Ipsos MRP has the Tories on 115 seats – politicalbetting.com

System

Ipsos MRP has the Tories on 115 seats – politicalbetting.com

Well @IpsosUK have published their first MRP.Ipsos estimated Labour could win 453 seats and the Conservatives 115, giving Keir Starmer’s party a majority of 256 and inflicting the Tories’ worst ever defeat.https://t.co/49zvsbqXpT pic.twitter.com/mKCEHqapqw

Read the full story here

Heathener

Yay, first again like Labour.

But by how much? That is the question?

BatteryCorrectHorse

Solid gold tripe.

kle4

115 seats is official opposition, good result.

Fishing

By far the most important question in the election is how many - if any - Reformers will return to the Conservatives in the voting booth. Compared with that, little else matters. And unfortunately it's particularly difficult to answer.

kle4

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

An absolutely terrifying thread about what an actual Labour government will be like


https://x.com/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."


I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on

I can't read that as I don't have Twitter.

What are the headlines please?

If you replace the x.com bit with nitter.poast.org you can browse twitter and view replies/threads.

https://nitter.poast.org/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

It changes from time to time, I assume once twitter catches up with them.

rcs1000

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

TimS

The MRPs shouldn’t in my view include seat by seat predictions. They should stick to totals, unless they are able to take into account personal votes (eg Corbyn)

El_Capitano

FPT

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

An absolutely terrifying thread about what an actual Labour government will be like


https://x.com/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."


I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on

I can't read that as I don't have Twitter.

What are the headlines please?

Imagine Allister Heath but without the penetrating insight and searingly sharp writing style. Then add a batch of Mumsnet-style hysteria and you've pretty much got the measure of it.

TheScreamingEagles

TimS said:

The MRPs shouldn’t in my view include seat by seat predictions. They should stick to totals, unless they are able to take into account personal votes (eg Corbyn)

Kinda agree.

bondegezou

Why does the Guardian article bother to say the model predicts Corbyn will lose? The model is entirely incapable of saying anything sensible on the situation in Islington North. It’s pointless looking at what it says on Islington N.

kle4

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Yes, the public are rewarding those who promise all those things, and there are potentially severe consequences to not doing so (politically and individually), there are reasons why small statism gets pared back once the choices hit.

Casino_Royale

I'M SO GLAD RISHI CALLED AN EARLY ELECTION TO WRONGFOOT REFORM.

MisterBedfordshire

FPT

Leon said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

An absolutely terrifying thread about what an actual Labour government will be like


https://x.com/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."


I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on

A lot of this talk about Labour seeking to stop any future government going in a right wing direction seems like scaremongering to me.

No Parliament can bind it's successor. The Tories could have thrown out most or all of the 1997-2010 reforms in the past 14 years if they'd wished but the fact is they chose not to.

But the Equality Act did exactly that, without anyone realising, until very recently

And he makes that point

As did the European Communities Act Solution to the Equality act preventing reform is same as European Communities Act & Human Rights preventing reform. Repeal or Heavily Amend it.

Tories have been torn apart because they thought Brexit was enough. It wasn't Brexit was just the enabling measure that enabled the rest to be done. They were not done and as a result reforms that the public wanted could not be enacted and they regard the Tories as having betrayed them.

Exactly right

I blame Boris. He had the majority to do all this, but he was too frit of his posh lefty friends, fam and neighbz

For this to change, it will take a firmly rightwing leader of a firmly rightwing party that doesn't give a tinker's wank about fashionable opinion

OMG Georgia!!!

Sadly, Fair comment.

I fear Boris had two fatal flaws (possibly 3).

1) Weakness - so he didn't have the balls to stick with essentially the same policy as Sweden and more unforgivably, didn't end the lockdown nonsense after six weeks when it was obvious that Covid was a disease of the very elderly, very ill with something else and very unlucky (he clearly thought it was nonsense as illustrated by his behaviour).

2) Needing to be liked (which let his posh lefty friends have a veto).

3) I suspect (pure spectulation) he got some policy ideas from domestic sources. That would account for his U turn on Eagle Slicers and the like, when the M'Learned former Mrs Boris was swapped for the current incumbent.

It is the firm bit rather than particularly right wing bit that is needed. Someone willing to do what Thatcher did when losing a judicial review. Pass an act overthrowing the judgement.

BobSykes

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

An absolutely terrifying thread about what an actual Labour government will be like


https://x.com/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."


I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on

I can't read that as I don't have Twitter.

What are the headlines please?

If you replace the x.com bit with nitter.poast.org you can browse twitter and view replies/threads.

https://nitter.poast.org/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

It changes from time to time, I assume once twitter catches up with them.

It's a chilling read for those of us of even a moderate centre right persuasion but if a centre right party/parties win at some future point then all undoable. The real fear i have is an elected second chamber being brought in with PR and thus with a permanent leftie majority defeating everything a new right wing Commons seeks to enact. That would lead to a real clash, in theory the Commons could vote to repeal the Act that brought in the second chamber but if Labour changes the law to remove the primacy of the Commons then i don't see how that would work. That's what scares me a bit.

Tbh, I'm more worried about whether a centre right government will ever get elected at all for the rest of my life. I'm 47...

kle4

TimS said:

The MRPs shouldn’t in my view include seat by seat predictions. They should stick to totals, unless they are able to take into account personal votes (eg Corbyn)

Spurious rigour is more exciting.

Omnium

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Agree entirely. And this is the Tory dilemma. Look again though and find the bits of the state that are baggage.

The state shouldn't be everything.

nova

bondegezou said:

Why does the Guardian article bother to say the model predicts Corbyn will lose? The model is entirely incapable of saying anything sensible on the situation in Islington North. It’s pointless looking at what it says on Islington N.

IPSOS make the same claim on their own site, which is bonkers, as they've got Corbyn on less than 13%.

One thing that is interesting, is that there appear only to be two safe Tory seats in the whole country. Maldon and North Dorset!

Casino_Royale

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

An absolutely terrifying thread about what an actual Labour government will be like


https://x.com/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."


I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on

I can't read that as I don't have Twitter.

What are the headlines please?

If you replace the x.com bit with nitter.poast.org you can browse twitter and view replies/threads.

https://nitter.poast.org/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

It changes from time to time, I assume once twitter catches up with them.

Thank you.

Fishing

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

We need to raise the pension age so that people have fewer years to sponge off the working age population. The original pension age was set when life expectancy was far shorter, and it has simply not kept pace with the growth of life expectancy.

We also need to explain to the very old that they can't forever expect the healthy young to pay for more and more expensive treatments which only prolong life trivially if at all.

Heresies I know, but the alternative of a crippled economy is far worse.

biggles

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….

Heathener

I

TimS said:

The MRPs shouldn’t in my view include seat by seat predictions. They should stick to totals, unless they are able to take into account personal votes (eg Corbyn)

Isn’t part of the point of an MRP that it drills down into local factors though?

'What is an MRP poll?

An MRP poll - which stands for multilevel regression and post-stratification - draws from large amounts of data, including a large sample size and additional information like locations.
Such polls first ask a large representative sample how they will vote, then use that information combined with data about the sorts of people who live in different constituencies to estimate how people will vote across the country.
Rather than making more generalised assumptions that everyone behaves the same way in different constituencies, it takes into account the fact that every constituency is its own race and local issues and trends may be at play.’

Source: Sky News
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-2024-sunak-starmer-conservatives-labour-reform-davey-lib-dem-12593360

Casino_Royale

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Live longer, work longer, and save more.

Simple as that.

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

115 seats is official opposition, good result.

I'd take that right now.

Anabobazina

Old poll.

Next.

Andy_JS

East Hants

Con 36%
Lab 23%
LD 20%
Ref 13%
Grn 8%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls/ipsos-election-mrp

Ghedebrav

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

115 seats is official opposition, good result.

I'd take that right now.

I reckon it’ll be higher tbh. Low turnout.

Malmesbury

Omnium said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Agree entirely. And this is the Tory dilemma. Look again though and find the bits of the state that are baggage.

The state shouldn't be everything.

The theory is being tested to destruction with increasing statutory obligations to provide care, for example.

It will be very interesting when the unstoppable object of £250k a year care hits the immovable object of Only Raise Taxes On Rich* Bastards.

*Rich is trivial to define - someone with twice your income.

Andy_JS

Suella only 6% clear in Fareham.

Con 37%, Lab 31%, LD 13%, Ref 13%, Grn 5%.

Casino_Royale

Andy_JS said:

East Hants

Con 36%
Lab 23%
LD 20%
Ref 13%
Grn 8%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls/ipsos-election-mrp

Yay. I remain in the bastion.

Whilst the hordes sweep round us, our citadel will forever remain untouched.

londonpubman

Ghedebrav said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

115 seats is official opposition, good result.

I'd take that right now.

I reckon it’ll be higher tbh. Low turnout.

I still think CON can get up to 150 maybe 175.

spudgfsh

Ghedebrav said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

115 seats is official opposition, good result.

I'd take that right now.

I reckon it’ll be higher tbh. Low turnout.

it depends on who fails to turn up in a low turnout situation. if it's mostly Tory Voters it could be a lot worse than this.

bondegezou

BobSykes said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

An absolutely terrifying thread about what an actual Labour government will be like


https://x.com/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."


I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on

I can't read that as I don't have Twitter.

What are the headlines please?

If you replace the x.com bit with nitter.poast.org you can browse twitter and view replies/threads.

https://nitter.poast.org/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

It changes from time to time, I assume once twitter catches up with them.

It's a chilling read for those of us of even a moderate centre right persuasion but if a centre right party/parties win at some future point then all undoable. The real fear i have is an elected second chamber being brought in with PR and thus with a permanent leftie majority defeating everything a new right wing Commons seeks to enact. That would lead to a real clash, in theory the Commons could vote to repeal the Act that brought in the second chamber but if Labour changes the law to remove the primacy of the Commons then i don't see how that would work. That's what scares me a bit.

Tbh, I'm more worried about whether a centre right government will ever get elected at all for the rest of my life. I'm 47...

You can’t have much faith in your political beliefs if you think you will never re-elected in a democracy!

BatteryCorrectHorse

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

An absolutely terrifying thread about what an actual Labour government will be like


https://x.com/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."


I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on

I can't read that as I don't have Twitter.

What are the headlines please?

If you replace the x.com bit with nitter.poast.org you can browse twitter and view replies/threads.

https://nitter.poast.org/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

It changes from time to time, I assume once twitter catches up with them.

None of it sounds scary. But then the Twitter poster is a nutjob.

TimS

Heathener said:

I

TimS said:

The MRPs shouldn’t in my view include seat by seat predictions. They should stick to totals, unless they are able to take into account personal votes (eg Corbyn)

Isn’t part of the point of an MRP that it drills down into local factors though?

'What is an MRP poll?

An MRP poll - which stands for multilevel regression and post-stratification - draws from large amounts of data, including a large sample size and additional information like locations.
Such polls first ask a large representative sample how they will vote, then use that information combined with data about the sorts of people who live in different constituencies to estimate how people will vote across the country.
Rather than making more generalised assumptions that everyone behaves the same way in different constituencies, it takes into account the fact that every constituency is its own race and local issues and trends may be at play.’

Source: Sky News
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-2024-sunak-starmer-conservatives-labour-reform-davey-lib-dem-12593360

It reflects wider regional patterns and demographics but the point is it cannot begin to model how Corbyn will do, or Galloway, or for that matter Farage in Clacton, beyond basic demographics. It also takes no account of campaign targeting. So it can make claims like Corbyn on course to lose without any meaningful data to back that up at seat level.

Andy_JS

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

East Hants

Con 36%
Lab 23%
LD 20%
Ref 13%
Grn 8%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls/ipsos-election-mrp

Yay. I remain in the bastion.

Whilst the hordes sweep round us, our citadel will forever remain untouched.

LDs are more likely to come 2nd though I think.

Leon

JFC this match. Everything

TheScreamingEagles

spudgfsh said:

Ghedebrav said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

115 seats is official opposition, good result.

I'd take that right now.

I reckon it’ll be higher tbh. Low turnout.

it depends on who fails to turn up in a low turnout situation. if it's mostly Tory Voters it could be a lot worse than this.

I think Labour’s biggest worry has to be that voters think the result is in the bag that they can stay at home or vote LD/Green/SNP/Reform without risking the landslide.

Andy_JS

Armenia are getting so close here. Damn.

bondegezou

Heathener said:

I

TimS said:

The MRPs shouldn’t in my view include seat by seat predictions. They should stick to totals, unless they are able to take into account personal votes (eg Corbyn)

Isn’t part of the point of an MRP that it drills down into local factors though?

'What is an MRP poll?

An MRP poll - which stands for multilevel regression and post-stratification - draws from large amounts of data, including a large sample size and additional information like locations.
Such polls first ask a large representative sample how they will vote, then use that information combined with data about the sorts of people who live in different constituencies to estimate how people will vote across the country.
Rather than making more generalised assumptions that everyone behaves the same way in different constituencies, it takes into account the fact that every constituency is its own race and local issues and trends may be at play.’

Source: Sky News
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-2024-sunak-starmer-conservatives-labour-reform-davey-lib-dem-12593360

But it can’t do that for contests that are sui generis. The situation in Islington N is not like that in any other constituency, so data from other constituencies can’t tell you about those imponderables, what personal vote does Corbyn have?

DougSeal

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Live longer, work longer, and save more.

Simple as that.

Not for a lot of people it isn’t. They’d love to live longer but for some reason they can’t see a doctor, which leaves working and saving for longer a bit out of the question.

BatteryCorrectHorse

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

East Hants

Con 36%
Lab 23%
LD 20%
Ref 13%
Grn 8%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls/ipsos-election-mrp

Yay. I remain in the bastion.

Whilst the hordes sweep round us, our citadel will forever remain untouched.

You need to look at how you win younger voters and working voters if you ever want to govern again. People like my friends who are higher rate tax payers but will be voting Labour, perhaps it would be sensible to figure out why this is?

I am not sure Lord Frost's "they are all leftie snowflakes" is the way but perhaps you have some better ideas?

Leon

SUPERB entertainment. Every match should be Turkey V Georgia

rottenborough

Andy_JS said:

Suella only 6% clear in Fareham.

Con 37%, Lab 31%, LD 13%, Ref 13%, Grn 5%.

Come on LibDem voters you know what to do here. Your country needs you!

TimS

Andy_JS said:

East Hants

Con 36%
Lab 23%
LD 20%
Ref 13%
Grn 8%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls/ipsos-election-mrp

Anywhere that Labour comes out in MRP far behind Tory but close to neck and neck with Lib Dem is probably a more lib demmy prospect.

kle4

Billionaires who are heartless and absurdly stingy? It's so unusual.

Four members of the UK's richest family are on trial in Switzerland amid allegations they spent more money caring for their dog than their servants.

The Hinduja family, worth an estimated £37bn ($47bn), is accused of exploitation and human trafficking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm55gzvv1dro

BatteryCorrectHorse

TimS said:

Andy_JS said:

East Hants

Con 36%
Lab 23%
LD 20%
Ref 13%
Grn 8%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls/ipsos-election-mrp

Anywhere that Labour comes out in MRP far behind Tory but close to neck and neck with Lib Dem is probably a more lib demmy prospect.

Lib Dems will be second there, no doubt about it.

TimS

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

Suella only 6% clear in Fareham.

Con 37%, Lab 31%, LD 13%, Ref 13%, Grn 5%.

Come on LibDem voters you know what to do here. Your country needs you!

Another example where personal factors confound the algorithm. Reform-curious voters there will vote Suella.

FrancisUrquhart

kle4 said:

Billionaires who are heartless and absurdly stingy? It's so unusual.

Four members of the UK's richest family are on trial in Switzerland amid allegations they spent more money caring for their dog than their servants.

The Hinduja family, worth an estimated £37bn ($47bn), is accused of exploitation and human trafficking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm55gzvv1dro

Big friends of Peter Mandelson.

MisterBedfordshire

biggles said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….

The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed

Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.

The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).

I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.

bondegezou

biggles said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….

Yes. I want to regulate that everyone with a pet cat has to give them at least 20 cat treats a day.

Anabobazina

Epic. Great match.

Leon

That's the best football match I've seen since Argentina v France at the last World Cup Final

Ghedebrav

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Live longer, work longer, and save more.

Simple as that.

I don’t disagree with this - as I’ve probably said on here before, I hope to be usefully employed into my seventies. I’ve seen the difference between my older relatives, parents and in-laws who have stayed in work longer and those who haven’t, and it is the former who (by far) are happier, healthier and significantly more youthful. Personally too, I dislike the idea of being reliant on a state income too much. I don’t resent others having it but fwiw I’ve always made my way in the world and don’t want to stop doing so. Whether that’s as a sage in my area of work or rounding up trolleys in Saino’s car park - I don’t really mind as long as I’m making ends meet and staying mentally and physically active.

There is of course work, and work. I wouldn’t want to be down t’pit at 75, but I would hope that Labour’s approach to skills will be a proper workforce strategy that will keep people ready for the work that the modern economy requires.

Keglin

Damn you new thread...
Long time listener, first time caller etc etc.
As a public service announcement I can reveal that my postal ballot arrived today in Southampton Itchen so the election is now on.

Cookie

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Live longer, work longer, and save more.

Simple as that.

It's actually even easier. Just work longer. We should be pleased. Working to 75 with a life expectancy of 85 is better than working to 65 with a life expectancy of 75.

AramintaMoonbeamQC

What a game of football, absolutely brilliant. You have to feel for Georgia, hitting the bar, hitting the post...

bondegezou

TheScreamingEagles said:

spudgfsh said:

Ghedebrav said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

115 seats is official opposition, good result.

I'd take that right now.

I reckon it’ll be higher tbh. Low turnout.

it depends on who fails to turn up in a low turnout situation. if it's mostly Tory Voters it could be a lot worse than this.

I think Labour’s biggest worry has to be that voters think the result is in the bag that they can stay at home or vote LD/Green/SNP/Reform without risking the landslide.

Sure, but everything points to it being true that voters can stay at home or vote LD/Green/SNP/Reform without risking the landslide.

Anabobazina

Leon said:

That's the best football match I've seen since Argentina v France at the last World Cup Final

Sensational! Sat in my garden with it on the laptop with the lovely evening sun blazing down. Perfick!

kle4

bondegezou said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

spudgfsh said:

Ghedebrav said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

115 seats is official opposition, good result.

I'd take that right now.

I reckon it’ll be higher tbh. Low turnout.

it depends on who fails to turn up in a low turnout situation. if it's mostly Tory Voters it could be a lot worse than this.

I think Labour’s biggest worry has to be that voters think the result is in the bag that they can stay at home or vote LD/Green/SNP/Reform without risking the landslide.

Sure, but everything points to it being true that voters can stay at home or vote LD/Green/SNP/Reform without risking the landslide.

And there is a good possibility many Tories will be staying home as well, so it probably evens out or is even in Labour's favour.

Stuartinromford

Casino_Royale said:

I'M SO GLAD RISHI CALLED AN EARLY ELECTION TO WRONGFOOT REFORM.

Depends.

Is the current Conservative campaign useless because the party didn't have long enough to prepare, or because they are... how can I put this tactfully... Useless?

(It turns out I can't put it tactfully.)

The fundamentals were likely to be worse by the onset of winter.

The central mystery is... why not in May? What hope did Rishi see in mid-March that had vanished by mid-May?

Leon

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

That's the best football match I've seen since Argentina v France at the last World Cup Final

Sensational! Sat in my garden with it on the laptop with the lovely evening sun blazing down. Perfick!

Best goal yet, best save yet, best match yet, best everything. Scintillating

When football is THAT good....

wooliedyed

Savanta in the Telegraph tonight coming shortly and is their first using full ballot prompt

Flatlander

Cookie said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Live longer, work longer, and save more.

Simple as that.

It's actually even easier. Just work longer. We should be pleased. Working to 75 with a life expectancy of 85 is better than working to 65 with a life expectancy of 75.

I'm not sure about that - it depends very much on the state of your health in retirement.

A lot of people are living longer but are not able to do much with it.

bondegezou

MisterBedfordshire said:

biggles said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….

The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed

Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.

The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).

I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.

What bollocks. Countries like Denmark and Finland didn’t have an empire, but work fine today through the simple measure of people being OK to pay a bit more tax.

MisterBedfordshire

Cookie said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Live longer, work longer, and save more.

Simple as that.

It's actually even easier. Just work longer. We should be pleased. Working to 75 with a life expectancy of 85 is better than working to 65 with a life expectancy of 75.

Its alright for those of us who work in mental application rather than physical application jobs.

Try carpet fitting in your seventies, your knees will know all about it.

The problem is that we are getting to the stage where someone needs to be ruthless and say "Tough Titty" about hard cases, before we end up like Argentina

(the end result of which is someone saying "Tough Titty With Knobs On" in millions of hard cases.

(or just pass laws to put them all down - see Canada for Details)

Andy_JS

Just noticed that Waveney Valley is forecast to be a Green / Reform marginal.

Grn 33%
Ref 29%
Con 23%
Lab 10%
LD 4%

JosiasJessop

Have we dome this yet?

"McDonald's is removing artificial intelligence (AI) powered ordering technology from its drive-through restaurants in the US, after customers shared its comical mishaps online."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722gne7qngo

Anabobazina

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

That's the best football match I've seen since Argentina v France at the last World Cup Final

Sensational! Sat in my garden with it on the laptop with the lovely evening sun blazing down. Perfick!

Best goal yet, best save yet, best match yet, best everything. Scintillating

When football is THAT good....

As much as I love my cricket and rugby, sometimes football is very hard to beat

spudgfsh

Stuartinromford said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'M SO GLAD RISHI CALLED AN EARLY ELECTION TO WRONGFOOT REFORM.

Depends.

Is the current Conservative campaign useless because the party didn't have long enough to prepare, or because they are... how can I put this tactfully... Useless?

(It turns out I can't put it tactfully.)

The fundamentals were likely to be worse by the onset of winter.

The central mystery is... why not in May? What hope did Rishi see in mid-March that had vanished by mid-May?

partly economics, partly boat crossings.'

when the economy didn't look like it was going to improve enough for 2-3 interest rate cuts by the time of an autumn election Rishi looked at the number of boat crossings this year and realised that record numbers by the time of an election would make things worse. In March there was hope that both could improve but by May it was clear that it was not going to happen/

wooliedyed

Andy_JS said:

Just noticed that Waveney Valley is forecast to be a Green / Reform marginal.

Grn 33%
Ref 29%
Con 23%
Lab 10%
LD 4%

No, it's not Reform territory in any way, shape or form. DYOR
Edit - if that's being modelled off of UKIP 2015, most of their vote (15%) in Waveney was in Lowestoft, now hived off in its own constituency

boulay

Nice dissection by Marina Hyde of Starmer’s LBC phone in today.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/18/clearing-the-airwaves-keir-starmer-gives-woolly-performance-on-lbc-phone-in

Heathener

londonpubman said:

Ghedebrav said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

115 seats is official opposition, good result.

I'd take that right now.

I reckon it’ll be higher tbh. Low turnout.

I still think CON can get up to 150 maybe 175.

Well I did too until the last 48 hours when if anything Labour have been edging slightly away again.

The data for the MRP isn’t the freshest. It was taken during that slight dip when, maybe, Labour suffered from not being in the news (as the last to launch its manifesto).

It’ll be interesting to see if any other polls keep that trend. And also what happens with the YouGov MRP, since it was YouGov that had Labour’s lowest share on 37% last time out.

BobSykes

bondegezou said:

BobSykes said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

An absolutely terrifying thread about what an actual Labour government will be like


https://x.com/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."


I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on

I can't read that as I don't have Twitter.

What are the headlines please?

If you replace the x.com bit with nitter.poast.org you can browse twitter and view replies/threads.

https://nitter.poast.org/admcollingwood/status/1803104439697313995

It changes from time to time, I assume once twitter catches up with them.

It's a chilling read for those of us of even a moderate centre right persuasion but if a centre right party/parties win at some future point then all undoable. The real fear i have is an elected second chamber being brought in with PR and thus with a permanent leftie majority defeating everything a new right wing Commons seeks to enact. That would lead to a real clash, in theory the Commons could vote to repeal the Act that brought in the second chamber but if Labour changes the law to remove the primacy of the Commons then i don't see how that would work. That's what scares me a bit.

Tbh, I'm more worried about whether a centre right government will ever get elected at all for the rest of my life. I'm 47...

You can’t have much faith in your political beliefs if you think you will never re-elected in a democracy!

I look at the younger demographic and their staggeringly left wing views and the tripe they are being fed through social media, as well as the things they quite rightly feel aggrieved about - house prices, tuition fees, job prospects, never being able to have a family of their own - and i really do wonder where the swing back to the right will come from. Sure, "time for change" will generally always sweep out one lot in favour of another but i think the task ahead is far greater than that which faced the Tory party in 1997. That's not a lack of faith in decent moderate centre rightism, it's demographics.

algarkirk

nova said:

bondegezou said:

Why does the Guardian article bother to say the model predicts Corbyn will lose? The model is entirely incapable of saying anything sensible on the situation in Islington North. It’s pointless looking at what it says on Islington N.

IPSOS make the same claim on their own site, which is bonkers, as they've got Corbyn on less than 13%.

One thing that is interesting, is that there appear only to be two safe Tory seats in the whole country. Maldon and North Dorset!

Clearly the spirit of the Battle of Maldon (991) lives on. One of the great Anglo Saxon poems. They lost.

"He exhorted the warriors very boldly:
‘Mind must be harder, heart keener,
spirit must be greater as our strength diminishes.
Here our leader lies all cut down,
a good man in the dirt."

Andy_JS

wooliedyed said:

Andy_JS said:

Just noticed that Waveney Valley is forecast to be a Green / Reform marginal.

Grn 33%
Ref 29%
Con 23%
Lab 10%
LD 4%

No, it's not Reform territory in any way, shape or form. DYOR
Edit - if that's being modelled off of UKIP 2015, most of their vote (15%) in Waveney was in Lowestoft, now hived off in its own constituency

These figures are from the MRP study that's just been published.

TheScreamingEagles

bondegezou said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

spudgfsh said:

Ghedebrav said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

115 seats is official opposition, good result.

I'd take that right now.

I reckon it’ll be higher tbh. Low turnout.

it depends on who fails to turn up in a low turnout situation. if it's mostly Tory Voters it could be a lot worse than this.

I think Labour’s biggest worry has to be that voters think the result is in the bag that they can stay at home or vote LD/Green/SNP/Reform without risking the landslide.

Sure, but everything points to it being true that voters can stay at home or vote LD/Green/SNP/Reform without risking the landslide.

The other side of the argument is if it looks like a landslide then Tories who were planning to sit the election out decide to vote Tory then the landslide goes away.

Right now if Labour end up winning a majority of 100 then it will seem a bit anti-climatic.

kjh

@Heathener I posted a reply to you on the last thread. As usual with me in life I am always a thread behind.

kle4

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

That's the best football match I've seen since Argentina v France at the last World Cup Final

Sensational! Sat in my garden with it on the laptop with the lovely evening sun blazing down. Perfick!

Best goal yet, best save yet, best match yet, best everything. Scintillating

When football is THAT good....

As much as I love my cricket and rugby, sometimes football is very hard to beat

Bad cricket and rugby is worse than bad football. But good cricket and rugby is better than good football.

Anabobazina

John Caudwell endorses Labour, live on BBC News. Are they allowed to do that?

bigjohnowls

Jezza "video" on Twitter


@jeremycorbyn
·
2h
Unfortunately, a tabloid newspaper has got hold of a music video I recorded in Islington North with an iconic grime artist I've admired for years.

They are planning to publish a heavily edited clip, so I'm releasing the full version myself. Watch here: https://tinyurl.com/yeymfb96

wooliedyed

Andy_JS said:

wooliedyed said:

Andy_JS said:

Just noticed that Waveney Valley is forecast to be a Green / Reform marginal.

Grn 33%
Ref 29%
Con 23%
Lab 10%
LD 4%

No, it's not Reform territory in any way, shape or form. DYOR
Edit - if that's being modelled off of UKIP 2015, most of their vote (15%) in Waveney was in Lowestoft, now hived off in its own constituency

These figures are from the MRP study that's just been published.

Yeah I'm not sure how they are getting 29% Reform in Waveney Valley, its so not Reform territory! Oh well.

Anabobazina

kle4 said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

That's the best football match I've seen since Argentina v France at the last World Cup Final

Sensational! Sat in my garden with it on the laptop with the lovely evening sun blazing down. Perfick!

Best goal yet, best save yet, best match yet, best everything. Scintillating

When football is THAT good....

As much as I love my cricket and rugby, sometimes football is very hard to beat

Bad cricket and rugby is worse than bad football. But good cricket and rugby is better than good football.

Not sure about that. Will ponder

BartholomewRoberts

Missed the new thread.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh.

Sir Keir Starmer has opened the door to tax rises for millions of Britons by defining a working person as someone who relies on public services and doesn’t have savings.

The Labour leader has repeatedly ruled out putting up taxes on what he calls “working people” who he says have borne the brunt of the cost of living crisis.

Asked what he meant by the term, he said it refers to “people who earn their living, rely on our services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble”.

His definition means millions of Britons including pensioners, savers, and those who use private services like healthcare may not be covered by his tax rise pledge.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/starmer-leaves-door-open-to-tax-rises-for-millions/

Wait it's Keir Starmer's definition of working people that excludes pensioners is it? Whose definition of working people includes them?

If pensioners are required to pay the same rate of income as everyone else earning the same salary that would be entirely justified and not cost working people a penny.

Those who work for a living should never be taxed at a higher rate than those who don't.

algarkirk

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

biggles said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….

The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed

Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.

The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).

I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.

What bollocks. Countries like Denmark and Finland didn’t have an empire, but work fine today through the simple measure of people being OK to pay a bit more tax.

We were once part of Denmark's empire. Svein Forkbeard is the guy., followed by Canute. Went pear shaped after that.

Stuartinromford

spudgfsh said:

Stuartinromford said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'M SO GLAD RISHI CALLED AN EARLY ELECTION TO WRONGFOOT REFORM.

Depends.

Is the current Conservative campaign useless because the party didn't have long enough to prepare, or because they are... how can I put this tactfully... Useless?

(It turns out I can't put it tactfully.)

The fundamentals were likely to be worse by the onset of winter.

The central mystery is... why not in May? What hope did Rishi see in mid-March that had vanished by mid-May?

partly economics, partly boat crossings.'

when the economy didn't look like it was going to improve enough for 2-3 interest rate cuts by the time of an autumn election Rishi looked at the number of boat crossings this year and realised that record numbers by the time of an election would make things worse. In March there was hope that both could improve but by May it was clear that it was not going to happen/

Agree, but...

Anticipating trends and profiting by backing your hunch with cash is basically Rishi's job. And whilst I buy the "hope of early Spring dead by late Spring" thing (see my cucamelons), it's a pretty poor show.

bigjohnowls

Andy_JS said:

Just noticed that Waveney Valley is forecast to be a Green / Reform marginal.

Grn 33%
Ref 29%
Con 23%
Lab 10%
LD 4%

I think its a Green/ Tory battle

boulay

Anabobazina said:

John Caudwell endorses Labour, live on BBC News. Are they allowed to do that?

I was wondering the same, doesn’t seem particularly balanced to me and why is it a story that should be second on the national news?

Andy_JS

Ashfield [Ipsos/Mori MRP study]

RefUK 61%
Lab 22%
Con 8%
Grn 7%
LD 2%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls/ipsos-election-mrp

FF43

The world has changed when 115 seats is perceived as a good result for the Tories.

(It would be a very good result for the Tories).

Anabobazina

boulay said:

Anabobazina said:

John Caudwell endorses Labour, live on BBC News. Are they allowed to do that?

I was wondering the same, doesn’t seem particularly balanced to me and why is it a story that should be second on the national news?

No idea. Was somewhat weird.

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

That's the best football match I've seen since Argentina v France at the last World Cup Final

Sensational! Sat in my garden with it on the laptop with the lovely evening sun blazing down. Perfick!

Best goal yet, best save yet, best match yet, best everything. Scintillating

When football is THAT good....

As much as I love my cricket and rugby, sometimes football is very hard to beat

Bad cricket and rugby is worse than bad football. But good cricket and rugby is better than good football.

Got to disagree.

Best sporting memory (of which I was there)

Liverpool 4 - 0 Barcelona

Stokes at Headingley

Best sporting memory of which I wasn't there was Gary McAllister's 44 yard better than sex injury time winner at Goodison in 2001.

Close second 2003 Rugby world cup final, I was too tense to enjoy it.

tpfkar

Andy_JS said:

Ashfield [Ipsos/Mori MRP study]

RefUK 61%
Lab 22%
Con 8%
Grn 7%
LD 2%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls/ipsos-election-mrp

No reference to the Ashfield Independents at all? That doesn't pass any sort of smell test.

Andy_JS

Truss's seat in SW Norfolk, MRP results:

Con 31%
Ref 30%
Lab 27%
LD 8%
Grn 4%

IanB2

TimS said:

The MRPs shouldn’t in my view include seat by seat predictions. They should stick to totals, unless they are able to take into account personal votes (eg Corbyn)

As I said in the dying embers of the last thread, MRPs are good at assessing how wider demographic voting trends will fall locally, but are unable to assess the impact of local political history, candidates, or the effectiveness of each party’s campaigning in a particular seat. It’s too easy to be fooled by the amount of detailed local data that the MRPs can throw up and assume we’re looking at a local projection, when we’re not. What we have with an MRP is a national projection, applied relatively crudely to individual seats based on demographics, not actual local polling. The national seat totals are far more likely to be accurate than the individual constituency projections, particularly where said seats have obviously local factors in play.

rcs1000

Andy_JS said:

Ashfield [Ipsos/Mori MRP study]

RefUK 61%
Lab 22%
Con 8%
Grn 7%
LD 2%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls/ipsos-election-mrp

Hmmm... So you're saying my LibDem bet there is a loser?

MisterBedfordshire

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

biggles said:

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

On topic, but also a little bit of a rant.

The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.

And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.

No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.

The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.

This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.

Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.

And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.

Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.

OK.

The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.

So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.

We need to spend more on defence.
Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.

I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.

Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….

The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed

Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.

The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).

I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.

What bollocks. Countries like Denmark and Finland didn’t have an empire, but work fine today through the simple measure of people being OK to pay a bit more tax.

Nothing to do with Denmark having a far lower population (and population density) and fertile land enabling them to produce three times as much food as they need for self sufficiency and export the difference.

Similar arguments apply with Finland.

UK. Not so much.

Cleitophon

How many of those 115 tory seats at risk due to tactical voting?

numbertwelve

At this stage if Tories can hang onto 100+ seats it’s a base. A very low, ridiculous, catastrophic base. But it is a base.

One thing a lot of these polls are demonstrating though is how many seats are genuinely on a knife edge. It only takes minor variations here or there to make the difference between say CON 50 seats and CON 180 seats. They will have to hope GOTV, plus a bit of LAB voter complacency and hopefully a fallback for REF will see them over the line in a good number. But it’s far from guaranteed.

Cleitophon

Andy_JS said:

Truss's seat in SW Norfolk, MRP results:

Con 31%
Ref 30%
Lab 27%
LD 8%
Grn 4%

Lib dems have to pile into labour there

IanB2

Andy_JS said:

Ashfield [Ipsos/Mori MRP study]

RefUK 61%
Lab 22%
Con 8%
Grn 7%
LD 2%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls/ipsos-election-mrp

Which makes my point in my previous comment, since the Ashfield Indy’s don’t figure in the MRP yet are likely to pull in a decent vote.