Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
I think you are misinterpreting the term "Shy Tory". In the context of GE1992 the pollsters claimed that part of the bias in the opinion polls was due to people who always were going to vote Tory, but didn't want to express their opinion outside of the polling station.
So "Shy Tories" by definition will "come home". Of course the "Don't knows" are a larger group than the "Shy Tories" but it's not easy to estimate which don't knows are Shy Tories and which are genuinely "won't vote" or "haven't decided yet".
You'll be pleased to know that the Olympic torch has just been delivered from Athens to Villefranche harbour in a fairly spectacular display and then to the Citadel and then onto Paris. This place hasn't had crowds like this since Michael Caine nearly drowned Steve Martin.........
It's unusual to see the verb 'to drown' being used transitively!
Drowned the kittens... Drowned him in a butt of malmsey ... Not startlingly unusual surely?
Not wrong, but I don't here the phrase "drowned the kittens" very often, so yes I'd call it unusual.
If you hear that more rarely of the two I would love to know more about your lifestyle.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
Rishi's Tory seppuku. Good analogy.
I honestly don't know how he and Theresa May built political skills with media, interview and debating skills that inept.
Nor do I understand what process/training CCHQ put candidates through. Whatever it is it clearly isn't good enough. And it should be refreshed regularly for elected MPs as part of their CPD.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
Sunak made a good decision, for the UK that is!
Also Sunak's election is only "snapish" as we debated here endlessly, there weren't too many choices left for him. Macron calling an election this year was totally unnecessary. As he called it on the Sunday evening of the Euro-Election results, I wonder if the "snap" election was what the Germans call a "Schnapsidee".
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
I think you are misinterpreting the term "Shy Tory". In the context of GE1992 the pollsters claimed that part of the bias in the opinion polls was due to people who always were going to vote Tory, but didn't want to express their opinion outside of the polling station.
So "Shy Tories" by definition will "come home". Of course the "Don't knows" are a larger group than the "Shy Tories" but it's not easy to estimate which don't knows are Shy Tories and which are genuinely "won't vote" or "haven't decided yet".
I mean, I understand Shy Tories - I just think people assume more DKs are Shy Tories than actually are.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
I think you are misinterpreting the term "Shy Tory". In the context of GE1992 the pollsters claimed that part of the bias in the opinion polls was due to people who always were going to vote Tory, but didn't want to express their opinion outside of the polling station.
So "Shy Tories" by definition will "come home". Of course the "Don't knows" are a larger group than the "Shy Tories" but it's not easy to estimate which don't knows are Shy Tories and which are genuinely "won't vote" or "haven't decided yet".
In the context of 1992 we had a perhaps surprisingly competent administration with a leader who was broadly liked. But (and this is the key thing) Major was roundly mocked by his opponents (and the media), who also amplified the assorted scandals orbiting the party.
There were plenty of people who did not wish to be associated with the scandal and mocking, but were quite happy (in private) to vote for "more of the same".
The wheels came off that a few months after the election, but who knows what would have happened in 1997 without John Smith's heart attack and the ERM debacle? The Tories might have been in office for the sunny uplands period and that would have been a very different story come 2001/2.
I would just like to congratulate David Cameron on killing off the Nigel Farage threat for good.
This endless performance of King Lear in our politics is quite a spectacle. However its source is not in David Cameron (though he didn't help and made it worse) but in successive UK governments who helped form the EU into a body we could neither remain in nor leave, since neither course commanded a consistent and enthusiastic majority. Fairly small corrections WRT freedom of movement and the use of referenda early and decisively would have sorted it while leaving the advantages of the SM and CU intact.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
I think you are misinterpreting the term "Shy Tory". In the context of GE1992 the pollsters claimed that part of the bias in the opinion polls was due to people who always were going to vote Tory, but didn't want to express their opinion outside of the polling station.
So "Shy Tories" by definition will "come home". Of course the "Don't knows" are a larger group than the "Shy Tories" but it's not easy to estimate which don't knows are Shy Tories and which are genuinely "won't vote" or "haven't decided yet".
And insights like that volunteered by Big G are therefore interesting and illuminating, making the pile on all the more odd.
I don't know what I am going to do. My headline position is: not vote, but I have asked for a postal vote in case I change my mind.
Somehow I can't get enthused about this anymore today.
A beautiful morning, one of the first cloudless, beautiful mornings in months, and someone who was alive an hour ago is now in a million pieces all over the railway line at Leagrave, having apparently chosen this course of action.
Puts it all in Context I guess, but a bit shocked. I will never forget the noise.
Spare a thought, also, for the driver and the low paid cleaners who will have to deal with the mess.
I worked in a rail depot for a few years. It is not nice and happens more often than people think.
I understand if a driver has two such tragic incidents he is pensioned off on full pay
We have had several such incidents on our North Wales rail line but also a terrible recent incident where a middle aged woman slashed her wrists on a promenade bench before staggering into the sea and eventually her body was recovered by the RNLI
Sadly, it is not just train drivers. An old friend of mine was a trackside worker, whose responsibilities included going to the scene of accidents as part of the investigation. He would describe occasionally finding body tissue, and parts, some way away from the scene. Naturally enough, this upset him deeply. He also mentioned that cleaners often find similar in odd places under the train. So much so, that I think special teams are now used for such cleaning after an incident. But they will also not be unaffected.
The know side effects on the people who witness these events include - depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, behavioural problems leading to legal issues, divorce and…. suicide.
PTSD as well
Being hit by a train at 100mph is one of the most brutal deaths imaginable. You basically disintegrate.
I know this is only places where they were second, but it’s another of those fascinating residual geography maps. Wessex+, but I think more meaningfully it’s the regions that were by and large outside the open field system before enclosure.
In other words regions where there wasn’t such a defined Lord-serf stratification of society.
Similar to the old Angevin regions of France that alternate between Macron and LR and haven’t got so much into Melenchon or Le Pen.
That's fascinating. There is certainly a very different feel to the Britain you reach by heading west from London compared to the one you reach by heading north.
Somehow I can't get enthused about this anymore today.
A beautiful morning, one of the first cloudless, beautiful mornings in months, and someone who was alive an hour ago is now in a million pieces all over the railway line at Leagrave, having apparently chosen this course of action.
Puts it all in Context I guess, but a bit shocked. I will never forget the noise.
My sympathies. I’ve had the same experience of being on the train when it happened and I won’t forget it either.
43% of undecideds are still undecided, almost double the 22% who have gone Labour.
The final Sunak v Starmer debate next Wednesday night on BBC1 at primetime 9pm will be crucial in deciding where many of them go
People who are undecided do not watch debates - it's mostly political nerds like us. I would assume the vast majority of that 43% who are still DK are actually not going to vote.
My comment is that I would not expect *that* much change, as Rishi is essentially still playing hula hoops with Hail Mary passes, and the peeps who didn't swallow it before aren't going to start swallowing it now.
So I'm calling the Election result as 100 Tory Seats, plus or minus 100.
43% of undecideds are still undecided, almost double the 22% who have gone Labour.
The final Sunak v Starmer debate next Wednesday night on BBC1 at primetime 9pm will be crucial in deciding where many of them go
People who are undecided do not watch debates - it's mostly political nerds like us. I would assume the vast majority of that 43% who are still DK are actually not going to vote.
Perfectly possible to be a political nerd and undecided I can assure you. Not all interested in politics are partisans.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
Ideologically Sunak and Macron are both globalist ex bankers educated at elite institutions closer to each other than to Farage and Le Pen, Melenchon or arguably even Starmer ideologically. For example, I see Francois Hollande, Macron's socialist predecessor as French President who is probably closer to Starmer is now going to stand for Melenchon's leftist block in the legislative elections despite the fact Macron was his Treasury minister before effectively ousting him at the Elysee Palace.
I would just like to congratulate David Cameron on killing off the Nigel Farage threat for good.
This endless performance of King Lear in our politics is quite a spectacle. However its source is not in David Cameron (though he didn't help and made it worse) but in successive UK governments who helped form the EU into a body we could neither remain in nor leave, since neither course commanded a consistent and enthusiastic majority. Fairly small corrections WRT freedom of movement and the use of referenda early and decisively would have sorted it while leaving the advantages of the SM and CU intact.
It is a stupendous policy failure.
I've had David Cameron down as a posher and less competent version of Gypsy Rosa Lee * for some time now.
(*) To be clear, that is the fortune tellers at Goose Fair, NOT the Burlesque artiste (another profession with male and female versions !) **, who was Gypsy Rose Lee - a specialist in the removal of calico drawers whilst retaining her skirt.
Analysis of the seats the Tories could keep at the election suggests the party will be evenly split between rightward-leaning and moderate MPs, setting up the mother of all leadership contests
If moderate MPs make up half the parliamentary party that would reduce the influence of the hard right ERG block and their ability to get their candidate into the final two
43% of undecideds are still undecided, almost double the 22% who have gone Labour.
The final Sunak v Starmer debate next Wednesday night on BBC1 at primetime 9pm will be crucial in deciding where many of them go
How many of the undecideds will watch? I suspect most will have better things to do. As to the reported outcome that will depend on your news source. Big win for Starmer in the Mirror, big win for Sunak in the Express.
Investment in UK has trailed other G7 countries since mid-1990s, IPPR says Institute for Public Policy Research urges Labour and Conservatives to reverse planned cuts https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/18/investment-in-uk-has-trailed-other-g7-countries-since-mid-1990s-ippr-says Investment in the UK has trailed other G7 countries including the US and Germany since the mid-1990s, according to a report that urges Labour and the Conservatives to reverse planned cuts to investment or risk long-term damage to economic growth.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank found the UK was bottom of the G7 league for investment in 24 out of the last 30 years, using figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)...
...The figures show the turning point was the period after the early 1990s recession, which was followed by a severe property crash and Black Wednesday, when Britain was forced to hurriedly exit from the EU’s exchange rate mechanism. Ever since, growth in private sector investment has tracked below all the G7 countries except in three of the 24 years...
I think @Gardenwalker put it well when he said we seem to have an allergy to capital investment in this country.
It's like we look down our noses at it or something and see it as a waste of money.
It's why the HS2 decision was such a terrible one. We need public investment to attract private sector investment and to create productive jobs. But this also means that we have yet more pressure to reduce current expenditure to create room for it. When you are already borrowing almost £100bn a year to meet current expenditure it is inevitable that capital investment is cut.
But I am cautious as to whether Labour will be willing to make the hard decisions necessary to free the capacity to make that investment.
Probably not, since people vote on sweeties for the here and now and not the future.
They'd see it as wasted money that could be spent on their pension, tax cuts or the NHS etc.
To overcome that, politicians need to lead and make brave arguments, as you say.
A massive majority should make a leader more willing to be brave and take some tough decisions for the long term.
Yet I fear it is usually squandered, or wasted on trivialities.
After the best part of 15 years out of office, I imagine the first term is spent learning how to do anything at all.
Possibly, yet Boris had a comfortable majority and was largely tentative and treated it like a small one. He abandoned planning reform at the first hint of trouble after all, rather than adjust and push on.
I think Boris is a special case. Have we ever had a Prime Minister so invested in *being* Prime Minister rather than wishing to *do* anything?
Boris's problem is he sacked Dominic Cummings who did have a plan and some drive. After that, as you say, nothing.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
Simon Jupp is either fighting a very clever campaign in Honiton and Sidmouth, based on smart below the radar electioneering or he is fighting an entirely clueless one. The Tories are almost invisible here. II don't see their posters. I don't see their canvassers. I don't see their flyers. Where on earth are they? By contrast, Richard Foord and the LibDems are everywhere. It's bizarre.
Given you didn't even vote Tory in 2019 though you won't exactly be on his target list. Tory canvassers will focus on confirmed 2019 Tory voters only and target their door knocking, leaflets and social media at them. You will get the election address, that is it.
Poster count means little, apart from in Tory heartland rural areas, villages and fields, Labour and the LDs have always beaten the Tories on poster count in towns and cities, even in 1992, 2015 and 2019 when the Conservatives won majorities
'Playing hoola hoops with Hail Mary passes.' What does that even mean?
It should be hula hoops .
It means that that imo that is all Sunak has been doing for about two years - nothing but Hail Mary passes. No credible policy. Burn down the good things they have done in the hope of saving his skin. No attempts to repair national finances.
Not even a convincing pretence that he has any practical plans that extend beyond the General Election.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
The centre is getting destroyed in France by the Left, and RN/pro RN LR. The latest poll has 28% for the Left, 37% for the Right, and 18% for the Centre.
What matters is how the undecideds break compared to the existing balance of support for the parties. It looks to me from the figures in the lead that the UNDs are actually breaking slightly more Tory than the already decided population, but not by very much? In which case we should expect the polls to narrow, but not by that much.
Unless of course the pollsters have already made assumptions about how the UNDs will break that are even more Tory, perhaps based on their vote last time?
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
Ideologically Sunak and Macron are both globalist ex bankers educated at elite institutions closer to each other than to Farage and Le Pen, Melenchon or arguably even Starmer ideologically. For example, I see Francois Hollande, Macron's socialist predecessor as French President who is probably closer to Starmer is now going to stand for Melenchon's leftist block in the legislative elections despite the fact Macron was his Treasury minister before effectively ousting him at the Elysee Palace.
We underestimate just how much the splits, and reversals of fortune, in French politics, are driven by massive, competing, egos.
Investment in UK has trailed other G7 countries since mid-1990s, IPPR says Institute for Public Policy Research urges Labour and Conservatives to reverse planned cuts https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/18/investment-in-uk-has-trailed-other-g7-countries-since-mid-1990s-ippr-says Investment in the UK has trailed other G7 countries including the US and Germany since the mid-1990s, according to a report that urges Labour and the Conservatives to reverse planned cuts to investment or risk long-term damage to economic growth.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank found the UK was bottom of the G7 league for investment in 24 out of the last 30 years, using figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)...
...The figures show the turning point was the period after the early 1990s recession, which was followed by a severe property crash and Black Wednesday, when Britain was forced to hurriedly exit from the EU’s exchange rate mechanism. Ever since, growth in private sector investment has tracked below all the G7 countries except in three of the 24 years...
I think @Gardenwalker put it well when he said we seem to have an allergy to capital investment in this country.
It's like we look down our noses at it or something and see it as a waste of money.
It's why the HS2 decision was such a terrible one. We need public investment to attract private sector investment and to create productive jobs. But this also means that we have yet more pressure to reduce current expenditure to create room for it. When you are already borrowing almost £100bn a year to meet current expenditure it is inevitable that capital investment is cut.
But I am cautious as to whether Labour will be willing to make the hard decisions necessary to free the capacity to make that investment.
Probably not, since people vote on sweeties for the here and now and not the future.
They'd see it as wasted money that could be spent on their pension, tax cuts or the NHS etc.
To overcome that, politicians need to lead and make brave arguments, as you say.
A massive majority should make a leader more willing to be brave and take some tough decisions for the long term.
Yet I fear it is usually squandered, or wasted on trivialities.
After the best part of 15 years out of office, I imagine the first term is spent learning how to do anything at all.
Possibly, yet Boris had a comfortable majority and was largely tentative and treated it like a small one. He abandoned planning reform at the first hint of trouble after all, rather than adjust and push on.
I think Boris is a special case. Have we ever had a Prime Minister so invested in *being* Prime Minister rather than wishing to *do* anything?
Boris's problem is he sacked Dominic Cummings who did have a plan and some drive. After that, as you say, nothing.
Dominic Cummings may have had plans, but are they 5/10 year plans that he would make sure people stay on top of and get delivered?
He's surely more the back of a napkin planner who gets bored of last weeks plan and wants to move on to something shiny and new.
What matters is how the undecideds break compared to the existing balance of support for the parties. It looks to me from the figures in the lead that the UNDs are actually breaking slightly more Tory than the already decided population, but not by very much? In which case we should expect the polls to narrow, but not by that much.
Unless of course the pollsters have already made assumptions about how the UNDs will break that are even more Tory, perhaps based on their vote last time?
Morning Ian.
Can you walk me through your maths on that slowly and carefully?
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
Starmer is a social democrat, the LDs put out a social democrat manifesto. The Greens are hard left, Farage and Reform hard right.
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
What matters is how the undecideds break compared to the existing balance of support for the parties. It looks to me from the figures in the lead that the UNDs are actually breaking slightly more Tory than the already decided population, but not by very much? In which case we should expect the polls to narrow, but not by that much.
Unless of course the pollsters have already made assumptions about how the UNDs will break that are even more Tory, perhaps based on their vote last time?
Yes this is what I was saying upthread. A 22 14 6 6 split of these undecideds would feed as a wash into a poll with say 40 24 12 10 or thereabouts (like the MRP). It would slightly reduce a poll lead of 20 plus by 1 or 2 points.
Edit - if there were, say, 1 million undecided on polling day and they split 50/50 LabCon that would be much better for Tories overall
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
It's worth emphasising *big* business. The majority of businesses (still providing a majority of employment, IIRC) tend to be shafted by the right at least as much (if not more than) the left. At least since government stopped having a reasonable number of actual business people (and trade unionists) involved, rather than financiers and PPE graduates.
I’ve just run this past my Surrey tory friend and she says,
‘Well it’s obvious why’ ‘Erm, not to me’ ‘It’s because all the nice Conservatives have gone. They have been taken over by Cruella Braverman, so of course the undecideds aren’t returning to the Conservatives.'
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
Starmer is a social democrat, the LDs put out a social democrat manifesto. The Greens are hard left, Farage and Reform hard right.
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
Starmer is a Cameroon. He has set out a Cameroon vision for the future. He has not put out a socially democratic manifesto. Do I know who Starmer is "in his heart" - no. But when we have the likes of Rory goddamn Stewart pointing out that the next Labour government is just going to do austerity lite, I think it's clear that the next government isn't doing anything particularly to the left.
'Playing hoola hoops with Hail Mary passes.' What does that even mean?
Too much baseball on PB those days. If we have to use sporting metaphors, camanachd, tiddlywinks and shove-ha'penny offer proper UKlish similes and metaphors.
43% of undecideds are still undecided, almost double the 22% who have gone Labour.
The final Sunak v Starmer debate next Wednesday night on BBC1 at primetime 9pm will be crucial in deciding where many of them go
People who are undecided do not watch debates - it's mostly political nerds like us. I would assume the vast majority of that 43% who are still DK are actually not going to vote.
Not sure that’s a good assumption at all. The aforementioned friend ^^^ has watched all the debates.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
My reasoning is this.
Taking the step to vote Labour or Lib Dem for a habitual Tory voter is a big step. If a voter cannot take that step in an opinion poll, then doing so in the polling booth is unlikely.
Most voters are going to be angry about the actions of the party leadership, at Sunak and Truss. But when they vote it's the reassuring presence of their local Tory on the ballot paper. It's much easier to vote for the blameless local Tory than to support the party leadership. This is especially the case when the election outcome appears to be a forgone conclusion. Sunak won't be PM after the election anyway.
Under FPTP most political campaigning becomes negative. Only a vote for y can stop x. At the end of the day if you're a core Tory voter, someone who makes up the 20-30% of their support total, who else are you going to vote for who will stop Labour from winning your seat? If your Tory vote was never a positive vote for the Tories, but a negative vote against Labour, then you're trapped into making that vote regardless of how poor the Tories are. And, anyway, this time the Tories are bound to lose, so your Tory vote won't prolong the disaster of the incumbent government, but will act to restrain the worst excesses of the inevitable Labour government.
I think this is all enough to see the Tories back up to 29%. Their worst vote share ever, so not exactly a good result, but better than suggested by the opinion polls.
Not to 29%, from where we are now. 25% perhaps.
The Tories are already at 25%, if More in Common are closer to the donkey's arse.
I would just like to congratulate David Cameron on killing off the Nigel Farage threat for good.
This endless performance of King Lear in our politics is quite a spectacle. However its source is not in David Cameron (though he didn't help and made it worse) but in successive UK governments who helped form the EU into a body we could neither remain in nor leave, since neither course commanded a consistent and enthusiastic majority. Fairly small corrections WRT freedom of movement and the use of referenda early and decisively would have sorted it while leaving the advantages of the SM and CU intact.
It is a stupendous policy failure.
The lesson there is don't ignore early warning signs and leave it too little too late.
Under New Labour concerns about EU integration and federalism were almost totally ignored, despite clear polling to the contrary.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
Starmer is a social democrat, the LDs put out a social democrat manifesto. The Greens are hard left, Farage and Reform hard right.
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
Starmer is a Cameroon. He has set out a Cameroon vision for the future. He has not put out a socially democratic manifesto. Do I know who Starmer is "in his heart" - no. But when we have the likes of Rory goddamn Stewart pointing out that the next Labour government is just going to do austerity lite, I think it's clear that the next government isn't doing anything particularly to the left.
No Starmer is a Brownite as will soon become apparent in government. Already his advisers are recommending increasing CGT on property owners and businesses, plus we have the end of the VAT exemption for private education etc.
Starmer is no Cameroon or Cleggite, he is not even a Blairite. Ideologically he is closer to John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown or Harold Wilson than Blair
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
Ideologically Sunak and Macron are both globalist ex bankers educated at elite institutions closer to each other than to Farage and Le Pen, Melenchon or arguably even Starmer ideologically. For example, I see Francois Hollande, Macron's socialist predecessor as French President who is probably closer to Starmer is now going to stand for Melenchon's leftist block in the legislative elections despite the fact Macron was his Treasury minister before effectively ousting him at the Elysee Palace.
We underestimate just how much the splits, and reversals of fortune, in French politics, are driven by massive, competing, egos.
We're certainly blessed in the UK with our selfless politicians, unencumbered by egotism.
Somehow I can't get enthused about this anymore today.
A beautiful morning, one of the first cloudless, beautiful mornings in months, and someone who was alive an hour ago is now in a million pieces all over the railway line at Leagrave, having apparently chosen this course of action.
Puts it all in Context I guess, but a bit shocked. I will never forget the noise.
Spare a thought, also, for the driver and the low paid cleaners who will have to deal with the mess.
I worked in a rail depot for a few years. It is not nice and happens more often than people think.
I understand if a driver has two such tragic incidents he is pensioned off on full pay
We have had several such incidents on our North Wales rail line but also a terrible recent incident where a middle aged woman slashed her wrists on a promenade bench before staggering into the sea and eventually her body was recovered by the RNLI
Sadly, it is not just train drivers. An old friend of mine was a trackside worker, whose responsibilities included going to the scene of accidents as part of the investigation. He would describe occasionally finding body tissue, and parts, some way away from the scene. Naturally enough, this upset him deeply. He also mentioned that cleaners often find similar in odd places under the train. So much so, that I think special teams are now used for such cleaning after an incident. But they will also not be unaffected.
The know side effects on the people who witness these events include - depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, behavioural problems leading to legal issues, divorce and…. suicide.
PTSD as well
Being hit by a train at 100mph is one of the most brutal deaths imaginable. You basically disintegrate.
It’s awful. It happened to me down in the SW last year. I’d always thought a train hits the person and they spin away into oblivion but this one ran over them.
I know it causes awful travel chaos for everyone but I hope on this forum at least we can be gentle and mindful of the state the victim must have been in. Thank you for sharing this in such a heartfelt way @MisterBedfordshire and I hope you can be as okay as possible through this. Try, if you can, to do something good for yourself later and be with someone too if you can. xx
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
The centre is getting destroyed in France by the Left, and RN/pro RN LR. The latest poll has 28% for the Left, 37% for the Right, and 18% for the Centre.
Yet neither the Right nor Left can form a majority government without centrist support
I recall quite a few people reckoning Starmer could fall apart during a GE campaign. It hasn't happened, has it? He hasn't been flawless, but he's not committed any significant gaffes that have led to a pile on. While there's rightly much focus on Sunak's gaffe-strewn campaign, there's little mention of Starmer and Labour's relatively error-free campaign.
That may of course change in the last couple of weeks, but it looks unlikely. While Labour's campaign may have been a bit dull, they've avoided giving ammunition to the enemy. Hence all the Tories have really had to go on is 'Labour will tax you more', which isn't nearly enough given the current tax burden.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
Starmer is a social democrat, the LDs put out a social democrat manifesto. The Greens are hard left, Farage and Reform hard right.
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
Starmer is a Cameroon. He has set out a Cameroon vision for the future. He has not put out a socially democratic manifesto. Do I know who Starmer is "in his heart" - no. But when we have the likes of Rory goddamn Stewart pointing out that the next Labour government is just going to do austerity lite, I think it's clear that the next government isn't doing anything particularly to the left.
No Starmer is a Brownite as will soon become apparent in government. Already his advisers are recommending increasing CGT on property owners and businesses, plus we have the end of the VAT exemption for private education etc.
Starmer is no Cameroon or Cleggite, he is not even a Blairite. Ideologically he is closer to John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown or Harold Wilson than Blair
Somehow I can't get enthused about this anymore today.
A beautiful morning, one of the first cloudless, beautiful mornings in months, and someone who was alive an hour ago is now in a million pieces all over the railway line at Leagrave, having apparently chosen this course of action.
Puts it all in Context I guess, but a bit shocked. I will never forget the noise.
Spare a thought, also, for the driver and the low paid cleaners who will have to deal with the mess.
I worked in a rail depot for a few years. It is not nice and happens more often than people think.
I understand if a driver has two such tragic incidents he is pensioned off on full pay
We have had several such incidents on our North Wales rail line but also a terrible recent incident where a middle aged woman slashed her wrists on a promenade bench before staggering into the sea and eventually her body was recovered by the RNLI
Sadly, it is not just train drivers. An old friend of mine was a trackside worker, whose responsibilities included going to the scene of accidents as part of the investigation. He would describe occasionally finding body tissue, and parts, some way away from the scene. Naturally enough, this upset him deeply. He also mentioned that cleaners often find similar in odd places under the train. So much so, that I think special teams are now used for such cleaning after an incident. But they will also not be unaffected.
The know side effects on the people who witness these events include - depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, behavioural problems leading to legal issues, divorce and…. suicide.
PTSD as well
Being hit by a train at 100mph is one of the most brutal deaths imaginable. You basically disintegrate.
It’s awful. It happened to me down in the SW last year. I’d always thought a train hits the person and they spin away into oblivion but this one ran over them.
I know it causes awful travel chaos for everyone but I hope on this forum at least we can be gentle and mindful of the state the victim must have been in. Thank you for sharing this in such a heartfelt way @MisterBedfordshire and I hope you can be as okay as possible through this. Try, if you can, to do something good for yourself later and be with someone too if you can. xx
It's very sad. And it tends to be men that choose such a violent death.
A person has been hit by a train is a euphemism and it's more accurate to say that a train has been hit by a person.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
It's worth emphasising *big* business. The majority of businesses (still providing a majority of employment, IIRC) tend to be shafted by the right at least as much (if not more than) the left. At least since government stopped having a reasonable number of actual business people (and trade unionists) involved, rather than financiers and PPE graduates.
Yes - although there was also a historic tendency amongst at least "volkish" small business owners that also tend towards the far right because they too were the dictators of their shop. It's also forgotten just how much of fascism is about wealth redistribution, but instead of from the wealthy, it is from the outsider to a) members of the party and b) some of the "volk". So much of the persecution of Jewish people in Nazi Germany was straight up theft - of shops, of jewellery, of labour. This is more obvious when we look at rich Jewish people of the era - those who had wealth in art and masses of jewels - but even those less well off were forced to give their valuables to the government to be allowed to leave prior to the death camps. The far right does not believe in a rising tide helping all ships - it believes in sinking other ships and stealing from the wreckage.
Again - when we on the left say socialism or barbarism, we're not playing with hyperbole, it's the lesson of history. The options for wealth redistribution are taking from those few who have vast wealth and let them still have a decent standard of living just no longer allowing them to be dragons hoarding wealth, or to exterminate a subsection of the poor and redistribute what they leave behind.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
Big business still prefers the liberal centre right to the far right, not least as it needs immigrant labour the far right will deny it. It is also wary of the tariffs and protectionism of the far right.
It only prefers the far right to the hard left and its high taxes, nationalisations and high spending
Sunak and his Environment Secretary Steve Barclay will campaign in the South West later today and reiterate their manifesto commitment to keep inheritance tax relief for farms which they say Labour has not matched. Though Labour says its tax plans are only as set out in its manifesto not what it has omitted "UK general election live: Greens accuse Tories and Labour of 'conspiracy of silence' over investment - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgeekd4nzvkt
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
I think you are misinterpreting the term "Shy Tory". In the context of GE1992 the pollsters claimed that part of the bias in the opinion polls was due to people who always were going to vote Tory, but didn't want to express their opinion outside of the polling station.
So "Shy Tories" by definition will "come home". Of course the "Don't knows" are a larger group than the "Shy Tories" but it's not easy to estimate which don't knows are Shy Tories and which are genuinely "won't vote" or "haven't decided yet".
In the context of 1992 we had a perhaps surprisingly competent administration with a leader who was broadly liked. But (and this is the key thing) Major was roundly mocked by his opponents (and the media), who also amplified the assorted scandals orbiting the party.
There were plenty of people who did not wish to be associated with the scandal and mocking, but were quite happy (in private) to vote for "more of the same".
The wheels came off that a few months after the election, but who knows what would have happened in 1997 without John Smith's heart attack and the ERM debacle? The Tories might have been in office for the sunny uplands period and that would have been a very different story come 2001/2.
I think the situation is *very* different now.
People in 92, and the same can be said for 97 in spite of the result, liked John Major far more than they liked his party.
Rishi Sunak does not have that same level of affection.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
Starmer is a social democrat, the LDs put out a social democrat manifesto. The Greens are hard left, Farage and Reform hard right.
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
Starmer is a Cameroon. He has set out a Cameroon vision for the future. He has not put out a socially democratic manifesto. Do I know who Starmer is "in his heart" - no. But when we have the likes of Rory goddamn Stewart pointing out that the next Labour government is just going to do austerity lite, I think it's clear that the next government isn't doing anything particularly to the left.
No Starmer is a Brownite as will soon become apparent in government. Already his advisers are recommending increasing CGT on property owners and businesses, plus we have the end of the VAT exemption for private education etc.
Starmer is no Cameroon or Cleggite, he is not even a Blairite. Ideologically he is closer to John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown or Harold Wilson than Blair
I mean, I would like this to be the case - but I don't see evidence of it as you do. Labour have made a point of sending Reeves and Streeting front and centre this campaign; the woman who doesn't want to raise taxes on any wealth and the man who wants to sell of bits of the NHS.
Rishi's big mistake, or one of them anyway, is to campaign against Labour and Keir Starmer. Instead, Rishi should have learned from the man who delivered a thumping 80-seat majority after a decade of Tory rule, or chaos with Ed Miliband as I believe it was then known.
Boris did not run against Corbyn's Labour. No, Boris ran against David Cameron and Theresa May. Get Brexit done. An end to austerity. Invest in infrastructure. Level up the north. 20,000 more coppers and 40 new hospitals.
Rishi should have been the anti-Boris. No more parties. No more bumbling. A serious man for serious times. Instead Rishi accepted the faux Boris act foisted on him by those fuckwits at CCHQ and, whisper it, what Nigel Lawson called teenage scribblers brought into Number 10. It is the same mistake Gordon Brown made after Blair, and the same fate awaits.
That rather ignores the fact that he was Boris's Chancellor.
Still, as boulay says, perhaps he would have been better off campaigning against himself.
So what? Starmer sat alongside Corbyn. It is not as if Rishi and Boris were intellectual soulmates rather than a partnership accidentally created when The Saj stood up to Dominic Cummings.
Half the arguments in this election are economic ones. He can't divorce himself from his own legacy. The Starmer point is just whataboutery, since Labour weren't in government, and there's no legacy to defend.
Rishi is trying to divorce himself from his legacy of record taxation and record immigration. My point is he should have defined himself against Boris.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
Starmer is a social democrat, the LDs put out a social democrat manifesto. The Greens are hard left, Farage and Reform hard right.
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
Starmer is a Cameroon. He has set out a Cameroon vision for the future. He has not put out a socially democratic manifesto. Do I know who Starmer is "in his heart" - no. But when we have the likes of Rory goddamn Stewart pointing out that the next Labour government is just going to do austerity lite, I think it's clear that the next government isn't doing anything particularly to the left.
No Starmer is a Brownite as will soon become apparent in government. Already his advisers are recommending increasing CGT on property owners and businesses, plus we have the end of the VAT exemption for private education etc.
Starmer is no Cameroon or Cleggite, he is not even a Blairite. Ideologically he is closer to John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown or Harold Wilson than Blair
That's pretty much how I see him. We'll find out soon anyway.
The least understood thing in British politics is that the seats won through Cameroon triangulation, like Battersea and Brighton, were lost years ago and are not coming back. The Tory future lies with small-c conservative voters.
Ah I see we've reached Labour 2019 "the voters are wrong".
The Tories will be out for a decade with this kind of thinking. Voters like me could be coaxed back but they seem to have given up. Do they not realise this kind of attitude long term is terminal? Where are the voters going to come from?
What matters is how the undecideds break compared to the existing balance of support for the parties. It looks to me from the figures in the lead that the UNDs are actually breaking slightly more Tory than the already decided population, but not by very much? In which case we should expect the polls to narrow, but not by that much.
Unless of course the pollsters have already made assumptions about how the UNDs will break that are even more Tory, perhaps based on their vote last time?
Morning Ian.
Can you walk me through your maths on that slowly and carefully?
Good morning Heathener. You were conspicuous by your absence yesterday!
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
Starmer is a social democrat, the LDs put out a social democrat manifesto. The Greens are hard left, Farage and Reform hard right.
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
Starmer is a Cameroon. He has set out a Cameroon vision for the future. He has not put out a socially democratic manifesto. Do I know who Starmer is "in his heart" - no. But when we have the likes of Rory goddamn Stewart pointing out that the next Labour government is just going to do austerity lite, I think it's clear that the next government isn't doing anything particularly to the left.
No Starmer is a Brownite as will soon become apparent in government. Already his advisers are recommending increasing CGT on property owners and businesses, plus we have the end of the VAT exemption for private education etc.
Starmer is no Cameroon or Cleggite, he is not even a Blairite. Ideologically he is closer to John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown or Harold Wilson than Blair
I mean, I would like this to be the case - but I don't see evidence of it as you do. Labour have made a point of sending Reeves and Streeting front and centre this campaign; the woman who doesn't want to raise taxes on any wealth and the man who wants to sell of bits of the NHS.
Also, Gordon Brown was the Chancellor, the Labour Chancellor, who put up income tax on the poor to fund income tax cuts for everyone else. I could easily see Starmer and Reeves engaging in that sort of Brownite triangulation.
Somehow I can't get enthused about this anymore today.
A beautiful morning, one of the first cloudless, beautiful mornings in months, and someone who was alive an hour ago is now in a million pieces all over the railway line at Leagrave, having apparently chosen this course of action.
Puts it all in Context I guess, but a bit shocked. I will never forget the noise.
Spare a thought, also, for the driver and the low paid cleaners who will have to deal with the mess.
I worked in a rail depot for a few years. It is not nice and happens more often than people think.
I understand if a driver has two such tragic incidents he is pensioned off on full pay
We have had several such incidents on our North Wales rail line but also a terrible recent incident where a middle aged woman slashed her wrists on a promenade bench before staggering into the sea and eventually her body was recovered by the RNLI
Sadly, it is not just train drivers. An old friend of mine was a trackside worker, whose responsibilities included going to the scene of accidents as part of the investigation. He would describe occasionally finding body tissue, and parts, some way away from the scene. Naturally enough, this upset him deeply. He also mentioned that cleaners often find similar in odd places under the train. So much so, that I think special teams are now used for such cleaning after an incident. But they will also not be unaffected.
The know side effects on the people who witness these events include - depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, behavioural problems leading to legal issues, divorce and…. suicide.
PTSD as well
Being hit by a train at 100mph is one of the most brutal deaths imaginable. You basically disintegrate.
It’s awful. It happened to me down in the SW last year. I’d always thought a train hits the person and they spin away into oblivion but this one ran over them.
I know it causes awful travel chaos for everyone but I hope on this forum at least we can be gentle and mindful of the state the victim must have been in. Thank you for sharing this in such a heartfelt way @MisterBedfordshire and I hope you can be as okay as possible through this. Try, if you can, to do something good for yourself later and be with someone too if you can. xx
Be mindful of the other victims. The train workers who will be dealing with this from the driver, to the onboard staff, to the low paid cleaners who have to deal with the mess left.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
Big business still prefers the liberal centre right to the far right, not least as it needs immigrant labour the far right will deny it. It is also wary of the tariffs and protectionism of the far right.
It only prefers the far right to the hard left and its high taxes, nationalisations and high spending
Yes and no. Even liberal centrists like ideas like individual rights and collective bargaining, and as capitalism needs to squeeze more and more profit out of a system it has to attack those things - because the easiest cost to cut is wages and labour. And big business just want cheaper labour, not necessarily immigrant labour - if the far right turn up and say they will scrap the minimum wage and stop immigration big business will be more than happy knowing they have a captured labour pool they can pay like crap.
And tariffs and protectionism are bad for business, sure; but the far right will also do massive government contracts to the private sector, preferring the private sector to deliver for the National Good. Nazis did a huge mass of privatisation, as did the fascists of Italy and Spain. Hell, the Spanish fascists were directly at war with the anarchists in part because the left collectivised farming under anarchist principles and land owners wanted their land back!
What matters is how the undecideds break compared to the existing balance of support for the parties. It looks to me from the figures in the lead that the UNDs are actually breaking slightly more Tory than the already decided population, but not by very much? In which case we should expect the polls to narrow, but not by that much.
Unless of course the pollsters have already made assumptions about how the UNDs will break that are even more Tory, perhaps based on their vote last time?
Morning Ian.
Can you walk me through your maths on that slowly and carefully?
Good morning Heathener. You were conspicuous by your absence yesterday!
I would have thought the most likely outcome for a big chunk of that 43% is not voting at all. If they've got so far and are still uncertain...
I am showing up in the polls (not this one) as undecided, but will definitely vote. I don't think I am the only one on this board.
I thought you'd already declared to waste your vote on the Liberal? Or are you toying with a tactical Labour/Tory vote now the MRP has shown you could let the Reformer in?
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
I think you are misinterpreting the term "Shy Tory". In the context of GE1992 the pollsters claimed that part of the bias in the opinion polls was due to people who always were going to vote Tory, but didn't want to express their opinion outside of the polling station.
So "Shy Tories" by definition will "come home". Of course the "Don't knows" are a larger group than the "Shy Tories" but it's not easy to estimate which don't knows are Shy Tories and which are genuinely "won't vote" or "haven't decided yet".
If my Dad - true blue Tory voted since 1983 - is going to sit it out this time the Tories are doomed in the Blue Wall.
I mean, different strategies for the same outcomes. The right wing SCOTUS wanted to secure the election for Bush before votes were recounted and could prove them wrong - so quick action was needed. This right wing SCOTUS want to keep Trump on the ballot but don't want to have to justify it in a legal document - so are slow walking it. The outcome is the same, a huge thumb on the scales for the GOP.
Investment in UK has trailed other G7 countries since mid-1990s, IPPR says Institute for Public Policy Research urges Labour and Conservatives to reverse planned cuts https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/18/investment-in-uk-has-trailed-other-g7-countries-since-mid-1990s-ippr-says Investment in the UK has trailed other G7 countries including the US and Germany since the mid-1990s, according to a report that urges Labour and the Conservatives to reverse planned cuts to investment or risk long-term damage to economic growth.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank found the UK was bottom of the G7 league for investment in 24 out of the last 30 years, using figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)...
...The figures show the turning point was the period after the early 1990s recession, which was followed by a severe property crash and Black Wednesday, when Britain was forced to hurriedly exit from the EU’s exchange rate mechanism. Ever since, growth in private sector investment has tracked below all the G7 countries except in three of the 24 years...
I think @Gardenwalker put it well when he said we seem to have an allergy to capital investment in this country.
It's like we look down our noses at it or something and see it as a waste of money.
It's why the HS2 decision was such a terrible one. We need public investment to attract private sector investment and to create productive jobs. But this also means that we have yet more pressure to reduce current expenditure to create room for it. When you are already borrowing almost £100bn a year to meet current expenditure it is inevitable that capital investment is cut.
But I am cautious as to whether Labour will be willing to make the hard decisions necessary to free the capacity to make that investment.
Probably not, since people vote on sweeties for the here and now and not the future.
They'd see it as wasted money that could be spent on their pension, tax cuts or the NHS etc.
To overcome that, politicians need to lead and make brave arguments, as you say.
A massive majority should make a leader more willing to be brave and take some tough decisions for the long term.
Yet I fear it is usually squandered, or wasted on trivialities.
After the best part of 15 years out of office, I imagine the first term is spent learning how to do anything at all.
Possibly, yet Boris had a comfortable majority and was largely tentative and treated it like a small one. He abandoned planning reform at the first hint of trouble after all, rather than adjust and push on.
I think Boris is a special case. Have we ever had a Prime Minister so invested in *being* Prime Minister rather than wishing to *do* anything?
Boris's problem is he sacked Dominic Cummings who did have a plan and some drive. After that, as you say, nothing.
Dominic Cummings may have had plans, but are they 5/10 year plans that he would make sure people stay on top of and get delivered?
He's surely more the back of a napkin planner who gets bored of last weeks plan and wants to move on to something shiny and new.
Cummings had a vision. Whether he could deliver is a separate question and I share most people's scepticism, but once cut adrift, there was nothing underpinning Boris's government, just Carrie's weak environmentalism and Johnson's croneyism.
'Playing hoola hoops with Hail Mary passes.' What does that even mean?
Too much baseball on PB those days. If we have to use sporting metaphors, camanachd, tiddlywinks and shove-ha'penny offer proper UKlish similes and metaphors.
Mansfield has had a group of boules courts (?) for about 30 years , so we can be quite continental about this.
I wonder if we need Board Game metaphors - Monopoly in Parliament, Diplomacy, The Fastest Gun, Operation, Mousetrap. Kerplunk!!! etc.
My favourite at present is Catan for the creation of mobility infrastructure.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
What matters is how the undecideds break compared to the existing balance of support for the parties. It looks to me from the figures in the lead that the UNDs are actually breaking slightly more Tory than the already decided population, but not by very much? In which case we should expect the polls to narrow, but not by that much.
Unless of course the pollsters have already made assumptions about how the UNDs will break that are even more Tory, perhaps based on their vote last time?
Morning Ian.
Can you walk me through your maths on that slowly and carefully?
Good morning Heathener. You were conspicuous by your absence yesterday!
Morning Roger. Staying with my Surrey tory friend and we had a full day. Political discussions between us did feature quite a lot though.
I had thought she would return to the fold and vote tory but that now seems extremely unlikely. She is deeply disenchanted with them in their current form and says it’s they who have deserted people like her, not the other way around.
43% of undecideds are still undecided, almost double the 22% who have gone Labour.
The final Sunak v Starmer debate next Wednesday night on BBC1 at primetime 9pm will be crucial in deciding where many of them go
The undecided undecided is 43% of 15, so less than 7%.
Some definitely won't vote, and even if they break to the Tories in an almost complete reverse of the polls, you're talking about potentially a 1.5% boost for the Tories v Labour.
And then we ask - if the pollsters were assuming the DKs would break Tory, has that already been baked into the slightly narrower polls, with the reduced Labour vote?
I don't expect Labour to end up with the average 22pt lead they currently have, on polling day, but those 2019 Tory DKs that looked ominous over the past year, now look a lot less benign for Starmer.
This will be one of the lowest turnout GE's ever. There is a general sense of "they are all a bit rubbish, and all the same". Muslim voters have no enthusiasm for Labour, the far left don't. And people who always vote Tory but can't stomach Nigel (of whom there must be quite a few) many of them will stay home.
With the new regulations now in place as regards the requirement to provide photo ID when voting, does anyone consider, as I do, that this is likely to have a material impact in reducing turnout figures. The 2.5% bands currently on offer from the Betfair Exchange immediately below the 60% level certainly offer some attractions should you believe that this is likely to prove to be the percentage who ultimately cast their vote:
Betfair Current Decimal Odds Turnout Band % To Buy To Sell 55.00% - 57.49% 19.0 36.0
57.50% - 59.99% 5.8 6.2
A certain level of voters will not have the required form of ID readily to hand or may not even possess such ID. Others may forget to take this with them to the polling station or simply cannot be bothered. There is also likely to be a significant number who voted Conservative in 2019 but who, like myself, although feeling very badly let down, cannot bring themselves to vote for an alternative party and have therefore consciously decided to abstain. I may be wrong but I wonder whether the number in this category may prove to be be very substantial.
Somehow I can't get enthused about this anymore today.
A beautiful morning, one of the first cloudless, beautiful mornings in months, and someone who was alive an hour ago is now in a million pieces all over the railway line at Leagrave, having apparently chosen this course of action.
Puts it all in Context I guess, but a bit shocked. I will never forget the noise.
Spare a thought, also, for the driver and the low paid cleaners who will have to deal with the mess.
I worked in a rail depot for a few years. It is not nice and happens more often than people think.
I understand if a driver has two such tragic incidents he is pensioned off on full pay
We have had several such incidents on our North Wales rail line but also a terrible recent incident where a middle aged woman slashed her wrists on a promenade bench before staggering into the sea and eventually her body was recovered by the RNLI
Sadly, it is not just train drivers. An old friend of mine was a trackside worker, whose responsibilities included going to the scene of accidents as part of the investigation. He would describe occasionally finding body tissue, and parts, some way away from the scene. Naturally enough, this upset him deeply. He also mentioned that cleaners often find similar in odd places under the train. So much so, that I think special teams are now used for such cleaning after an incident. But they will also not be unaffected.
The know side effects on the people who witness these events include - depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, behavioural problems leading to legal issues, divorce and…. suicide.
PTSD as well
Being hit by a train at 100mph is one of the most brutal deaths imaginable. You basically disintegrate.
It’s awful. It happened to me down in the SW last year. I’d always thought a train hits the person and they spin away into oblivion but this one ran over them.
I know it causes awful travel chaos for everyone but I hope on this forum at least we can be gentle and mindful of the state the victim must have been in. Thank you for sharing this in such a heartfelt way @MisterBedfordshire and I hope you can be as okay as possible through this. Try, if you can, to do something good for yourself later and be with someone too if you can. xx
Be mindful of the other victims. The train workers who will be dealing with this from the driver, to the onboard staff, to the low paid cleaners who have to deal with the mess left.
This will live with them for a while.
So true. This is not a topic I’d want to expand into for very painful personal reasons but as a counsellor friend of mine put it, ‘suicide doesn’t end the pain, it transfers it.’ I think I’d go further, ‘suicide doesn’t end the pain, it spreads it.'
I’ve read some awful stories about train drivers affected by this and, as you say, so many others at the scene.
I also think about the secondary group of people affected in a ’Sliding Doors’ way: people who miss meetings, connections, chance encounters, romances that either won’t now happen, or might do through it etc. etc.
None of which is anyway whatsoever a criticism of the individual who felt so compelled to take their life. It’s desperate and desperately sad.
'Playing hoola hoops with Hail Mary passes.' What does that even mean?
Too much baseball on PB those days. If we have to use sporting metaphors, camanachd, tiddlywinks and shove-ha'penny offer proper UKlish similes and metaphors.
Mansfield has had a group of boules courts (?) for about 30 years , so we can be quite continental about this.
I wonder if we need Board Game metaphors - Monopoly in Parliament, Diplomacy, The Fastest Gun, Operation, Mousetrap. Kerplunk!!! etc.
My favourite at present is Catan for the creation of mobility infrastructure.
Add Operation Sealion (very topical with some) and you've probabluy clinched it.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
It's worth emphasising *big* business. The majority of businesses (still providing a majority of employment, IIRC) tend to be shafted by the right at least as much (if not more than) the left. At least since government stopped having a reasonable number of actual business people (and trade unionists) involved, rather than financiers and PPE graduates.
Yes - although there was also a historic tendency amongst at least "volkish" small business owners that also tend towards the far right because they too were the dictators of their shop. It's also forgotten just how much of fascism is about wealth redistribution, but instead of from the wealthy, it is from the outsider to a) members of the party and b) some of the "volk". So much of the persecution of Jewish people in Nazi Germany was straight up theft - of shops, of jewellery, of labour. This is more obvious when we look at rich Jewish people of the era - those who had wealth in art and masses of jewels - but even those less well off were forced to give their valuables to the government to be allowed to leave prior to the death camps. The far right does not believe in a rising tide helping all ships - it believes in sinking other ships and stealing from the wreckage.
Again - when we on the left say socialism or barbarism, we're not playing with hyperbole, it's the lesson of history. The options for wealth redistribution are taking from those few who have vast wealth and let them still have a decent standard of living just no longer allowing them to be dragons hoarding wealth, or to exterminate a subsection of the poor and redistribute what they leave behind.
I remember reading an article for my history degree about the psephology of the 1932 German election. Traditionally both Marxist and small 'c' conservative historians have, like you, blamed the lower middle class, the petite-bourgeoisie, for electing the Nazis.
In fact this study found little or no correlation with social class. The far bigger determining factors were residence in rural areas and Protestantism. Some villages in very protestant rural Prussia (which, as a result of their vote, ended up in Poland after the war) reached Baathist level votes for the Nazis in an unquestionably free and fair election. Conversely large cities, particularly in the Catholic South, had proportionately lower Nazi votes. But there was little evidence, contrary to Marxist theory and conservative prejudice, that smaller shop/business owners broke for Hitler's party.
Well done for totally misrepresenting the article.
The family of 5 Afghan asylum seekers were accommodated in Poland. There is nothing to say they were there illegally. The only illegal thing they did was crossing the border from Poland into Germany. Which is why they were taken back to Poland.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
I have good friends down in Oxfordshire who are still conflicted for similar reasons. The Labour 'surge' means that a Liberal vote is no longer the obvious tactical vote in some places.
With the new regulations now in place as regards the requirement to provide photo ID when voting, does anyone consider, as I do, that this is likely to have a material impact in reducing turnout figures. The 2.5% bands currently on offer from the Betfair Exchange immediately below the 60% level certainly offer some attractions should you believe that this is likely to prove to be the percentage who ultimately cast their vote:
Betfair Current Decimal Odds Turnout Band % To Buy To Sell 55.00% - 57.49% 19.0 36.0
57.50% - 59.99% 5.8 6.2
A certain level of voters will not have the required form of ID readily to hand or may not even possess such ID. Others may forget to take this with them to the polling station or simply cannot be bothered. There is also likely to be a significant number who voted Conservative in 2019 but who, like myself, although feeling very badly let down, cannot bring themselves to vote for an alternative party and have therefore consciously decided to abstain. I may be wrong but I wonder whether the number in this category may prove to be be very substantial.
I was wondering this - how much was it a factor at the locals and how would this likely extrapolate to a GE?
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
The thing people forget about prejudice and race is that, historically speaking, skin colour / race was not always the category for prejudicial thought. In the classical period, for example, there was no understanding of whiteness as we have it now - the Romans and Greeks felt they had more in common with the Persians and Egyptians than they did with the Gauls and Celts of Western Europe. To say that the Roman Empire was inclusive is to note that anyone regardless of skin colour, religion or origin of birth could be a Roman Citizen and eligible for the rights of that citizenship. Again - race as denoted by skin colour was not really a factor here. The divide was Civilised versus Barbarian. And lots of "white" people were in that Barbarian camp.
As for the shift to the construction of race and the slave trade; that seems mostly right - if a very broad brush / low level explanation. Again, during the middle ages the distinction of bigotry was more Christendom versus Heathens - which racialised Muslims and Jewish people but accepted converts and black Christians (mostly, obviously not always) - and shifted to skin based system with slavery. The construction of scientific racism also grew with empire - indeed, one of the first races deemed obviously inferior due to their obvious physical traits and natural inclinations were the Irish, arguably the first victims of British colonialism. Then race became much more of a feature as the transatlantic slave trade grew and scientific racism was needed to justify the enslavement of black Africans - especially amongst white liberationists, like Thomas Jefferson, who were great philosophers of freedom who constantly justified his own slave holding with the idea that black Africans were just too dumb to be left to their own devices and try and form a society. This was questioned at the time by many French revolutionaries, even with contemporaries pointing out how his slaves could do complex tasks in his nail manufacturing factories from a young age, so surely they can do skilled and complex labour and can be set free - and Jefferson just shrugging and then arguing about the problems of miscegenation.
I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest, as a quick overview video, that racism as we know it today was likely "invented" during the period of the transatlantic slave trade and empire. Would some people have been prejudice towards people due to skin colour prior to that, sure, but the systemic ideology underlying the stereotypes of race only came about during this period.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
I think you are misinterpreting the term "Shy Tory". In the context of GE1992 the pollsters claimed that part of the bias in the opinion polls was due to people who always were going to vote Tory, but didn't want to express their opinion outside of the polling station.
So "Shy Tories" by definition will "come home". Of course the "Don't knows" are a larger group than the "Shy Tories" but it's not easy to estimate which don't knows are Shy Tories and which are genuinely "won't vote" or "haven't decided yet".
In the context of 1992 we had a perhaps surprisingly competent administration with a leader who was broadly liked. But (and this is the key thing) Major was roundly mocked by his opponents (and the media), who also amplified the assorted scandals orbiting the party.
There were plenty of people who did not wish to be associated with the scandal and mocking, but were quite happy (in private) to vote for "more of the same".
The wheels came off that a few months after the election, but who knows what would have happened in 1997 without John Smith's heart attack and the ERM debacle? The Tories might have been in office for the sunny uplands period and that would have been a very different story come 2001/2.
I think the situation is *very* different now.
People in 92, and the same can be said for 97 in spite of the result, liked John Major far more than they liked his party.
Rishi Sunak does not have that same level of affection.
Yes, Sunak is anything but an asset to his party. In the latest R&W for example, the one with Labour 25% ahead on VI, Starmer is a net 38% ahead of Sunak on net approval. Starmer is even a net 23% ahead of Sunak on the measure of best Prime Minister, the widest margin on record, and that measure is always heavily tilted in favour of the incumbent.
In 1992 the ratings of the party leaders were cited with hindsight as an overlooked pointer that the Conservatives would perform better than the voting intention polls suggested. You can't make a similar argument in 2024.
The least understood thing in British politics is that the seats won through Cameroon triangulation, like Battersea and Brighton, were lost years ago and are not coming back. The Tory future lies with small-c conservative voters.
Ah I see we've reached Labour 2019 "the voters are wrong".
The Tories will be out for a decade with this kind of thinking. Voters like me could be coaxed back but they seem to have given up. Do they not realise this kind of attitude long term is terminal? Where are the voters going to come from?
I disagree. The trouble with the Conservative Party is that they have lost sight of that. They are currently anything but a conservative party. Indeed one of the reasons Starmer is so far ahead is that he has made sure that the Labour Party is the conservative party at this election, and is mopping up on the small-c conservatives (many of whom in the traditional Labour heartlands vote Labour habitually, anyway).
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
Big business still prefers the liberal centre right to the far right, not least as it needs immigrant labour the far right will deny it. It is also wary of the tariffs and protectionism of the far right.
It only prefers the far right to the hard left and its high taxes, nationalisations and high spending
Very often the far right also favours nationalisations and high spending!
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
How do you think focusing on the RN and the slave trade would have helped you better understand unconscious bias?
It was more interested in lecturing people about "structural racism" and the original sins of Britain than it was dealing with unconscious bias today.
The poundshop history lesson just underlined this. Which also managed to only mention one race throughout.
When people criticise 'Wokery' this is exactly what they mean: hectoring to a predetermined agenda, distorting the facts whilst expecting you to be 'educated' by them, and then vociferously going after anyone who objects as part of the problem.
It isn't really interested in helping you address any underlying issues or behaviours. Only compliance.
With the new regulations now in place as regards the requirement to provide photo ID when voting, does anyone consider, as I do, that this is likely to have a material impact in reducing turnout figures. The 2.5% bands currently on offer from the Betfair Exchange immediately below the 60% level certainly offer some attractions should you believe that this is likely to prove to be the percentage who ultimately cast their vote:
Betfair Current Decimal Odds Turnout Band % To Buy To Sell 55.00% - 57.49% 19.0 36.0
57.50% - 59.99% 5.8 6.2
A certain level of voters will not have the required form of ID readily to hand or may not even possess such ID. Others may forget to take this with them to the polling station or simply cannot be bothered. There is also likely to be a significant number who voted Conservative in 2019 but who, like myself, although feeling very badly let down, cannot bring themselves to vote for an alternative party and have therefore consciously decided to abstain. I may be wrong but I wonder whether the number in this category may prove to be be very substantial.
I think turnout will be about the same as last time but DYOR.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
The thing people forget about prejudice and race is that, historically speaking, skin colour / race was not always the category for prejudicial thought. In the classical period, for example, there was no understanding of whiteness as we have it now - the Romans and Greeks felt they had more in common with the Persians and Egyptians than they did with the Gauls and Celts of Western Europe. To say that the Roman Empire was inclusive is to note that anyone regardless of skin colour, religion or origin of birth could be a Roman Citizen and eligible for the rights of that citizenship. Again - race as denoted by skin colour was not really a factor here. The divide was Civilised versus Barbarian. And lots of "white" people were in that Barbarian camp.
As for the shift to the construction of race and the slave trade; that seems mostly right - if a very broad brush / low level explanation. Again, during the middle ages the distinction of bigotry was more Christendom versus Heathens - which racialised Muslims and Jewish people but accepted converts and black Christians (mostly, obviously not always) - and shifted to skin based system with slavery. The construction of scientific racism also grew with empire - indeed, one of the first races deemed obviously inferior due to their obvious physical traits and natural inclinations were the Irish, arguably the first victims of British colonialism. Then race became much more of a feature as the transatlantic slave trade grew and scientific racism was needed to justify the enslavement of black Africans - especially amongst white liberationists, like Thomas Jefferson, who were great philosophers of freedom who constantly justified his own slave holding with the idea that black Africans were just too dumb to be left to their own devices and try and form a society. This was questioned at the time by many French revolutionaries, even with contemporaries pointing out how his slaves could do complex tasks in his nail manufacturing factories from a young age, so surely they can do skilled and complex labour and can be set free - and Jefferson just shrugging and then arguing about the problems of miscegenation.
I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest, as a quick overview video, that racism as we know it today was likely "invented" during the period of the transatlantic slave trade and empire. Would some people have been prejudice towards people due to skin colour prior to that, sure, but the systemic ideology underlying the stereotypes of race only came about during this period.
I'd argue it is unreasonable to do so; or, at least, a very partial viewing of history. Racism is not just about white towards black people; or white towards any other skin colour. Racism exists all around the world, and in all sorts of directions. It is also not a uniquely British, or even western, phenomenon.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
Comments
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
So "Shy Tories" by definition will "come home". Of course the "Don't knows" are a larger group than the "Shy Tories" but it's not easy to estimate which don't knows are Shy Tories and which are genuinely "won't vote" or "haven't decided yet".
I honestly don't know how he and Theresa May built political skills with media, interview and debating skills that inept.
Nor do I understand what process/training CCHQ put candidates through. Whatever it is it clearly isn't good enough. And it should be refreshed regularly for elected MPs as part of their CPD.
Also Sunak's election is only "snapish" as we debated here endlessly, there weren't too many choices left for him. Macron calling an election this year was totally unnecessary. As he called it on the Sunday evening of the Euro-Election results, I wonder if the "snap" election was what the Germans call a "Schnapsidee".
There were plenty of people who did not wish to be associated with the scandal and mocking, but were quite happy (in private) to vote for "more of the same".
The wheels came off that a few months after the election, but who knows what would have happened in 1997 without John Smith's heart attack and the ERM debacle? The Tories might have been in office for the sunny uplands period and that would have been a very different story come 2001/2.
I think the situation is *very* different now.
It is a stupendous policy failure.
I don't know what I am going to do. My headline position is: not vote, but I have asked for a postal vote in case I change my mind.
The final Sunak v Starmer debate next Wednesday night on BBC1 at primetime 9pm will be crucial in deciding where many of them go
My comment is that I would not expect *that* much change, as Rishi is essentially still playing hula hoops with Hail Mary passes, and the peeps who didn't swallow it before aren't going to start swallowing it now.
So I'm calling the Election result as 100 Tory Seats, plus or minus 100.
(*) To be clear, that is the fortune tellers at Goose Fair, NOT the Burlesque artiste (another profession with male and female versions !) **, who was Gypsy Rose Lee - a specialist in the removal of calico drawers whilst retaining her skirt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m9kd_nD1mA
(**) Is a female bullshitter a Bullshit Artiste?
Still no posters seen in the Flatlands.
But did do a bit of travelling yesterday.
Conclusions:
The Tories will win with at least 85.7% of the vote, with the Greens the opposition and all other parties wiped out.
Maybe the rural areas of Beverley and Holderness are not the best place to get a good sample....
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
Poster count means little, apart from in Tory heartland rural areas, villages and fields, Labour and the LDs have always beaten the Tories on poster count in towns and cities, even in 1992, 2015 and 2019 when the Conservatives won majorities
It means that that imo that is all Sunak has been doing for about two years - nothing but Hail Mary passes. No credible policy. Burn down the good things they have done in the hope of saving his skin. No attempts to repair national finances.
Not even a convincing pretence that he has any practical plans that extend beyond the General Election.
Unless of course the pollsters have already made assumptions about how the UNDs will break that are even more Tory, perhaps based on their vote last time?
He's surely more the back of a napkin planner who gets bored of last weeks plan and wants to move on to something shiny and new.
Can you walk me through your maths on that slowly and carefully?
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
Edit - if there were, say, 1 million undecided on polling day and they split 50/50 LabCon that would be much better for Tories overall
‘Well it’s obvious why’
‘Erm, not to me’
‘It’s because all the nice Conservatives have gone. They have been taken over by Cruella Braverman, so of course the undecideds aren’t returning to the Conservatives.'
Interesting!
Under New Labour concerns about EU integration and federalism were almost totally ignored, despite clear polling to the contrary.
Starmer is no Cameroon or Cleggite, he is not even a Blairite. Ideologically he is closer to John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown or Harold Wilson than Blair
I know it causes awful travel chaos for everyone but I hope on this forum at least we can be gentle and mindful of the state the victim must have been in. Thank you for sharing this in such a heartfelt way @MisterBedfordshire and I hope you can be as okay as possible through this. Try, if you can, to do something good for yourself later and be with someone too if you can. xx
That may of course change in the last couple of weeks, but it looks unlikely. While Labour's campaign may have been a bit dull, they've avoided giving ammunition to the enemy. Hence all the Tories have really had to go on is 'Labour will tax you more', which isn't nearly enough given the current tax burden.
A person has been hit by a train is a euphemism and it's more accurate to say that a train has been hit by a person.
Again - when we on the left say socialism or barbarism, we're not playing with hyperbole, it's the lesson of history. The options for wealth redistribution are taking from those few who have vast wealth and let them still have a decent standard of living just no longer allowing them to be dragons hoarding wealth, or to exterminate a subsection of the poor and redistribute what they leave behind.
It only prefers the far right to the hard left and its high taxes, nationalisations and high spending
My Newton Abbot constituency is conflicted!
Best for Britain tell me to vote Labour: https://www.getvoting.org/constituency/E14001381
Tactical.vote tell me to vote LibDem:
https://tactical.vote/newton-abbot/
and
TacticalVote.co.uk haven’t yet made up their mind!
https://tacticalvote.co.uk/#NewtonAbbot
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
"UK general election live: Greens accuse Tories and Labour of 'conspiracy of silence' over investment - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgeekd4nzvkt
Rishi Sunak does not have that same level of affection.
German Police dumping Afghan illegals into Poland
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article252079508/Illegale-Migration-Inakzeptabler-Vorfall-Bundespolizei-setzt-Afghanen-in-Polen-ab.html?source=puerto-reco-2_ABC-V39.1.C_plus35
Cant see that ending well
It took the SC four days to decide Bush v Gore.
The presidential immunity Trump asserts — even to send Seal Team 6 to assassinate political opponents — was first brought before SCOTUS in Dec 2023
There’s no excuse to take 6 months to decide that absurd question
https://x.com/NormEisen/status/1802698719738974297
https://x.com/jimmyrayreid/status/1802776260722266474
Ah I see we've reached Labour 2019 "the voters are wrong".
The Tories will be out for a decade with this kind of thinking. Voters like me could be coaxed back but they seem to have given up. Do they not realise this kind of attitude long term is terminal? Where are the voters going to come from?
Big sample, but is it weighted?
This will live with them for a while.
And tariffs and protectionism are bad for business, sure; but the far right will also do massive government contracts to the private sector, preferring the private sector to deliver for the National Good. Nazis did a huge mass of privatisation, as did the fascists of Italy and Spain. Hell, the Spanish fascists were directly at war with the anarchists in part because the left collectivised farming under anarchist principles and land owners wanted their land back!
I wonder if we need Board Game metaphors - Monopoly in Parliament, Diplomacy, The Fastest Gun, Operation, Mousetrap. Kerplunk!!! etc.
My favourite at present is Catan for the creation of mobility infrastructure.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
I had thought she would return to the fold and vote tory but that now seems extremely unlikely. She is deeply disenchanted with them in their current form and says it’s they who have deserted people like her, not the other way around.
Some definitely won't vote, and even if they break to the Tories in an almost complete reverse of the polls, you're talking about potentially a 1.5% boost for the Tories v Labour.
And then we ask - if the pollsters were assuming the DKs would break Tory, has that already been baked into the slightly narrower polls, with the reduced Labour vote?
I don't expect Labour to end up with the average 22pt lead they currently have, on polling day, but those 2019 Tory DKs that looked ominous over the past year, now look a lot less benign for Starmer.
https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/17/baby-girl-ends-sharing-name-popular-bakery-product-blunder-21050686/
There is a general sense of "they are all a bit rubbish, and all the same".
Muslim voters have no enthusiasm for Labour, the far left don't.
And people who always vote Tory but can't stomach Nigel (of whom there must be quite a few) many of them will stay home.
The 2.5% bands currently on offer from the Betfair Exchange immediately below the 60% level certainly offer some attractions should you believe that this is likely to prove to be the percentage who ultimately cast their vote:
Betfair Current Decimal Odds
Turnout Band % To Buy To Sell
55.00% - 57.49% 19.0 36.0
57.50% - 59.99% 5.8 6.2
A certain level of voters will not have the required form of ID readily to hand or may not even possess such ID. Others may forget to take this with them to the polling station or simply cannot be bothered.
There is also likely to be a significant number who voted Conservative in 2019 but who, like myself, although feeling very badly let down, cannot bring themselves to vote for an alternative party and have therefore consciously decided to abstain. I may be wrong but I wonder whether the number in this category may prove to be be very substantial.
But @HYUFD is right insofar as it's the last scheduled event of the campaign that could change something.
I’ve read some awful stories about train drivers affected by this and, as you say, so many others at the scene.
I also think about the secondary group of people affected in a ’Sliding Doors’ way: people who miss meetings, connections, chance encounters, romances that either won’t now happen, or might do through it etc. etc.
None of which is anyway whatsoever a criticism of the individual who felt so compelled to take their life. It’s desperate and desperately sad.
In fact this study found little or no correlation with social class. The far bigger determining factors were residence in rural areas and Protestantism. Some villages in very protestant rural Prussia (which, as a result of their vote, ended up in Poland after the war) reached Baathist level votes for the Nazis in an unquestionably free and fair election. Conversely large cities, particularly in the Catholic South, had proportionately lower Nazi votes. But there was little evidence, contrary to Marxist theory and conservative prejudice, that smaller shop/business owners broke for Hitler's party.
It can only point to 'trouble on't Street'.
The family of 5 Afghan asylum seekers were accommodated in Poland. There is nothing to say they were there illegally. The only illegal thing they did was crossing the border from Poland into Germany. Which is why they were taken back to Poland.
As for the shift to the construction of race and the slave trade; that seems mostly right - if a very broad brush / low level explanation. Again, during the middle ages the distinction of bigotry was more Christendom versus Heathens - which racialised Muslims and Jewish people but accepted converts and black Christians (mostly, obviously not always) - and shifted to skin based system with slavery. The construction of scientific racism also grew with empire - indeed, one of the first races deemed obviously inferior due to their obvious physical traits and natural inclinations were the Irish, arguably the first victims of British colonialism. Then race became much more of a feature as the transatlantic slave trade grew and scientific racism was needed to justify the enslavement of black Africans - especially amongst white liberationists, like Thomas Jefferson, who were great philosophers of freedom who constantly justified his own slave holding with the idea that black Africans were just too dumb to be left to their own devices and try and form a society. This was questioned at the time by many French revolutionaries, even with contemporaries pointing out how his slaves could do complex tasks in his nail manufacturing factories from a young age, so surely they can do skilled and complex labour and can be set free - and Jefferson just shrugging and then arguing about the problems of miscegenation.
I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest, as a quick overview video, that racism as we know it today was likely "invented" during the period of the transatlantic slave trade and empire. Would some people have been prejudice towards people due to skin colour prior to that, sure, but the systemic ideology underlying the stereotypes of race only came about during this period.
Lol, there's today's Keir rules it out hit.
We know a lot about what they won't do
In 1992 the ratings of the party leaders were cited with hindsight as an overlooked pointer that the Conservatives would perform better than the voting intention polls suggested. You can't make a similar argument in 2024.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQfZk7bzYU
The poundshop history lesson just underlined this. Which also managed to only mention one race throughout.
When people criticise 'Wokery' this is exactly what they mean: hectoring to a predetermined agenda, distorting the facts whilst expecting you to be 'educated' by them, and then vociferously going after anyone who objects as part of the problem.
It isn't really interested in helping you address any underlying issues or behaviours. Only compliance.
E.g. in China:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_China
Or in Japan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Japan
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.