas record swings to Khan?
Where were these ‘Ulez’ haters? Once the extension was implemented most people realised their motor was compliant. It seems to be an issue only for leather-gloved weirdos with shit cars who live nowhere near London and aren’t affected by it.
The people who hate ULEZ don't live in London.
I don't want to blow my own trumpet but actually living in London, I think I have a good sense of the popularity of people here.
Khan is not despised, most people go "meh", except Uber drivers who do seem to hate him. Everyone I talked to said he has been pointless but a change would make no difference. And when I brought up Hall they said she was batshit.
So the truth is, with a decent candidate I do think the Tories could win in London. But they've given up trying.
Sunak placing his entire campaign strategy on London is insane though. But he's quite evidently a bit thick on that front.
Mordaunt -19 in the debate. To be honest I’d have scored her net positive so I do wonder again if it’s just another sign the public gave up with the Tories long ago.
About 2.6 years ago to be precise. That's when the ship began sinking after Captain Boris crashed it into some rocks, then Truss drilled a whole in the bottom, Sunak patched it up with some emergency planks, but they've been taking on water constantly since, and about 3 weeks ago he decided to jump on the planks to reopen the hole.
I do think we will come to believe that this election was lost in 2022.
Johnson should have gone after Hartlepool and he'd have won a landslide then. That was the peak and it's been downhill ever since.
Of course, the Tories were never truly popular but SKS for a while was doing terribly. So the Tories had room there to defeat him.
Support for Labour is a mile wide but an inch deep.
They are primarily a rejection mechanism for the present administration- their fundamentals are pretty poor.
I think you are wrong. I think we're about to enter another 3 term period of Labour rule, a period which the Tories may not survive in their current form (although something non-Labour will emerge as an alternative in time).
I could of course be wrong and you will be welcome to say 'I told you so' loudly and often if that proves the case.
I think I'm right. But I won't say 'I told you you so' because that'll be annoying for you to hear and I don't particularly care about being seen to be right.
But, anyone who automatically assumes 2-3 terms or 10-15 years minimum is simply projecting present day support wildly into the future and assuming that nothing will change and everything will stay the same.
That's not how it works, nor what the fundamentals show, so it essentially demonstrates a failure of imagination.
I agree with a lot of that, but the key for me is I see no way of the Tories avoiding a lurch to the right after the election. And one thing I am confident of is that to win an election these days you have to grab a bit of the centre ground.
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
She's not been giving a major government job besides Leader of the House in years. I doubt that is purely down to jealousy from the sitting PM.
Jealousy probably is why Liz Truss sidelined Mordaunt as Leader of the House (cf Boris and JRM) but it backfired when HMQ's demise made Penny the most famous sword-carrier in the land, eclipsing Truss herself for most of her seven weeks in office.
Wasn’t the sword-carrying at the Coronation, several months after La Truss had departed the stage?
You're definitely correct about the sword, although less correct about Truss departing the stage.
The idea that Truss would have been upset and jealous at Mordaunt getting to carry the sword, when she'd just come in to Number 10 and was grappling with everything that that entailed, is a peculiar fantasy of DecrepiterJohnL's, best dealt with via a sympathetic glance and a change of topic.
David Davis was cosplaying Hezza last night with his 'the feedback on the doorsteps is not like the polls!' Schtick. However, I do wonder how much of the Change/Labour vote is actually keen enough to bother, especially as it looks a done and dusted deal. Change is all SKS and Labour offer, there no policy hook, no idealogical hook. I think the more it looks done, the more a lot peel away to 'meh' or George or Reform whereas the remaining Tories will just trudge along and vote Tory Big gap elections always seem to be less so on the day
You've argued for a while that the Workers Party will do well, but look how few candidates they've managed to nominate, contrary to their boasting they'd stand in every constituency.
The Workers couldn’t find £300k in deposits, and 600 vetted people to stand for them?
Given that their leader wouldn’t pass any sensible sort of vetting, why bother with their other candidates?
Vetting of candidates is one of my favourite subjects (I’m an IT manager with security specialisation, who could do this all day). It takes only a day or two to read a decade of Twitter for most people.
The trick is to outsource the vetting, so that party members aren’t the ones considering whether or not something is controversial. A bunch of Palestine activists aren’t going to spot the blatant anti-Semitism from their ‘friend’.
On the topic of Tory coronations, I'm struggling to remember in what happened in the various Tory changeovers of the last ten years.
Did any or several of them involve a replacement without a vote ? Is this possible according to Tory Party rules ?
If a good majority of the wannabe MPs were behind someone, I t hink that’s all that counts for the election. They could do the paperwork later but that person would clearly be PM (well, LoTO) elect.
I would have said it won’t happen. But it’s pretty desperate for them.
I wonder if my memory that some of these changeovers / coronations weren't actually voted on by MP's is correct.
Mordaunt -19 in the debate. To be honest I’d have scored her net positive so I do wonder again if it’s just another sign the public gave up with the Tories long ago.
About 2.6 years ago to be precise. That's when the ship began sinking after Captain Boris crashed it into some rocks, then Truss drilled a whole in the bottom, Sunak patched it up with some emergency planks, but they've been taking on water constantly since, and about 3 weeks ago he decided to jump on the planks to reopen the hole.
I do think we will come to believe that this election was lost in 2022.
Johnson should have gone after Hartlepool and he'd have won a landslide then. That was the peak and it's been downhill ever since.
Of course, the Tories were never truly popular but SKS for a while was doing terribly. So the Tories had room there to defeat him.
Support for Labour is a mile wide but an inch deep.
They are primarily a rejection mechanism for the present administration- their fundamentals are pretty poor.
I think you are wrong. I think we're about to enter another 3 term period of Labour rule, a period which the Tories may not survive in their current form (although something non-Labour will emerge as an alternative in time).
I could of course be wrong and you will be welcome to say 'I told you so' loudly and often if that proves the case.
I think I'm right. But I won't say 'I told you you so' because that'll be annoying for you to hear and I don't particularly care about being seen to be right.
But, anyone who automatically assumes 2-3 terms or 10-15 years minimum is simply projecting present day support wildly into the future and assuming that nothing will change and everything will stay the same.
That's not how it works, nor what the fundamentals show, so it essentially demonstrates a failure of imagination.
I agree with a lot of that, but the key for me is I see no way of the Tories avoiding a lurch to the right after the election. And one thing I am confident of is that to win an election these days you have to grab a bit of the centre ground.
I see why you say that, but the reason I think you might be wrong is this. From 1997-2005 Blair was bulletproof and the Tories fought amongst themselves because they (possibly subconsciously) didn’t think they could win. If Starmer was struggling, I think it might focus minds a bit more.
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.
Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.
Grr.
But if you are just voting for the name what's the point?
If you are a lifelong Heathite, Buttskellist, one nation, socially liberal, pro-EU, anti- hanging Tory what is left for you?
When Suella and Co. join Farage, and something called maybe the "New Conservatives" breaks free from that dangerous clown show, maybe disillusioned feudal Tories have a home again. In the meantime vote LD
Outer London was significantly worse for Khan. You could attribute that to different things, but I see no reason to assume the ULEZ wasn't a meaningful part of it.
Eh? Your own data shows tiny local swings away from Khan at best. He won by a mile.
But if Sunak could keep the swing since 2021 (peak Boris balloon, remember) he'd be home and dry.
Aping hall isn't a totally crazy strategy. She kept Reform down, which kept her vote and up. Trouble is, her approach only really worked in outermost London. It's not for export.
On the other hand, Rosser would be much happier if he could count on RefUK support.
The fact a lot of Tory MPs wanted to stop members voting on new leaders when the party is in government is an example of everything that's wrong with the party imo.
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.
Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.
Grr.
But if you are just voting for the name what's the point?
If you are a lifelong Heathite, Buttskellist, one nation, socially liberal, pro-EU, anti- hanging Tory what is left for you?
When Suella and Co. join Farage, and something called maybe the "New Conservatives" breaks free from that dangerous clown show, maybe disillusioned feudal Tories have a home again. In the meantime vote LD
+1 for many people the Tory party changed to the point that they cannot support it anymore.
Now for me that happened when Bozo (a liar and scoundrel) was elected leader, for others it was when Truss won... But there comes a time for many people when the party is no longer their party...
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
She's not been giving a major government job besides Leader of the House in years. I doubt that is purely down to jealousy from the sitting PM.
Jealousy probably is why Liz Truss sidelined Mordaunt as Leader of the House (cf Boris and JRM) but it backfired when HMQ's demise made Penny the most famous sword-carrier in the land, eclipsing Truss herself for most of her seven weeks in office.
Wasn’t the sword-carrying at the Coronation, several months after La Truss had departed the stage?
You're definitely correct about the sword, although less correct about Truss departing the stage.
The idea that Truss would have been upset and jealous at Mordaunt getting to carry the sword, when she'd just come in to Number 10 and was grappling with everything that that entailed, is a peculiar fantasy of DecrepiterJohnL's, best dealt with via a sympathetic glance and a change of topic.
“grappling” suggests she was trying to get to grips with the complexities of government rather than deciding that they were a made up by the anti-growth coalition. She spent her entire time as PM shoving a very simplistic policy down the throats of people who didn’t want it without even bothering to try and build support first. The only thing she “grappled” with was the door handles.
ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)
20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.
LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.
The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...
Doesn't matter - the politics of ULEZ are just really difficult anywhere outside London, Edinburgh, Bristol and so on. I should correct myself though - it's not just the few people who actually live in rural areas (20%), but everyone is provincial towns like say Peterborough.
Surely the pollution levels are pretty much inversely related to the areas where you most need a car?
Yes, that's my point.
If the Tories can bang on about ULEZ for 3 weeks and claim Labour (and Khan) are coming for the rest of the country, it will be effective. The weirdest thing is otherwise, Sunak is very keen on reducing lung disease if you consider his smoking ban. Surprised no one has pestered him on that.
(I realise that I am starting to sound like Moonrabbit... time will tell)
Again, it didn’t work in London, where it actually exists. Not sure it can shift the dial anywhere else where it’s not even been proposed.
You may be a bit more up to date on this than I am. My current list of implemented LEZs (Low Emissions Zones - Down, @Leon !):
All effect commercial vehicles. * Affects non-compliant private cars ** Bans non-compliant private cars. I think.
There's room for shit-stirring there, but most of these have aiui been in for some time and I expect compliance is now high and we are over the hump.
There is still perhaps room for annoyance amongst cabbies, white van men and hauliers.
If anyone has recent data on compliance, I would be interested.
It is also of interest where improved air quality has been registering, as aiui it has in London, which would allow the "but LEZ / ULEZ" arguments to be countered.
Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh all went live this week, which in the latter case is effing irritating because I'd assumed Edinburgh started at the same time as Glasgow and I've been skirting the centre for the last 9 months.
That's interesting timing for the Election.
Who is perceived as being responsible, Holyrood or Westminster, and is the perceptions positive or negative?
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
I'm struggling to think of anything Rory Stewart did in his nine years in parliament.
Apart that is from giving a very bizarre performance in a Conservative leadership debate.
Yet he has somehow been elevated to the position of the hypothetical Conservative leader who people who have no intention of voting Conservative claim would persuade them to vote Conservative but in reality wouldn't.
I think he's done a fair amount of good work, partly around veterans.
He also missed the vote on military action in Syria to go to a wedding.
Interestingly it seems it was George Osborne who had issues with Stewart:
It is made clear to him from the outset that rebellion was fatal to ambition. Early on, David Cameron comes up with a daft plan to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an entirely elected second chamber. Stewart was proposing to vote against. Minutes before the vote he is intercepted by George Osborne:
‘Rory, I am going to promote you to be a minister in ten days, but if you walk through that door,’ he said, indicating the ‘no’ lobby, ‘you will, I promise, not be promoted in the rest of this parliament. You will be a backbencher for at least five years.’
Stewart duly walks through that door. Osborne is as good as his word.
Not until Theresa May becomes Tory leader does the author find himself in government.
According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)
Funny when you think Huntingdon was the safest Tory seat in the country for many elections when John Major was the MP.
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.
Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.
Grr.
But if you are just voting for the name what's the point?
If you are a lifelong Heathite, Buttskellist, one nation, socially liberal, pro-EU, anti- hanging Tory what is left for you?
There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.
Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?
Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.
I’d always planned to sell Reform bets after Farage’s first debate - maybe once D-Day gate has taken effect in the polls. A big surge of hype for Reform/Farage should see their odds tumble further for the next few days.
Do we think:
A. The red meat like stamp duty and ULEZ scrapping in the Tory manifesto will boost the Tories back up next week - this is the shortest that Reform odds will get. Best to sell now.
OR
B. Crossover might hold a bit longer - better to keep it going for a bit, see how it goes, and sell Reform bets closer to polling day
OR
C. Hold until the end for the hopes of long odds payouts - MRPs are too hard to guess and the Canada ‘93 wipeout might actually happen.
I have no skin in this game but I reckon you ought to C it through. Every time we think the Tories have hit the bottom they find another hole to step into.
DYOR
Presumably you have some nice 'green' positions?
If so, the orthodox strategy is to close out half and keep the rest.
On the topic of Tory coronations, I'm struggling to remember in what happened in the various Tory changeovers of the last ten years.
Did any or several of them involve a replacement without a vote ? Is this possible according to Tory Party rules ?
Cameron to May: MPs voted for two candidates, but Leadsom withdrew, so no members' ballot.
May to Johnson: MPs and members voted
Johnson to Truss: MPs and members voted.
Truss to Sunak: MPs voted in partial ballot, but Mordaunt withdrew, so Sunak elected without membership ballot.
Thankyou.
So it may not in fact, be procedurally impossible, as MP's already voted on some of the other current leadership candidates, at the last leadership election ?
According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)
150 would be a little worse than 1997, which right now would be a good result.
Honestly, if/once they go under 100 then everything will crumble away very quickly to almost nothing
Absolute bollocks. The 180-200 seats aim at start of campaign seems bit hopeful now, but with four weeks still to go 150-180 still very much in play, with 120-140 the worst case.
What is meant to happen when a FPTP election is called, is the squeeze on minor parties/wasted votes begins. Correct me where wrong, after these early skirmi what we currently have is highly unusual poll drift away from BOTH main parties. But logically this is unsustainable. Look at the 1983 drift from Alliance to Labour throughout the campaign overall.
this is early days, don’t fool yourself into thinking this drift from Labour and Tories is the norm for next 4 weeks - normality of drift back to the Tory government can still happen.
Starting with Opinium tonight, just keep your eye on the Tory share, like wise with every pollster, is Tory share going up? Not at the moment? but then remember this is early days.
Outer London was significantly worse for Khan. You could attribute that to different things, but I see no reason to assume the ULEZ wasn't a meaningful part of it.
Eh? Your own data shows tiny local swings away from Khan at best. He won by a mile.
Also, Greenwich(+4.9%) and North East(+11.3%) were in the ULEZ expansion were they not?
According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)
150 would be a little worse than 1997, which right now would be a good result.
Honestly, if/once they go under 100 then everything will crumble away very quickly to almost nothing
Absolute bollocks. The 180-200 seats aim at start of campaign seems bit hopeful now, but with four weeks still to go 150-180 still very much in play, with 120-140 the worst case.
What is meant to happen when a FPTP election is called, is the squeeze on minor parties/wasted votes begins. Correct me where wrong, after these early skirmi what we currently have is highly unusual poll drift away from BOTH main parties. But logically this is unsustainable. Look at the 1983 drift from Alliance to Labour throughout the campaign overall.
this is early days, don’t fool yourself into thinking this drift from Labour and Tories is the norm for next 4 weeks - normality of drift back to the Tory government can still happen.
Starting with Opinium tonight, just keep your eye on the Tory share, like wise with every pollster, is Tory share going up? Not at the moment? but then remember this is early days.
28% still very achievable? Of course it is.
In what way is it bollocks? Its a statement of what would happen once they go under 100, not a prediction of it happening
There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.
Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?
Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.
Don’t watch what the Americans are up to, their candidates this year are 78 and 81!
There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.
Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?
Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.
We are about to have an extraordinary election. Noone can say how extraordinary the one after will be.
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.
Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.
Grr.
If you do that you’ll never change. I had to abstain in 2019 to tell Labour I wouldn’t vote for them with Corbyn in charge (indeed wouldn’t vote LibDem, from which party I had recently resigned, over the insane Revoke Art 50 policy either) and now…
I'm not a "voter", I'm a lifelong party member and activist who's invested a lot into the party.
So you back it. Your team, friends and colleagues. And influence from the inside wherever you can.
The best way of backing conservatism at this election is to vote to oust the current Tories with decisive clarity and give space for rebuilding without being able to pretend that tinkering will sort it.
"We are the Conservative party, we are not Reform and not Labour and this, having read Edmund Burke and studied European history since 1789, is why, and this is what sort of society we aspire to. And this is where we have gone wrong".
That would do as the opening words of their reconstruction document. Five-ten pages of A4 would do.
According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)
Funny when you think Huntingdon was the safest Tory seat in the country for many elections when John Major was the MP.
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.
Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.
Grr.
But if you are just voting for the name what's the point?
If you are a lifelong Heathite, Buttskellist, one nation, socially liberal, pro-EU, anti- hanging Tory what is left for you?
Berkean?
Perhaps 18 year old conscripts could join Burke's "little platoons"?
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.
Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?
Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.
We are about to have an extraordinary election. Noone can say how extraordinary the one after will be.
It has been called dull. Wrong. It is fascinating, and potentially epoch making; the most important since 1945. And, on the comment about Starmer enjoying a retirement, the last PM to really choose the moment of leaving (and even this is contested) was Wilson in (IIRC) 1976. It is extremely unusual. It would be quite relaxing to see another - perhaps in 7-8 years' time.
The fact a lot of Tory MPs wanted to stop members voting on new leaders when the party is in government is an example of everything that's wrong with the party imo.
They are 100% right on this. It’s undemocratic that our PM should be determined by people who pay for the privilege by joining a self-selecting organisation outside Parliament that can itself decide who to let in and not to let in. The PM represents the country, his mandate comes from Parliament, elected by a wide franchise. Restricting the franchise to what is, essentially, a fee-paying private members club is grotesque. That is also true of the Labour Party if in government - the members and unions should not have a say. The choice should not go outside Parliament. The practice should be legislated against frankly.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.
Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?
Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.
Just two and a half years ago we were talking of Johnson's unprecedented fourth term victory which would have taken him into his eighties.
Imaginary situation Seats for non Lab end up LD 64 Con 60 Reform 15 (including Nigel) Do Con accept some sort of merger, inviting the reverse Farage takeover to maintain HM opposition status??
Imaginary situation Seats for non Lab end up LD 64 Con 60 Reform 15 (including Nigel) Do Con accept some sort of merger, inviting the reverse Farage takeover to maintain HM opposition status??
There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.
Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?
Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.
71? That’s only 4 years older than most will be able to retire. And he looks in better shape than most.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
Imaginary situation Seats for non Lab end up LD 64 Con 60 Reform 15 (including Nigel) Do Con accept some sort of merger, inviting the reverse Farage takeover to maintain HM opposition status??
They probably would but I can’t see Reform at 15 seats under FPTP
According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)
150 would be a little worse than 1997, which right now would be a good result.
Honestly, if/once they go under 100 then everything will crumble away very quickly to almost nothing
Absolute bollocks. The 180-200 seats aim at start of campaign seems bit hopeful now, but with four weeks still to go 150-180 still very much in play, with 120-140 the worst case.
What is meant to happen when a FPTP election is called, is the squeeze on minor parties/wasted votes begins. Correct me where wrong, after these early skirmi what we currently have is highly unusual poll drift away from BOTH main parties. But logically this is unsustainable. Look at the 1983 drift from Alliance to Labour throughout the campaign overall.
this is early days, don’t fool yourself into thinking this drift from Labour and Tories is the norm for next 4 weeks - normality of drift back to the Tory government can still happen.
Starting with Opinium tonight, just keep your eye on the Tory share, like wise with every pollster, is Tory share going up? Not at the moment? but then remember this is early days.
28% still very achievable? Of course it is.
Why is 28% achievable? Name me one policy that isn't actually sending people away from the Tory party.
Heck even the Forecaster pollsters have given up and are shifting their viewpoint that the nowcasters are correct and that there is single chance of a squeeze / drift back to the Tories because frankly they don't deserve the votes.
Mordaunt -19 in the debate. To be honest I’d have scored her net positive so I do wonder again if it’s just another sign the public gave up with the Tories long ago.
About 2.6 years ago to be precise. That's when the ship began sinking after Captain Boris crashed it into some rocks, then Truss drilled a whole in the bottom, Sunak patched it up with some emergency planks, but they've been taking on water constantly since, and about 3 weeks ago he decided to jump on the planks to reopen the hole.
I do think we will come to believe that this election was lost in 2022.
Johnson should have gone after Hartlepool and he'd have won a landslide then. That was the peak and it's been downhill ever since.
Of course, the Tories were never truly popular but SKS for a while was doing terribly. So the Tories had room there to defeat him.
Support for Labour is a mile wide but an inch deep.
They are primarily a rejection mechanism for the present administration- their fundamentals are pretty poor.
I think you are wrong. I think we're about to enter another 3 term period of Labour rule, a period which the Tories may not survive in their current form (although something non-Labour will emerge as an alternative in time).
I could of course be wrong and you will be welcome to say 'I told you so' loudly and often if that proves the case.
I think I'm right. But I won't say 'I told you you so' because that'll be annoying for you to hear and I don't particularly care about being seen to be right.
But, anyone who automatically assumes 2-3 terms or 10-15 years minimum is simply projecting present day support wildly into the future and assuming that nothing will change and everything will stay the same.
That's not how it works, nor what the fundamentals show, so it essentially demonstrates a failure of imagination.
FWIW I think either of you could be right. There's no automaticity about Labour continuing for three terms but I think Starmer is very keen to make it so. So far he's hardly put a foot wrong. Also people fed up with Labour need a viable alternative to switch their votes. The Conservatives need to deal with Reform and then make themselves attractive to those voting Labour in this election.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
Imaginary situation Seats for non Lab end up LD 64 Con 60 Reform 15 (including Nigel) Do Con accept some sort of merger, inviting the reverse Farage takeover to maintain HM opposition status??
Yes
I think so too. Greed for power would see them eat themselves to cling on
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
I'm struggling to think of anything Rory Stewart did in his nine years in parliament.
Apart that is from giving a very bizarre performance in a Conservative leadership debate.
Yet he has somehow been elevated to the position of the hypothetical Conservative leader who people who have no intention of voting Conservative claim would persuade them to vote Conservative but in reality wouldn't.
I think he's done a fair amount of good work, partly around veterans.
He tried to have a human chain along the Anglo-Scottish border on what was very emphatically not the Anglo-Scottish border. Made one blink and wonder for a moment how he navigated in Afghanistan.
Mordaunt -19 in the debate. To be honest I’d have scored her net positive so I do wonder again if it’s just another sign the public gave up with the Tories long ago.
About 2.6 years ago to be precise. That's when the ship began sinking after Captain Boris crashed it into some rocks, then Truss drilled a whole in the bottom, Sunak patched it up with some emergency planks, but they've been taking on water constantly since, and about 3 weeks ago he decided to jump on the planks to reopen the hole.
I do think we will come to believe that this election was lost in 2022.
Johnson should have gone after Hartlepool and he'd have won a landslide then. That was the peak and it's been downhill ever since.
Of course, the Tories were never truly popular but SKS for a while was doing terribly. So the Tories had room there to defeat him.
Support for Labour is a mile wide but an inch deep.
They are primarily a rejection mechanism for the present administration- their fundamentals are pretty poor.
I think you are wrong. I think we're about to enter another 3 term period of Labour rule, a period which the Tories may not survive in their current form (although something non-Labour will emerge as an alternative in time).
I could of course be wrong and you will be welcome to say 'I told you so' loudly and often if that proves the case.
I think I'm right. But I won't say 'I told you you so' because that'll be annoying for you to hear and I don't particularly care about being seen to be right.
But, anyone who automatically assumes 2-3 terms or 10-15 years minimum is simply projecting present day support wildly into the future and assuming that nothing will change and everything will stay the same.
That's not how it works, nor what the fundamentals show, so it essentially demonstrates a failure of imagination.
I agree with a lot of that, but the key for me is I see no way of the Tories avoiding a lurch to the right after the election. And one thing I am confident of is that to win an election these days you have to grab a bit of the centre ground.
Yeah, but that's just a phrase. What's meant by lurch to the right is being firm on immigration and culture war issues, which is almost certainly where the Right needs to be to rebuild, and winning from the centre means adopting metropolitan liberal sentiments on the same, plus economics.
So, whilst I expect the bracketing and labelling to be precisely along those lines - because that's where most journalists sit - it will not be indicative of a flawed strategy.
Imaginary situation Seats for non Lab end up LD 64 Con 60 Reform 15 (including Nigel) Do Con accept some sort of merger, inviting the reverse Farage takeover to maintain HM opposition status??
Or split in half, depending on which MPs are left, with the other half going LibDem?
According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)
150 would be a little worse than 1997, which right now would be a good result.
Honestly, if/once they go under 100 then everything will crumble away very quickly to almost nothing
Absolute bollocks. The 180-200 seats aim at start of campaign seems bit hopeful now, but with four weeks still to go 150-180 still very much in play, with 120-140 the worst case.
What is meant to happen when a FPTP election is called, is the squeeze on minor parties/wasted votes begins. Correct me where wrong, after these early skirmi what we currently have is highly unusual poll drift away from BOTH main parties. But logically this is unsustainable. Look at the 1983 drift from Alliance to Labour throughout the campaign overall.
this is early days, don’t fool yourself into thinking this drift from Labour and Tories is the norm for next 4 weeks - normality of drift back to the Tory government can still happen.
Starting with Opinium tonight, just keep your eye on the Tory share, like wise with every pollster, is Tory share going up? Not at the moment? but then remember this is early days.
28% still very achievable? Of course it is.
"...120-140 the worst case..."
If the polls are right - a very big if, but it's something we have to consider - then no, it really isn't.
Buoyed by the failures of polls in London and India, we are all subconsciously looking at the polls and adding 50-100 more seats in our head. It can't really be that bad, can it?
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.
(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).
Make it 1000/1 and you’re on
Go on then.
Are you serious? You will have to give me £10,000 if I win. That’s a lot of money but I will hold you to it - for the sake of the site’s reputation. Are you sure?
Imaginary situation Seats for non Lab end up LD 64 Con 60 Reform 15 (including Nigel) Do Con accept some sort of merger, inviting the reverse Farage takeover to maintain HM opposition status??
Nope. Because then they'd shed 15 to the LD's. There'd be Shadow Cabinet posts for a few too.
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.
Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.
Grr.
He's not a Conservative. Boris kicked him out remember?
I couldn't care less what Boris did.
It's up to him what he identifies as and the decisions he makes.
No time for turncoats.
On your logic Bonnie Prince Charlie would be a Hanoverian.
The fact a lot of Tory MPs wanted to stop members voting on new leaders when the party is in government is an example of everything that's wrong with the party imo.
They are 100% right on this. It’s undemocratic that our PM should be determined by people who pay for the privilege by joining a self-selecting organisation outside Parliament that can itself decide who to let in and not to let in. The PM represents the country, his mandate comes from Parliament, elected by a wide franchise. Restricting the franchise to what is, essentially, a fee-paying private members club is grotesque. That is also true of the Labour Party if in government - the members and unions should not have a say. The choice should not go outside Parliament. The practice should be legislated against frankly.
And 1 reason for that is that the Government was elected on a manifesto and should continue to deliver the Manifesto they were elected on.
What you see when the members vote is none manifesto policies being promised and implemented because of the need to get members to vote for them...
I can see why members like it but it's not how our Parliament was designed
Outer London was significantly worse for Khan. You could attribute that to different things, but I see no reason to assume the ULEZ wasn't a meaningful part of it.
Eh? Your own data shows tiny local swings away from Khan at best. He won by a mile.
Also, Greenwich(+4.9%) and North East(+11.3%) were in the ULEZ expansion were they not?
Indeed so. I really do not know what @whiterabbit is rabbiting on about.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.
(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).
Make it 1000/1 and you’re on
Go on then.
Are you serious? You will have to give me £10,000 if I win. That’s a lot of money but I will hold you to it - for the sake of the site’s reputation. Are you sure?
There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.
Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?
Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.
71? That’s only 4 years older than most will be able to retire. And he looks in better shape than most.
Give him three years as PM and take another look. Happens to them all.
Rory Stewart tried to do great work on prison reform, but was effectively stymied by lack of funds, and Mail-pleasing.
This is an area where our system is essentially medieval, compared to our near neighbours ; the Norwegians send a team to look at it to remind them what not to do, every few years ; ; so socialy, very important.
Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.
Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.
Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.
Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.
Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.
Grr.
But if you are just voting for the name what's the point?
If you are a lifelong Heathite, Buttskellist, one nation, socially liberal, pro-EU, anti- hanging Tory what is left for you?
When Suella and Co. join Farage, and something called maybe the "New Conservatives" breaks free from that dangerous clown show, maybe disillusioned feudal Tories have a home again. In the meantime vote LD
+1 for many people the Tory party changed to the point that they cannot support it anymore.
Now for me that happened when Bozo (a liar and scoundrel) was elected leader, for others it was when Truss won... But there comes a time for many people when the party is no longer their party...
Lots of leftwingers applauding a turncoat because it's convenient to them.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
One problem — it looks like they're going to do relatively well against the SNP in places like Aberdeenshire, because the SNP vote is going to go down by more than the Tory share in those areas.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.
(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).
Make it 1000/1 and you’re on
Go on then. I’m on the hook for ten grand if the Tories get no seats at all.
Bold and sporting, Sandy. Not sure if I would want to be a backer or layer at those odds.
May I suggest you hedge your position slightly by selling Tories on the spreads? They are on 111, and for what it is worth, I think it's likely to go lower rather than higher.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.
(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).
Make it 1000/1 and you’re on
Go on then.
Are you serious? You will have to give me £10,000 if I win. That’s a lot of money but I will hold you to it - for the sake of the site’s reputation. Are you sure?
Yes I’m good for the ten bags.
Hah! I admire your bravery. I’m not sure I’d offer this bet. Coz it could happen and all you stand to gain is a tenner
But a bet is a bet. If - when! - I lose I am happy to pay it to you or a charity of your choosing
This is amusing. It adds a tiny dash of mad Tabasco to the feast of election fun
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
Outer London was significantly worse for Khan. You could attribute that to different things, but I see no reason to assume the ULEZ wasn't a meaningful part of it.
But of those, only West Central and Greenwich & Lewisham are unambiguously central London.
North East stretches out to the M25, and City & East is similarly mixed, covering the outer boroughs of Newham and Barking & Dagenham.
It's the same mistake people were making during the count, when they convinced themselves that the turnout figures were favouring Susan Hall - the actual constituency areas are much bigger than they realised.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.
(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).
Make it 1000/1 and you’re on
Go on then.
Are you serious? You will have to give me £10,000 if I win. That’s a lot of money but I will hold you to it - for the sake of the site’s reputation. Are you sure?
Yes I’m good for the ten bags.
Hah! I admire your bravery. I’m not sure I’d offer this bet. Coz it could happen and all you stand to gain is a tenner
But a bet is a bet. If - when! - I lose I am happy to pay it to you or a charity of your choosing
This is amusing. It adds a tiny dash of mad Tabasco to the feast of election fun
I don’t want the tenner, leave it in Ukraine with a charity of your choosing.
Musing further. If the LD's ended up as the Opposition, then you'd have a Shadow Cabinet with a majority who haven't even any experience of even being an MP. Which would seriously hamper much holding of the government to account.
ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)
20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.
LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.
The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...
Doesn't matter - the politics of ULEZ are just really difficult anywhere outside London, Edinburgh, Bristol and so on. I should correct myself though - it's not just the few people who actually live in rural areas (20%), but everyone is provincial towns like say Peterborough.
Surely the pollution levels are pretty much inversely related to the areas where you most need a car?
Yes, that's my point.
If the Tories can bang on about ULEZ for 3 weeks and claim Labour (and Khan) are coming for the rest of the country, it will be effective. The weirdest thing is otherwise, Sunak is very keen on reducing lung disease if you consider his smoking ban. Surprised no one has pestered him on that.
(I realise that I am starting to sound like Moonrabbit... time will tell)
Again, it didn’t work in London, where it actually exists. Not sure it can shift the dial anywhere else where it’s not even been proposed.
You may be a bit more up to date on this than I am. My current list of implemented LEZs (Low Emissions Zones - Down, @Leon !):
All effect commercial vehicles. * Affects non-compliant private cars ** Bans non-compliant private cars. I think.
There's room for shit-stirring there, but most of these have aiui been in for some time and I expect compliance is now high and we are over the hump.
There is still perhaps room for annoyance amongst cabbies, white van men and hauliers.
If anyone has recent data on compliance, I would be interested.
It is also of interest where improved air quality has been registering, as aiui it has in London, which would allow the "but LEZ / ULEZ" arguments to be countered.
Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh all went live this week, which in the latter case is effing irritating because I'd assumed Edinburgh started at the same time as Glasgow and I've been skirting the centre for the last 9 months.
That's interesting timing for the Election.
Who is perceived as being responsible, Holyrood or Westminster, and is the perceptions positive or negative?
I've genuinely heard no one mention it. I think that's probably because it covers the part of the town you'd be loopy to try to go through in a car due to parked vehicles, tiny roads and hordes of tourists.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.
(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).
Make it 1000/1 and you’re on
Go on then.
Are you serious? You will have to give me £10,000 if I win. That’s a lot of money but I will hold you to it - for the sake of the site’s reputation. Are you sure?
Yes I’m good for the ten bags.
Hah! I admire your bravery. I’m not sure I’d offer this bet. Coz it could happen and all you stand to gain is a tenner
But a bet is a bet. If - when! - I lose I am happy to pay it to you or a charity of your choosing
This is amusing. It adds a tiny dash of mad Tabasco to the feast of election fun
I don’t want the tenner, leave it in Ukraine with a charity of your choosing.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
There are a handful of super safe seats with no Reform standing and London/Scotland (much less reformy) should preclude a total wipeout
They are very likely to hold the seats along the Border e.g. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. If that's gone, then they are in single figures territory.
(I'm reminded of the SNP landslide election, where every rumour of a super safe Labour seat in the central belt falling was caveated with 'Huge, if true'. All of them were true.)
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.
(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).
Make it 1000/1 and you’re on
Go on then.
Are you serious? You will have to give me £10,000 if I win. That’s a lot of money but I will hold you to it - for the sake of the site’s reputation. Are you sure?
Yes I’m good for the ten bags.
Remember that thing you were saying about asymmetric risks
Musing further. If the LD's ended up as the Opposition, then you'd have a Shadow Cabinet with a majority who haven't even any experience of even being an MP. Which would seriously hamper much holding of the government to account.
I suspect the electorate collectively understand this and its what turns wipeout polling like 97 and 01 into the situations that unfolded. If the situation looks like occurring nearer the time it will get column inches and tv time. At that point, highly disillusioned Tories start to reluctantly but necessarily return
ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)
20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.
LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.
The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...
Doesn't matter - the politics of ULEZ are just really difficult anywhere outside London, Edinburgh, Bristol and so on. I should correct myself though - it's not just the few people who actually live in rural areas (20%), but everyone is provincial towns like say Peterborough.
Surely the pollution levels are pretty much inversely related to the areas where you most need a car?
Yes, that's my point.
If the Tories can bang on about ULEZ for 3 weeks and claim Labour (and Khan) are coming for the rest of the country, it will be effective. The weirdest thing is otherwise, Sunak is very keen on reducing lung disease if you consider his smoking ban. Surprised no one has pestered him on that.
(I realise that I am starting to sound like Moonrabbit... time will tell)
Again, it didn’t work in London, where it actually exists. Not sure it can shift the dial anywhere else where it’s not even been proposed.
You may be a bit more up to date on this than I am. My current list of implemented LEZs (Low Emissions Zones - Down, @Leon !):
All effect commercial vehicles. * Affects non-compliant private cars ** Bans non-compliant private cars. I think.
There's room for shit-stirring there, but most of these have aiui been in for some time and I expect compliance is now high and we are over the hump.
There is still perhaps room for annoyance amongst cabbies, white van men and hauliers.
If anyone has recent data on compliance, I would be interested.
It is also of interest where improved air quality has been registering, as aiui it has in London, which would allow the "but LEZ / ULEZ" arguments to be countered.
Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh all went live this week, which in the latter case is effing irritating because I'd assumed Edinburgh started at the same time as Glasgow and I've been skirting the centre for the last 9 months.
That's interesting timing for the Election.
Who is perceived as being responsible, Holyrood or Westminster, and is the perceptions positive or negative?
I've genuinely heard no one mention it. I think that's probably because it covers the part of the town you'd be loopy to try to go through in a car due to parked vehicles, tiny roads and hordes of tourists.
The thing is I can see the Tories ending up with 20-40 seats, I don't see them getting below that which is why less than 50 is plausible, zero really isn't...
I do wonder if absent some really Big Thing, this election campaign is over? We have upcoming football and tennis and frankly, any other distraction you can take from politics before we vote.
I thought you were getting really good feedback on the doorstep, though?
Yes, but when the PM is blasting away at his own feet with large calibre weaponry, it is not helpful!
I just think voters generally have tuned out.
I've used you as an arbiter so far of "the other side". You gave me some confidence it might still be a tighter result than expected.
Are you therefore conceding that the Tories are going to lose too? By how much do you think?
I still think that Labour might struggle to break 40. My take was 39% - I think Farage will peel a chunk of votes from Labour on the day.
But my take of the Tories on 33%? That is looking well out of reach. Rishi has proved to be a very poor campaigner. The people around him seem to be clueless.
Yeah, he hasn't just shat the bed. He's fired explosive diarrhea into it, repeatedly.
Just zero political instincts. Not just those around him - apparently he makes a lot of the decisions himself.
There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.
Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?
Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.
We are about to have an extraordinary election. Noone can say how extraordinary the one after will be.
It has been called dull. Wrong. It is fascinating, and potentially epoch making; the most important since 1945. And, on the comment about Starmer enjoying a retirement, the last PM to really choose the moment of leaving (and even this is contested) was Wilson in (IIRC) 1976. It is extremely unusual. It would be quite relaxing to see another - perhaps in 7-8 years' time.
It was dull, Kirk. Sunak and Farage have contrived to make it extremely interesting.
Comments
My dad says Labour in 1983 was a far worse campaign than this Tory one, because despite shedding all their social Democrat wing, they still managed to go into the 1983 with all their splits on show. There are no splits in this Tory campaign, everyone is still backing the strategy and supportive of all the answers Sunak gave on Tuesday.
I would have said it won’t happen. But it’s pretty desperate for them.
I think they'll get 40%, same as Corbyn got in 2017.
He also made agood speech about hedgehogs:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180722095911/https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-11-10/debates/15111048000002/HedgehogConservation?highlight=hedgehog#contribution-15111048002639
I don't want to blow my own trumpet but actually living in London, I think I have a good sense of the popularity of people here.
Khan is not despised, most people go "meh", except Uber drivers who do seem to hate him. Everyone I talked to said he has been pointless but a change would make no difference. And when I brought up Hall they said she was batshit.
So the truth is, with a decent candidate I do think the Tories could win in London. But they've given up trying.
Sunak placing his entire campaign strategy on London is insane though. But he's quite evidently a bit thick on that front.
The trick is to outsource the vetting, so that party members aren’t the ones considering whether or not something is controversial. A bunch of Palestine activists aren’t going to spot the blatant anti-Semitism from their ‘friend’.
It would be a huge step to take, though.
If you are a lifelong Heathite, Buttskellist, one nation, socially liberal, pro-EU, anti- hanging Tory what is left for you?
When Suella and Co. join Farage, and something called maybe the "New Conservatives" breaks free from that dangerous clown show, maybe disillusioned feudal Tories have a home again. In the meantime vote LD
May to Johnson: MPs and members voted
Johnson to Truss: MPs and members voted.
Truss to Sunak: MPs voted in partial ballot, but Mordaunt withdrew, so Sunak elected without membership ballot.
Aping hall isn't a totally crazy strategy. She kept Reform down, which kept her vote and up. Trouble is, her approach only really worked in outermost London. It's not for export.
On the other hand, Rosser would be much happier if he could count on RefUK support.
Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?
Now for me that happened when Bozo (a liar and scoundrel) was elected leader, for others it was when Truss won... But there comes a time for many people when the party is no longer their party...
Who is perceived as being responsible, Holyrood or Westminster, and is the perceptions positive or negative?
They pushed Labour into 6th in Cornwall in the 09 Euro Elections
Interestingly it seems it was George Osborne who had issues with Stewart:
It is made clear to him from the outset that rebellion was fatal to ambition. Early on, David Cameron comes up with a daft plan to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an entirely elected second chamber. Stewart was proposing to vote against. Minutes before the vote he is intercepted by George Osborne:
‘Rory, I am going to promote you to be a minister in ten days, but if you walk through that door,’ he said, indicating the ‘no’ lobby, ‘you will, I promise, not be promoted in the rest of this parliament. You will be a backbencher for at least five years.’
Stewart duly walks through that door. Osborne is as good as his word.
Not until Theresa May becomes Tory leader does the author find himself in government.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-fish-out-of-water/
If so, the orthodox strategy is to close out half and keep the rest.
So it may not in fact, be procedurally impossible, as MP's already voted on some of the other current leadership candidates, at the last leadership election ?
What is meant to happen when a FPTP election is called, is the squeeze on minor parties/wasted votes begins. Correct me where wrong, after these early skirmi what we currently have is highly unusual poll drift away from BOTH main parties. But logically this is unsustainable. Look at the 1983 drift from Alliance to Labour throughout the campaign overall.
this is early days, don’t fool yourself into thinking this drift from Labour and Tories is the norm for next 4 weeks - normality of drift back to the Tory government can still happen.
Starting with Opinium tonight, just keep your eye on the Tory share, like wise with every pollster, is Tory share going up? Not at the moment? but then remember this is early days.
28% still very achievable? Of course it is.
"We are the Conservative party, we are not Reform and not Labour and this, having read Edmund Burke and studied European history since 1789, is why, and this is what sort of society we aspire to. And this is where we have gone wrong".
That would do as the opening words of their reconstruction document. Five-ten pages of A4 would do.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3744/election/397
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).
I've bet on the Greens winning two seats.
Seats for non Lab end up
LD 64
Con 60
Reform 15 (including Nigel)
Do Con accept some sort of merger, inviting the reverse Farage takeover to maintain HM opposition status??
Heck even the Forecaster pollsters have given up and are shifting their viewpoint that the nowcasters are correct and that there is single chance of a squeeze / drift back to the Tories because frankly they don't deserve the votes.
It’s highly improbable but under FPTP it could happen. Remember the Canadian Tories went down to 2
But yes, good stuff re ex-services and hedgehogs.
So, whilst I expect the bracketing and labelling to be precisely along those lines - because that's where most journalists sit - it will not be indicative of a flawed strategy.
If the polls are right - a very big if, but it's something we have to consider - then no, it really isn't.
Buoyed by the failures of polls in London and India, we are all subconsciously looking at the polls and adding 50-100 more seats in our head. It can't really be that bad, can it?
Problem is: I just don't know. Hence my anguish
Because then they'd shed 15 to the LD's. There'd be Shadow Cabinet posts for a few too.
Montana
2024 Trump 163,531 90.9%
2020 Trump 200,174 93.8%
New Jersey
2024 Trump 294,658 96.7%
2020 Trump 404,214 100%
New Mexico
2024 Trump 78,912 84.5%
2020 Trump 144,067 91.3%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2020_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
Now perhaps there are other reasons for the fall in turnout but that doesn't suggest overwhelming enthusiasm for Trump among GOP voters.
What you see when the members vote is none manifesto policies being promised and implemented because of the need to get members to vote for them...
I can see why members like it but it's not how our Parliament was designed
This is an area where our system is essentially medieval, compared to our near neighbours ; the Norwegians send a team to look at it to remind them what not to do, every few years ; ; so socialy, very important.
Quelle surprise.
May I suggest you hedge your position slightly by selling Tories on the spreads? They are on 111, and for what it is worth, I think it's likely to go lower rather than higher.
But a bet is a bet. If - when! - I lose I am happy to pay it to you or a charity of your choosing
This is amusing. It adds a tiny dash of mad Tabasco to the feast of election fun
North East stretches out to the M25, and City & East is similarly mixed, covering the outer boroughs of Newham and Barking & Dagenham.
It's the same mistake people were making during the count, when they convinced themselves that the turnout figures were favouring Susan Hall - the actual constituency areas are much bigger than they realised.
https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/1799403598033670225
They've lost the Sun. The Sun will back Labour.
If the LD's ended up as the Opposition, then you'd have a Shadow Cabinet with a majority who haven't even any experience of even being an MP.
Which would seriously hamper much holding of the government to account.
LATEST SEAT PREDICTION: NORTH EAST SOMERSET AND HANHAM
LAB @Votedannorris GAIN FROM CON @Jacob_Rees_Mogg
MAJ: 22.75%
https://x.com/PollingReportUK/status/1799391443741548796
And seriously - this is a nice sporting gesture
How would you hedge this?
Con seats between 0 and 49:
4.9 / 5
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.223763243
(I'm reminded of the SNP landslide election, where every rumour of a super safe Labour seat in the central belt falling was caveated with 'Huge, if true'. All of them were true.)
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
They are heavily targeting Waveney Valley
I've typed up part one of the Northern Ireland constituencies.
The thing is I can see the Tories ending up with 20-40 seats, I don't see them getting below that which is why less than 50 is plausible, zero really isn't...
So are you. Take care.