The Tory party has realised a major can of whoop-ass is about to be opened on them

System

The Tory party has realised a major can of whoop-ass is about to be opened on them - politicalbetting.com

* EXCLUSIVE: CCHQ yesterday told candidates it is redirecting campaign resources away from many Tory-held seats toward ultra-safe seats ** This will be seen as a tacit admission the Tories are conceding the election and are now trying to avoid wipeout *https://t.co/88nckGwh75

Read the full story here

Tweedledee

Whoop-ass is a strange expression, Bruce.

TheScreamingEagles

Tweedledee said:

Whoop-ass is a strange expression, Bruce.

It's an Americanism which I hated using but the other alternatives weren't suitable for a family friend website like PB.

williamglenn

With all the focus on the Faragists trying to do a reverse takeover of the Tories after the election, maybe we are overlooking the possibility of the Cameroons trying to do a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems.

occasionalranter

"a pounding of which there is no suitable analogy"

We're beyond Stepmom territory here, we're talking the kind of stuff only Leon could write.

Carnyx

O/T but not great to have attention on this NHS (England, I think only?) policy just now for the Gmt, if this issue gains traction, with at least one NHS body pretending they are pukka physicians:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/20/physician-doctor-reckless-experiment-nhs-associates

'I’m talking about the Department of Health and Social Care’s project to rapidly expand so-called medical associate professions (MAPs), the largest group of which are termed physician associates (PAs). None of these groups have a medical degree, nor postgraduate medical training. But their deployment in our health service is billed as “essential” workforce planning – the only way to address rising patient demand and a desperate shortage of trained medics.'

boulay

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tweedledee said:

Whoop-ass is a strange expression, Bruce.

It's an Americanism which I hated using but the other alternatives weren't suitable for a family friend website like PB.

You could have written “ The Tory party has realised that they are in a rather large pickle.”

As our new Reform overlords would advise, Keep headers British.

wooliedyed

Not sure they are ready for what awaits them tbh. Direction of travel one way only

OnlyLivingBoy

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

148grss

All things must end, and political parties are no different. The Tory party may be the longest living political party, but it too will die.

TheScreamingEagles

occasionalranter said:

"a pounding of which there is no suitable analogy"

We're beyond Stepmom territory here, we're talking the kind of stuff only Leon could write.

I was thinking of using a Chernobyl analogy but decided against it as it might confuse the pro Putin Reform lot.

Andy_JS

Did anyone watch the first half of Serbia v Slovenia? Trying to find out whether it's worth watching the second half.

boulay

williamglenn said:

With all the focus on the Faragists trying to do a reverse takeover of the Tories after the election, maybe we are overlooking the possibility of the Cameroons trying to do a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems.

As long as we get the Leftier Lib Dems doing a reverse takeover of Labour and the Corbynites doing a reverse takeover of Reform so a nice circular movement of half of each party one step to the left leaving Reform as some sort of new-fangled nationalist but socialist party - just might work.

TheScreamingEagles

Andy_JS said:

Did anyone watch the first half of Serbia v Slovenia? Trying to find out whether it's worth watching the second half.

Perspective is so important in life.

Sure, this match hasn’t been amazing. But what about two days ago when we had no 2pm kick off? A truly dark day.

I’ll take Slovenia v Serbia quite gladly, thank you very much.

https://x.com/paddypower/status/1803786578826875035

148grss

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I think this is likely - except for the "Tories have 150 seats" part. One of the problems for Farage may be that FPTP actually prevents a Tory/RefUK merger making him LOTO if the LDs do well enough. I don't think he will have the same incentives or ability to force himself on the Tory party if he doesn't also get to be LOTO. He will have much more of an incentive to claim Reform slew the Conservatives In Name Only dragon and that Reform should be the next logical party for the right.

Nigelb

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tweedledee said:

Whoop-ass is a strange expression, Bruce.

It's an Americanism which I hated using but the other alternatives weren't suitable for a family friend website like PB.

You could have written “ The Tory party has realised that they are in a rather large pickle.”

It's more like they're about to get a rather large pickle up the ass which has been whooped ?

kyf_100

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

viewcode

Carnyx said:

O/T but not great to have attention on this NHS (England, I think only?) policy just now for the Gmt, if this issue gains traction, with at least one NHS body pretending they are pukka physicians:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/20/physician-doctor-reckless-experiment-nhs-associates

'I’m talking about the Department of Health and Social Care’s project to rapidly expand so-called medical associate professions (MAPs), the largest group of which are termed physician associates (PAs). None of these groups have a medical degree, nor postgraduate medical training. But their deployment in our health service is billed as “essential” workforce planning – the only way to address rising patient demand and a desperate shortage of trained medics.'

WE NEED TO START TRAINING LOCALLY. AAARGH!

boulay

Nigelb said:

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tweedledee said:

Whoop-ass is a strange expression, Bruce.

It's an Americanism which I hated using but the other alternatives weren't suitable for a family friend website like PB.

You could have written “ The Tory party has realised that they are in a rather large pickle.”

It's more like they're about to get a rather large pickle up the ass which has been whooped ?

Too American.

“They are about to get a rather large pickle up their arse which has been spanked” would be New Approved British.

Nigelb

boulay said:

Nigelb said:

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tweedledee said:

Whoop-ass is a strange expression, Bruce.

It's an Americanism which I hated using but the other alternatives weren't suitable for a family friend website like PB.

You could have written “ The Tory party has realised that they are in a rather large pickle.”

It's more like they're about to get a rather large pickle up the ass which has been whooped ?

Too American.

“They are about to get a rather large pickle up their arse which has been spanked” would be New Approved British.

I was putting it in terms TSE would comprehend,

wooliedyed

One assumes they've enough canvassing data that even the dimwits at CCHQ know where they are in general terms - 50, 100, 150 or 200. With the exception of the odd London or Scottish seat, defending 10,000 majorities seems pointless, 15,000 draws a line at about '1997' levels and 20,000 is basically a 100 seat strategy. Let's see where the resource goes in, but in this much of a shellacking they might easily overestimate chances still

148grss

Speaking of things that are too American:

https://x.com/simonwdc/status/1803559808781467737

Biden seems to be making gains post Trump conviction. NGL, I was (and still am) quite pessimistic about Biden turning this around, but this conviction seems to have moved the needle with independents. Considering this was arguably the hardest case to be made on an issue of less substance than the other cases Trump has pending - if the other cases go badly for Trump I think we may be safe from Project 2025.

boulay

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I think if you offered Nige Leader of the Conservative Party he would rather that than “Leader of the Reform Party”.

Even if Reform were the larger party and Cons the supplicants I think his ego and dreams would be more satisfied by being N Farage Leader Conservative and Unionist Party. The history, the name recognition. The ultimate victory. So reform would be dissolved and Cons replaced in key positions by reform people.

Nigelb

The title might have done with rewording to remove ambiguity, but it means vaccination is protective against subsequent Covid infection inducing memory deficits.

Vaccination reduces central nervous system IL-1β and memory deficits after COVID-19 in mice
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-024-01868-z

Nigelb

boulay said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I think if you offered Nige Leader of the Conservative Party he would rather that than “Leader of the Reform Party”.

Even if Reform were the larger party and Cons the supplicants I think his ego and dreams would be more satisfied by being N Farage Leader Conservative and Unionist Party. The history, the name recognition. The ultimate victory. So reform would be dissolved and Cons replaced in key positions by reform people.

His idol hijacked the GOP, of course.

Ghedebrav

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I can't see Reform winning 50 seats.

kyf_100

boulay said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I think if you offered Nige Leader of the Conservative Party he would rather that than “Leader of the Reform Party”.

Even if Reform were the larger party and Cons the supplicants I think his ego and dreams would be more satisfied by being N Farage Leader Conservative and Unionist Party. The history, the name recognition. The ultimate victory. So reform would be dissolved and Cons replaced in key positions by reform people.

Depends on just how Ratnered the Conservative brand is. You're probably right, but if Nige draws a lot of his support from, say, red wall seats, is standing under the Conservative brand in 2029 really a benefit, or is it better to be seen as a 'challenger brand' as they say in the marketing industry.

The other thing at play is that Nige has total control of Reform as a party structure. He wouldn't have the same amount of control if he allowed his lot to be folded up into the existing Conservative rulebook and party structure.

williamglenn

boulay said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I think if you offered Nige Leader of the Conservative Party he would rather that than “Leader of the Reform Party”.

Even if Reform were the larger party and Cons the supplicants I think his ego and dreams would be more satisfied by being N Farage Leader Conservative and Unionist Party. The history, the name recognition. The ultimate victory. So reform would be dissolved and Cons replaced in key positions by reform people.

The deal would have to include a rebrand as something like the Conservative and Reform Party given how much he's made of the Tory brand being broken.

It would also probably be necessary to expel people like Cameron in order to underline that it was fundamentally different to the "LibLabCon" party.

david_herdson

wooliedyed said:

One assumes they've enough canvassing data that even the dimwits at CCHQ know where they are in general terms - 50, 100, 150 or 200. With the exception of the odd London or Scottish seat, defending 10,000 majorities seems pointless, 15,000 draws a line at about '1997' levels and 20,000 is basically a 100 seat strategy. Let's see where the resource goes in, but in this much of a shellacking they might easily overestimate chances still

I'm doubtful that Tory resource at this stage will make any difference; it's not high quality.

But for what it's worth, I've seen very little evidence of any Tory campaign here in Ossett & Denby Dale (notional Con majority: 11k), that hasn't come direct from the candidate himself.

wooliedyed

david_herdson said:

wooliedyed said:

One assumes they've enough canvassing data that even the dimwits at CCHQ know where they are in general terms - 50, 100, 150 or 200. With the exception of the odd London or Scottish seat, defending 10,000 majorities seems pointless, 15,000 draws a line at about '1997' levels and 20,000 is basically a 100 seat strategy. Let's see where the resource goes in, but in this much of a shellacking they might easily overestimate chances still

I'm doubtful that Tory resource at this stage will make any difference; it's not high quality.

But for what it's worth, I've seen very little evidence of any Tory campaign here in Ossett & Denby Dale (notional Con majority: 11k), that hasn't come direct from the candidate himself.

Oh, completely agree on quality but it at least informs what they 'think' is doable

HYUFD

In the end I think the Tories will get about 150 seats. Cox's seat was of course LD from 1997 to 2005 so of course on current polls CCHQ will direct funds to it

Ghedebrav

kyf_100 said:

boulay said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I think if you offered Nige Leader of the Conservative Party he would rather that than “Leader of the Reform Party”.

Even if Reform were the larger party and Cons the supplicants I think his ego and dreams would be more satisfied by being N Farage Leader Conservative and Unionist Party. The history, the name recognition. The ultimate victory. So reform would be dissolved and Cons replaced in key positions by reform people.

Depends on just how Ratnered the Conservative brand is. You're probably right, but if Nige draws a lot of his support from, say, red wall seats, is standing under the Conservative brand in 2029 really a benefit, or is it better to be seen as a 'challenger brand' as they say in the marketing industry.

The other thing at play is that Nige has total control of Reform as a party structure. He wouldn't have the same amount of control if he allowed his lot to be folded up his lot into the existing Conservative rulebook and party structure.

I wasn't convinced that the Swinson wipeout would kill the LDs, nor that the Momentum parasite would kill Labour. I don't think the Conservative party is about to die now.

148grss

wooliedyed said:

One assumes they've enough canvassing data that even the dimwits at CCHQ know where they are in general terms - 50, 100, 150 or 200. With the exception of the odd London or Scottish seat, defending 10,000 majorities seems pointless, 15,000 draws a line at about '1997' levels and 20,000 is basically a 100 seat strategy. Let's see where the resource goes in, but in this much of a shellacking they might easily overestimate chances still

The problem is, there comes a point where admitting how fucked they are could fuck them further. If they think they are sub 100 seats, for example, then letting that get out will embolden more people to abandon them - people don't like backing a loser and if Reform is on the up and up getting in whilst they're still new and exciting will be preferable for many people. I think the Tories need to walk this line quite delicately - admitting they're losing to try and get people to stay on the sinking ship to help bail out the water to sail again another day is needed, but if people think the boat can't be salvaged they'll abandon ship even quicker.

HYUFD

Nigelb said:

boulay said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I think if you offered Nige Leader of the Conservative Party he would rather that than “Leader of the Reform Party”.

Even if Reform were the larger party and Cons the supplicants I think his ego and dreams would be more satisfied by being N Farage Leader Conservative and Unionist Party. The history, the name recognition. The ultimate victory. So reform would be dissolved and Cons replaced in key positions by reform people.

His idol hijacked the GOP, of course.

Only by running in the GOP primaries and winning its presidential nomination in 2016, 2020 and now. Trump also had endorsed Romney in 2012.

Unlike Farage Trump never set up his own party

kyf_100

Ghedebrav said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I can't see Reform winning 50 seats.

That Goodwin poll, Baxtered, would put the Tories on 45 seats and Reform on 51, with the Lib Dems at 64.

So that poll would need to be replicated - at the moment it looks like an outlier. But if that's the direction of travel over the next couple of weeks, and we do end up on a result like that, I think you end up with a reverse takeover with Rump Con being folded into Reform.

The Tories thinking they might lose Sunak's seat in Richmond and Northallerton is proper ravens leaving the tower stuff. Their private polling must be indicating total meltdown.

wooliedyed

148grss said:

wooliedyed said:

One assumes they've enough canvassing data that even the dimwits at CCHQ know where they are in general terms - 50, 100, 150 or 200. With the exception of the odd London or Scottish seat, defending 10,000 majorities seems pointless, 15,000 draws a line at about '1997' levels and 20,000 is basically a 100 seat strategy. Let's see where the resource goes in, but in this much of a shellacking they might easily overestimate chances still

The problem is, there comes a point where admitting how fucked they are could fuck them further. If they think they are sub 100 seats, for example, then letting that get out will embolden more people to abandon them - people don't like backing a loser and if Reform is on the up and up getting in whilst they're still new and exciting will be preferable for many people. I think the Tories need to walk this line quite delicately - admitting they're losing to try and get people to stay on the sinking ship to help bail out the water to sail again another day is needed, but if people think the boat can't be salvaged they'll abandon ship even quicker.

Fair comment!

HYUFD

148grss said:

Speaking of things that are too American:

https://x.com/simonwdc/status/1803559808781467737

Biden seems to be making gains post Trump conviction. NGL, I was (and still am) quite pessimistic about Biden turning this around, but this conviction seems to have moved the needle with independents. Considering this was arguably the hardest case to be made on an issue of less substance than the other cases Trump has pending - if the other cases go badly for Trump I think we may be safe from Project 2025.

Biden now leading Trump with pensioners and over 65s by 15% with the new Fox poll, same as Macron and his party won with pensioners in 2022 against Le Pen.

Contrary to myth pensioners are more reluctant than average to vote for the far right and hard right, they will vote for centre right conservative and liberal establishment parties more than average but not populist insurgents. Here too even now the Sunak Tories still lead with pensioners over ReformUK

Sean_F

occasionalranter said:

"a pounding of which there is no suitable analogy"

We're beyond Stepmom territory here, we're talking the kind of stuff only Leon could write.

The kind of stuff that Piers Anthony would write, the only man to be commissioned to write a pornographic story for Playboy, and have it rejected for being too gross.

Scott_xP

@QuietRiotPod

"Sunak scored significantly above Starmer on 'most likely to win at monopoly', but those percentages were reversed when the question was 'most likely to let their child win at monopoly'. 😱

The political content you didn't know you needed, courtesy of @pimlicat & @sturdyalex

https://x.com/QuietRiotPod/status/1803790216685097047

wooliedyed

kyf_100 said:

Ghedebrav said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I can't see Reform winning 50 seats.

That Goodwin poll, Baxtered, would put the Tories on 45 seats and Reform on 51, with the Lib Dems at 64.

So that poll would need to be replicated - at the moment it looks like an outlier. But if that's the direction of travel over the next couple of weeks, and we do end up on a result like that, I think you end up with a reverse takeover with Rump Con being folded into Reform.

The Tories thinking they might lose Sunak's seat in Richmond and Northallerton is proper ravens leaving the tower stuff. Their private polling must be indicating total meltdown.

On the last point, I suspect that's journalistic license based on the Savanta poll. There's no way anyone at CCHQ is admitting that to a journalist.

DougSeal

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

I try not to start topics on this conversation, instead playing defence against anti-trans posters. But seeing this I can only think - this is the world you're asking for. And, of course, it won't just be used for those students known to be trans; any child accused of being trans could easily be put before such a board. But those of us demanding autonomy and dignity for trans people and trans kids are the risk to child wellbeing...

This is indeed appalling. Your solution appears to be to let anyone who wants to compete in women's sports because you posit there is no competitive advantage to biological males, ignoring, evidence to the contrary, sometimes making your own evidence up - your infamous made up assertion regarding women in tennis being a case in point. When people point this out you jam your fingers in your ears and call us "transphobic". Which is not the case. However you are not a good faith participant in this debate.

Please come up with a solution rather than picking fights for the sake of it. How do we make the participation of males in female sport fair? There is a problem here and I don't see any workable solutions from either side.

My solution is what it has always been - more equitable distribution of resources between the currently gender segregated sports, with the aim of making non segregated sports easier. And calling transwomen males is not really a point in favour of you taking this issue in good faith.

Also, more history of previously non segregated sports becoming gender segregated after women start beating men:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/endings/2023/02/27/new-state-of-the-game

So, in 1903, a woman came second in a figure skating competition. And that is proof that women are biologically the same as men? Do you know how silly that sounds? Figure skating is a sport which straddles the line with art. Points are given on artistic merit not speed, height or strength. The fact that you choose that shows how weak that argument is. I read this article when it came out and it lacks a basic understanding of what sport is. What sport do you play out of interest? How could "resources" be better allocated in that sport to avoid sex segregation? The article says -

"Inclusion also chips away at the overarching narrative that women’s and girls’ sports are second tier, and therefore women and girls, as athletes, are inferior to men. "

That's the exact opposite of what would happen. Gender segregation promotes participation and inclusion, ensuring that female athletes have opportunities to excel and be recognized in their sports. No woman has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m in America despite Title IX in the States devoting millions in resources to the sport. Your solution would kill women's track and field.

In games of pick up basketball, or park football, from Hackney to Honduras there are few "resources" involved and the only fair way to ensure participation for both sexes is to have segregated teams - otherwise women would *generally* not be able to play (men being *on average* 15% taller, stronger and faster)

You are the site's leftist Leon.

I have never claimed that women are biologically the same as men - what I have said is that the differences between them and their ability to perform in sports is more down to resources and societal pressures than it is those biological differences.

I've not played much sport, but the years prior to covid I played co-ed netball with my work colleagues. And, as a 6ft 4 man, I was often outplayed by shorter, older, women. Why? Because netball is considered a women's game, most of the women playing had much better history of playing netball and my physical advantages didn't make up for that fact. It's almost as if the physical advantages of a mediocre man are not actually enough to outdo skill and training and investment in a sport.

Title IX has been bad for women's sport - as this article argues.

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

Yes - I do. I think the reason that all the finalists and semi-finalists (and beyond) in the Men's 100m in the Olympics run a faster time than the winner of the equivalent Women's event is because there are differences between men and women that no amount of sociological sophistry can overcome. Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting.

Sean_F

wooliedyed said:

kyf_100 said:

Ghedebrav said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I can't see Reform winning 50 seats.

That Goodwin poll, Baxtered, would put the Tories on 45 seats and Reform on 51, with the Lib Dems at 64.

So that poll would need to be replicated - at the moment it looks like an outlier. But if that's the direction of travel over the next couple of weeks, and we do end up on a result like that, I think you end up with a reverse takeover with Rump Con being folded into Reform.

The Tories thinking they might lose Sunak's seat in Richmond and Northallerton is proper ravens leaving the tower stuff. Their private polling must be indicating total meltdown.

On the last point, I suspect that's journalistic license based on the Savanta poll. There's no way anyone at CCHQ is admitting that to a journalist.

If this election has shown us anything, it is that there no depth to the stupidity of people at CCHQ.

david_herdson

kyf_100 said:

Ghedebrav said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I can't see Reform winning 50 seats.

That Goodwin poll, Baxtered, would put the Tories on 45 seats and Reform on 51, with the Lib Dems at 64.

So that poll would need to be replicated - at the moment it looks like an outlier. But if that's the direction of travel over the next couple of weeks, and we do end up on a result like that, I think you end up with a reverse takeover with Rump Con being folded into Reform.

The Tories thinking they might lose Sunak's seat in Richmond and Northallerton is proper ravens leaving the tower stuff. Their private polling must be indicating total meltdown.

Although there's huge levels of doubt around Baxter projections for polls like that because we simply don't know how a 24% Reform vote from out of nowhere would play out in reality. Sure, we have the subsample breakdowns but these are pretty flimsy and we can't necessarily scale up polls with Reform on, say, 15%.

FWIW, I don't think there's any world in this election where both the Tories and Reform both end up on about 50. I'd put the crossover point a good deal lower than that: Reform will keep on costing the Tories seats before they start picking up ones themselves in decent numbers, with Labour or the Lib Dems making the gains in the middle.

Sean_F

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

I try not to start topics on this conversation, instead playing defence against anti-trans posters. But seeing this I can only think - this is the world you're asking for. And, of course, it won't just be used for those students known to be trans; any child accused of being trans could easily be put before such a board. But those of us demanding autonomy and dignity for trans people and trans kids are the risk to child wellbeing...

This is indeed appalling. Your solution appears to be to let anyone who wants to compete in women's sports because you posit there is no competitive advantage to biological males, ignoring, evidence to the contrary, sometimes making your own evidence up - your infamous made up assertion regarding women in tennis being a case in point. When people point this out you jam your fingers in your ears and call us "transphobic". Which is not the case. However you are not a good faith participant in this debate.

Please come up with a solution rather than picking fights for the sake of it. How do we make the participation of males in female sport fair? There is a problem here and I don't see any workable solutions from either side.

My solution is what it has always been - more equitable distribution of resources between the currently gender segregated sports, with the aim of making non segregated sports easier. And calling transwomen males is not really a point in favour of you taking this issue in good faith.

Also, more history of previously non segregated sports becoming gender segregated after women start beating men:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/endings/2023/02/27/new-state-of-the-game

So, in 1903, a woman came second in a figure skating competition. And that is proof that women are biologically the same as men? Do you know how silly that sounds? Figure skating is a sport which straddles the line with art. Points are given on artistic merit not speed, height or strength. The fact that you choose that shows how weak that argument is. I read this article when it came out and it lacks a basic understanding of what sport is. What sport do you play out of interest? How could "resources" be better allocated in that sport to avoid sex segregation? The article says -

"Inclusion also chips away at the overarching narrative that women’s and girls’ sports are second tier, and therefore women and girls, as athletes, are inferior to men. "

That's the exact opposite of what would happen. Gender segregation promotes participation and inclusion, ensuring that female athletes have opportunities to excel and be recognized in their sports. No woman has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m in America despite Title IX in the States devoting millions in resources to the sport. Your solution would kill women's track and field.

In games of pick up basketball, or park football, from Hackney to Honduras there are few "resources" involved and the only fair way to ensure participation for both sexes is to have segregated teams - otherwise women would *generally* not be able to play (men being *on average* 15% taller, stronger and faster)

You are the site's leftist Leon.

I have never claimed that women are biologically the same as men - what I have said is that the differences between them and their ability to perform in sports is more down to resources and societal pressures than it is those biological differences.

I've not played much sport, but the years prior to covid I played co-ed netball with my work colleagues. And, as a 6ft 4 man, I was often outplayed by shorter, older, women. Why? Because netball is considered a women's game, most of the women playing had much better history of playing netball and my physical advantages didn't make up for that fact. It's almost as if the physical advantages of a mediocre man are not actually enough to outdo skill and training and investment in a sport.

Title IX has been bad for women's sport - as this article argues.

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

Yes - I do. I think the reason that all the finalists and semi-finalists (and beyond) in the Men's 100m in the Olympics run a faster time than the winner of the equivalent Women's event is because there are differences between men and women that no amount of sociological sophistry can overcome. Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting.

Putting professional female footballers, rugby players, boxers, up against males, however well-trained the former might be, would be lethal.

williamglenn

148grss said:

wooliedyed said:

One assumes they've enough canvassing data that even the dimwits at CCHQ know where they are in general terms - 50, 100, 150 or 200. With the exception of the odd London or Scottish seat, defending 10,000 majorities seems pointless, 15,000 draws a line at about '1997' levels and 20,000 is basically a 100 seat strategy. Let's see where the resource goes in, but in this much of a shellacking they might easily overestimate chances still

The problem is, there comes a point where admitting how fucked they are could fuck them further. If they think they are sub 100 seats, for example, then letting that get out will embolden more people to abandon them - people don't like backing a loser and if Reform is on the up and up getting in whilst they're still new and exciting will be preferable for many people. I think the Tories need to walk this line quite delicately - admitting they're losing to try and get people to stay on the sinking ship to help bail out the water to sail again another day is needed, but if people think the boat can't be salvaged they'll abandon ship even quicker.

And this would be Labour's worst nightmare. If you could hypothetically drive the Tory vote down to zero, the political map would suddenly look like a sea of light blue and yellow.

MisterBedfordshire

FPT

Andy_JS said:

The word "backwoodsmen" used to be used a lot to describe right-wing Tories but I haven't heard it recently. I wonder why not.

Because most of the Hereditary Peers were disbarred, ending the practice of rarely seen "backwoodsman" hereditaries coming out of the woodwork in large numbers occasionally to ram Tory legislation through the Lords.

Scott_xP

Important question; Do we know if any of the Tories currently under investigation for betting on the date of the election actually managed to bet on the right date?

Peter_the_Punter

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

Well yes, but I think we have tosee how many dead and wounded after the battle before we start thinking about what happens with those left standing.

I've abandoned the Next Con Leader market precisiely for this reason.

Peter_the_Punter

Andy_JS said:

Did anyone watch the first half of Serbia v Slovenia? Trying to find out whether it's worth watching the second half.

It is not.

Cleitophon

Who put Sunak in a field of sheep??? 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯 that is cataclysmically bad campaign management

EPG

Farooq said:

Rishi is a strategic genius. And we've all missed it.

We all knew his position was under threat. Poor polling in the spring, and a bad (and oddly forgotten) set of local election results finally crystallised the plan to save his job as Conservative leader.

1. Call an election, catching your own party on the hop
2. Campaign like an apparent idiot (D-Day? We'll leave early! Feeding sheep? Here, splash this fox-piss cologne to spook them! etc)
3. Two weeks before polling day, pull all resources from around the country to defend Sunak's seat
4. The Conservatives win 1 seat, Richmond and Northallerton
5. Rishi Sunak is now unopposed as party leader. He's also Chair of the 1922 Committee as the only MP.

This is six dimensional chess, and I believe I'm the first one to have fully figured it out.

6. Let Farage win lots of seats to evade the scrutiny that comes with being LotO.

occasionalranter

"Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting."

*Stands over 148grss and counts... 7,8,9...*

Anabobazina

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

I try not to start topics on this conversation, instead playing defence against anti-trans posters. But seeing this I can only think - this is the world you're asking for. And, of course, it won't just be used for those students known to be trans; any child accused of being trans could easily be put before such a board. But those of us demanding autonomy and dignity for trans people and trans kids are the risk to child wellbeing...

This is indeed appalling. Your solution appears to be to let anyone who wants to compete in women's sports because you posit there is no competitive advantage to biological males, ignoring, evidence to the contrary, sometimes making your own evidence up - your infamous made up assertion regarding women in tennis being a case in point. When people point this out you jam your fingers in your ears and call us "transphobic". Which is not the case. However you are not a good faith participant in this debate.

Please come up with a solution rather than picking fights for the sake of it. How do we make the participation of males in female sport fair? There is a problem here and I don't see any workable solutions from either side.

My solution is what it has always been - more equitable distribution of resources between the currently gender segregated sports, with the aim of making non segregated sports easier. And calling transwomen males is not really a point in favour of you taking this issue in good faith.

Also, more history of previously non segregated sports becoming gender segregated after women start beating men:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/endings/2023/02/27/new-state-of-the-game

So, in 1903, a woman came second in a figure skating competition. And that is proof that women are biologically the same as men? Do you know how silly that sounds? Figure skating is a sport which straddles the line with art. Points are given on artistic merit not speed, height or strength. The fact that you choose that shows how weak that argument is. I read this article when it came out and it lacks a basic understanding of what sport is. What sport do you play out of interest? How could "resources" be better allocated in that sport to avoid sex segregation? The article says -

"Inclusion also chips away at the overarching narrative that women’s and girls’ sports are second tier, and therefore women and girls, as athletes, are inferior to men. "

That's the exact opposite of what would happen. Gender segregation promotes participation and inclusion, ensuring that female athletes have opportunities to excel and be recognized in their sports. No woman has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m in America despite Title IX in the States devoting millions in resources to the sport. Your solution would kill women's track and field.

In games of pick up basketball, or park football, from Hackney to Honduras there are few "resources" involved and the only fair way to ensure participation for both sexes is to have segregated teams - otherwise women would *generally* not be able to play (men being *on average* 15% taller, stronger and faster)

You are the site's leftist Leon.

I have never claimed that women are biologically the same as men - what I have said is that the differences between them and their ability to perform in sports is more down to resources and societal pressures than it is those biological differences.

I've not played much sport, but the years prior to covid I played co-ed netball with my work colleagues. And, as a 6ft 4 man, I was often outplayed by shorter, older, women. Why? Because netball is considered a women's game, most of the women playing had much better history of playing netball and my physical advantages didn't make up for that fact. It's almost as if the physical advantages of a mediocre man are not actually enough to outdo skill and training and investment in a sport.

Title IX has been bad for women's sport - as this article argues.

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

Yes - I do. I think the reason that all the finalists and semi-finalists (and beyond) in the Men's 100m in the Olympics run a faster time than the winner of the equivalent Women's event is because there are differences between men and women that no amount of sociological sophistry can overcome. Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting.

Indeed so. And, for another argument (were any more arguments needed – they aren't), mixing sports after about age 12 actively alienates girls from playing. It is the best way to put them off sport, having to play with boys who, as soon as they have even a whiff of puberty are stronger, faster and more aggressive. Simple biology.

Scott_xP

@jimwaterson

Excl: Here's what happens if you scrape Betfair data for bets on a July election.

This graph cuts off at the end of 21 May, the day before Sunak announced the election.

There's a flood of bets that day - before Rishi formally told the cabinet and stood in Downing Street.

https://x.com/jimwaterson/status/1803794890175721724

HYUFD

Farooq said:

Rishi is a strategic genius. And we've all missed it.

We all knew his position was under threat. Poor polling in the spring, and a bad (and oddly forgotten) set of local election results finally crystallised the plan to save his job as Conservative leader.

1. Call an election, catching your own party on the hop
2. Campaign like an apparent idiot (D-Day? We'll leave early! Feeding sheep? Here, splash this fox-piss cologne to spook them! etc)
3. Two weeks before polling day, pull all resources from around the country to defend Sunak's seat
4. The Conservatives win 1 seat, Richmond and Northallerton
5. Rishi Sunak is now unopposed as party leader. He's also Chair of the 1922 Committee as the only MP.

This is six dimensional chess, and I believe I'm the first one to have fully figured it out.

No, if the Tories got under 10 seats and absolute meltdown Rishi would lose his seat too.

Dr Neil Hudson would hold on in Epping Forest though as it has no Reform Party candidate and is not in the top 250 Labour target seats or the top 100 LD target seats. So Dr Neil would become the first ex Vet Tory leader (makes a change from a PPE Spad, barrister or banker anyway)

Anabobazina

Scott_xP said:

Important question; Do we know if any of the Tories currently under investigation for betting on the date of the election actually managed to bet on the right date?

kyf_100

david_herdson said:

kyf_100 said:

Ghedebrav said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I can't see Reform winning 50 seats.

That Goodwin poll, Baxtered, would put the Tories on 45 seats and Reform on 51, with the Lib Dems at 64.

So that poll would need to be replicated - at the moment it looks like an outlier. But if that's the direction of travel over the next couple of weeks, and we do end up on a result like that, I think you end up with a reverse takeover with Rump Con being folded into Reform.

The Tories thinking they might lose Sunak's seat in Richmond and Northallerton is proper ravens leaving the tower stuff. Their private polling must be indicating total meltdown.

Although there's huge levels of doubt around Baxter projections for polls like that because we simply don't know how a 24% Reform vote from out of nowhere would play out in reality. Sure, we have the subsample breakdowns but these are pretty flimsy and we can't necessarily scale up polls with Reform on, say, 15%.

FWIW, I don't think there's any world in this election where both the Tories and Reform both end up on about 50. I'd put the crossover point a good deal lower than that: Reform will keep on costing the Tories seats before they start picking up ones themselves in decent numbers, with Labour or the Lib Dems making the gains in the middle.

Yes, the existing models probably aren't built to extrapolate what a 24% ref vote share looks like. If it's evenly distributed geographically, they'll end up with two or three seats and act as a spoiler for the Conservatives in many more, leading to a stonking Labour majority, and the Lib Dems doing well, too. For that reason I think Labour over 500 seats is more likely than Reform over 7, and have bet accordingly.

But we are in uncharted waters if Ref 24% Con 15% is true. Anything could happen, and anything we post here is just us political nerds speculating.

Peter_the_Punter

Ghedebrav said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I can't see Reform winning 50 seats.

They're like a brick on a long piece of elastic. It can be pulled for a long time with little reaction, and then it will suddenly leap forward...and hit you in the face.

Taz

TSE 3:16 - Opened a can of Whup Ass on the Tories.

JosiasJessop

Katie Archibald out of the Olympics: after tripping on a step.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/articles/cj556zqy6n1o

What bad luck, and hideous timing, for her.

Nigelb

What a shame.

CNN officially announces that RFK Jr. has failed to qualify for next week’s debate. It’ll just be Biden vs Trump.
https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/1803792237832114314

148grss

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

I try not to start topics on this conversation, instead playing defence against anti-trans posters. But seeing this I can only think - this is the world you're asking for. And, of course, it won't just be used for those students known to be trans; any child accused of being trans could easily be put before such a board. But those of us demanding autonomy and dignity for trans people and trans kids are the risk to child wellbeing...

This is indeed appalling. Your solution appears to be to let anyone who wants to compete in women's sports because you posit there is no competitive advantage to biological males, ignoring, evidence to the contrary, sometimes making your own evidence up - your infamous made up assertion regarding women in tennis being a case in point. When people point this out you jam your fingers in your ears and call us "transphobic". Which is not the case. However you are not a good faith participant in this debate.

Please come up with a solution rather than picking fights for the sake of it. How do we make the participation of males in female sport fair? There is a problem here and I don't see any workable solutions from either side.

My solution is what it has always been - more equitable distribution of resources between the currently gender segregated sports, with the aim of making non segregated sports easier. And calling transwomen males is not really a point in favour of you taking this issue in good faith.

Also, more history of previously non segregated sports becoming gender segregated after women start beating men:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/endings/2023/02/27/new-state-of-the-game

So, in 1903, a woman came second in a figure skating competition. And that is proof that women are biologically the same as men? Do you know how silly that sounds? Figure skating is a sport which straddles the line with art. Points are given on artistic merit not speed, height or strength. The fact that you choose that shows how weak that argument is. I read this article when it came out and it lacks a basic understanding of what sport is. What sport do you play out of interest? How could "resources" be better allocated in that sport to avoid sex segregation? The article says -

"Inclusion also chips away at the overarching narrative that women’s and girls’ sports are second tier, and therefore women and girls, as athletes, are inferior to men. "

That's the exact opposite of what would happen. Gender segregation promotes participation and inclusion, ensuring that female athletes have opportunities to excel and be recognized in their sports. No woman has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m in America despite Title IX in the States devoting millions in resources to the sport. Your solution would kill women's track and field.

In games of pick up basketball, or park football, from Hackney to Honduras there are few "resources" involved and the only fair way to ensure participation for both sexes is to have segregated teams - otherwise women would *generally* not be able to play (men being *on average* 15% taller, stronger and faster)

You are the site's leftist Leon.

I have never claimed that women are biologically the same as men - what I have said is that the differences between them and their ability to perform in sports is more down to resources and societal pressures than it is those biological differences.

I've not played much sport, but the years prior to covid I played co-ed netball with my work colleagues. And, as a 6ft 4 man, I was often outplayed by shorter, older, women. Why? Because netball is considered a women's game, most of the women playing had much better history of playing netball and my physical advantages didn't make up for that fact. It's almost as if the physical advantages of a mediocre man are not actually enough to outdo skill and training and investment in a sport.

Title IX has been bad for women's sport - as this article argues.

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

Yes - I do. I think the reason that all the finalists and semi-finalists (and beyond) in the Men's 100m in the Olympics run a faster time than the winner of the equivalent Women's event is because there are differences between men and women that no amount of sociological sophistry can overcome. Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting.

Yes - it would be astounding if female athletes or feminist athletes also pointed out that under funding and social stigma were a big factor in female sports...

https://www.theegalitarian.co.uk/post/the-beautiful-game-women-footballers-are-overlooked-under-funded-and-still-expected-to-achieve-the-same-quality-as-the-men

https://funding4sport.co.uk/downloads/women_barriers_participation.pdf

Andy_JS

Slovenia score.

williamglenn

Anabobazina said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

I try not to start topics on this conversation, instead playing defence against anti-trans posters. But seeing this I can only think - this is the world you're asking for. And, of course, it won't just be used for those students known to be trans; any child accused of being trans could easily be put before such a board. But those of us demanding autonomy and dignity for trans people and trans kids are the risk to child wellbeing...

This is indeed appalling. Your solution appears to be to let anyone who wants to compete in women's sports because you posit there is no competitive advantage to biological males, ignoring, evidence to the contrary, sometimes making your own evidence up - your infamous made up assertion regarding women in tennis being a case in point. When people point this out you jam your fingers in your ears and call us "transphobic". Which is not the case. However you are not a good faith participant in this debate.

Please come up with a solution rather than picking fights for the sake of it. How do we make the participation of males in female sport fair? There is a problem here and I don't see any workable solutions from either side.

My solution is what it has always been - more equitable distribution of resources between the currently gender segregated sports, with the aim of making non segregated sports easier. And calling transwomen males is not really a point in favour of you taking this issue in good faith.

Also, more history of previously non segregated sports becoming gender segregated after women start beating men:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/endings/2023/02/27/new-state-of-the-game

So, in 1903, a woman came second in a figure skating competition. And that is proof that women are biologically the same as men? Do you know how silly that sounds? Figure skating is a sport which straddles the line with art. Points are given on artistic merit not speed, height or strength. The fact that you choose that shows how weak that argument is. I read this article when it came out and it lacks a basic understanding of what sport is. What sport do you play out of interest? How could "resources" be better allocated in that sport to avoid sex segregation? The article says -

"Inclusion also chips away at the overarching narrative that women’s and girls’ sports are second tier, and therefore women and girls, as athletes, are inferior to men. "

That's the exact opposite of what would happen. Gender segregation promotes participation and inclusion, ensuring that female athletes have opportunities to excel and be recognized in their sports. No woman has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m in America despite Title IX in the States devoting millions in resources to the sport. Your solution would kill women's track and field.

In games of pick up basketball, or park football, from Hackney to Honduras there are few "resources" involved and the only fair way to ensure participation for both sexes is to have segregated teams - otherwise women would *generally* not be able to play (men being *on average* 15% taller, stronger and faster)

You are the site's leftist Leon.

I have never claimed that women are biologically the same as men - what I have said is that the differences between them and their ability to perform in sports is more down to resources and societal pressures than it is those biological differences.

I've not played much sport, but the years prior to covid I played co-ed netball with my work colleagues. And, as a 6ft 4 man, I was often outplayed by shorter, older, women. Why? Because netball is considered a women's game, most of the women playing had much better history of playing netball and my physical advantages didn't make up for that fact. It's almost as if the physical advantages of a mediocre man are not actually enough to outdo skill and training and investment in a sport.

Title IX has been bad for women's sport - as this article argues.

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

Yes - I do. I think the reason that all the finalists and semi-finalists (and beyond) in the Men's 100m in the Olympics run a faster time than the winner of the equivalent Women's event is because there are differences between men and women that no amount of sociological sophistry can overcome. Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting.

Indeed so. And, for another argument (were any more arguments needed – they aren't), mixing sports after about age 12 actively alienates girls from playing. It is the best way to put them off sport, having to play with boys who, as soon as they have even a whiff of puberty are stronger, faster and more aggressive. Simple biology.

I see where you're going wrong. You're basing your opinions on reality instead of Bend it Like Beckham.

Peter_the_Punter

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

Rishi is a strategic genius. And we've all missed it.

We all knew his position was under threat. Poor polling in the spring, and a bad (and oddly forgotten) set of local election results finally crystallised the plan to save his job as Conservative leader.

1. Call an election, catching your own party on the hop
2. Campaign like an apparent idiot (D-Day? We'll leave early! Feeding sheep? Here, splash this fox-piss cologne to spook them! etc)
3. Two weeks before polling day, pull all resources from around the country to defend Sunak's seat
4. The Conservatives win 1 seat, Richmond and Northallerton
5. Rishi Sunak is now unopposed as party leader. He's also Chair of the 1922 Committee as the only MP.

This is six dimensional chess, and I believe I'm the first one to have fully figured it out.

No, if the Tories got under 10 seats and absolute meltdown Rishi would lose his seat too.

Dr Neil Hudson would hold on in Epping Forest though as it has no Reform Party candidate and is not in the top 250 Labour target seats or the top 100 LD target seats. So Dr Neil would become the first ex Vet Tory leader (makes a change from a PPE Spad, barrister or banker anyway)

Any chance of them turning to you in their hour of need, Hyufd?


They could do a lot worse.

Nigelb

Still no SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity despite a whole raft of other decisions this week.

Contemptible delay from the highest court.

148grss

Anabobazina said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

I try not to start topics on this conversation, instead playing defence against anti-trans posters. But seeing this I can only think - this is the world you're asking for. And, of course, it won't just be used for those students known to be trans; any child accused of being trans could easily be put before such a board. But those of us demanding autonomy and dignity for trans people and trans kids are the risk to child wellbeing...

This is indeed appalling. Your solution appears to be to let anyone who wants to compete in women's sports because you posit there is no competitive advantage to biological males, ignoring, evidence to the contrary, sometimes making your own evidence up - your infamous made up assertion regarding women in tennis being a case in point. When people point this out you jam your fingers in your ears and call us "transphobic". Which is not the case. However you are not a good faith participant in this debate.

Please come up with a solution rather than picking fights for the sake of it. How do we make the participation of males in female sport fair? There is a problem here and I don't see any workable solutions from either side.

My solution is what it has always been - more equitable distribution of resources between the currently gender segregated sports, with the aim of making non segregated sports easier. And calling transwomen males is not really a point in favour of you taking this issue in good faith.

Also, more history of previously non segregated sports becoming gender segregated after women start beating men:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/endings/2023/02/27/new-state-of-the-game

So, in 1903, a woman came second in a figure skating competition. And that is proof that women are biologically the same as men? Do you know how silly that sounds? Figure skating is a sport which straddles the line with art. Points are given on artistic merit not speed, height or strength. The fact that you choose that shows how weak that argument is. I read this article when it came out and it lacks a basic understanding of what sport is. What sport do you play out of interest? How could "resources" be better allocated in that sport to avoid sex segregation? The article says -

"Inclusion also chips away at the overarching narrative that women’s and girls’ sports are second tier, and therefore women and girls, as athletes, are inferior to men. "

That's the exact opposite of what would happen. Gender segregation promotes participation and inclusion, ensuring that female athletes have opportunities to excel and be recognized in their sports. No woman has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m in America despite Title IX in the States devoting millions in resources to the sport. Your solution would kill women's track and field.

In games of pick up basketball, or park football, from Hackney to Honduras there are few "resources" involved and the only fair way to ensure participation for both sexes is to have segregated teams - otherwise women would *generally* not be able to play (men being *on average* 15% taller, stronger and faster)

You are the site's leftist Leon.

I have never claimed that women are biologically the same as men - what I have said is that the differences between them and their ability to perform in sports is more down to resources and societal pressures than it is those biological differences.

I've not played much sport, but the years prior to covid I played co-ed netball with my work colleagues. And, as a 6ft 4 man, I was often outplayed by shorter, older, women. Why? Because netball is considered a women's game, most of the women playing had much better history of playing netball and my physical advantages didn't make up for that fact. It's almost as if the physical advantages of a mediocre man are not actually enough to outdo skill and training and investment in a sport.

Title IX has been bad for women's sport - as this article argues.

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

Yes - I do. I think the reason that all the finalists and semi-finalists (and beyond) in the Men's 100m in the Olympics run a faster time than the winner of the equivalent Women's event is because there are differences between men and women that no amount of sociological sophistry can overcome. Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting.

Indeed so. And, for another argument (were any more arguments needed – they aren't), mixing sports after about age 12 actively alienates girls from playing. It is the best way to put them off sport, having to play with boys who, as soon as they have even a whiff of puberty are stronger, faster and more aggressive. Simple biology.

Yeah, simple biology, nothing to do with the social stigma associated with being a woman and being a woman in sports specifically

https://womeninsport.org/news/more-than-1-million-teenage-girls-fall-out-of-love-with-sport/

eek

Cleitophon said:

Who put Sunak in a field of sheep??? 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯 that is cataclysmically bad campaign management

Who first came up with the theory that CCHQ and Number 10s press office all utterly hate Rishi?

Andy_JS

Con average, latest 10 polls = 19.7%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#National_poll_results

Anabobazina

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

wooliedyed said:

One assumes they've enough canvassing data that even the dimwits at CCHQ know where they are in general terms - 50, 100, 150 or 200. With the exception of the odd London or Scottish seat, defending 10,000 majorities seems pointless, 15,000 draws a line at about '1997' levels and 20,000 is basically a 100 seat strategy. Let's see where the resource goes in, but in this much of a shellacking they might easily overestimate chances still

The problem is, there comes a point where admitting how fucked they are could fuck them further. If they think they are sub 100 seats, for example, then letting that get out will embolden more people to abandon them - people don't like backing a loser and if Reform is on the up and up getting in whilst they're still new and exciting will be preferable for many people. I think the Tories need to walk this line quite delicately - admitting they're losing to try and get people to stay on the sinking ship to help bail out the water to sail again another day is needed, but if people think the boat can't be salvaged they'll abandon ship even quicker.

And this would be Labour's worst nightmare. If you could hypothetically drive the Tory vote down to zero, the political map would suddenly look like a sea of light blue and yellow.

I can assure you that Labour supporters have several worse nightmares than the near-extinction of the Tory party.

Peter_the_Punter

Slovenia have just scored, so we still haven't had a 0-0 draw yet.

We have however now had our first crap game.

Anabobazina

williamglenn said:

Anabobazina said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

I try not to start topics on this conversation, instead playing defence against anti-trans posters. But seeing this I can only think - this is the world you're asking for. And, of course, it won't just be used for those students known to be trans; any child accused of being trans could easily be put before such a board. But those of us demanding autonomy and dignity for trans people and trans kids are the risk to child wellbeing...

This is indeed appalling. Your solution appears to be to let anyone who wants to compete in women's sports because you posit there is no competitive advantage to biological males, ignoring, evidence to the contrary, sometimes making your own evidence up - your infamous made up assertion regarding women in tennis being a case in point. When people point this out you jam your fingers in your ears and call us "transphobic". Which is not the case. However you are not a good faith participant in this debate.

Please come up with a solution rather than picking fights for the sake of it. How do we make the participation of males in female sport fair? There is a problem here and I don't see any workable solutions from either side.

My solution is what it has always been - more equitable distribution of resources between the currently gender segregated sports, with the aim of making non segregated sports easier. And calling transwomen males is not really a point in favour of you taking this issue in good faith.

Also, more history of previously non segregated sports becoming gender segregated after women start beating men:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/endings/2023/02/27/new-state-of-the-game

So, in 1903, a woman came second in a figure skating competition. And that is proof that women are biologically the same as men? Do you know how silly that sounds? Figure skating is a sport which straddles the line with art. Points are given on artistic merit not speed, height or strength. The fact that you choose that shows how weak that argument is. I read this article when it came out and it lacks a basic understanding of what sport is. What sport do you play out of interest? How could "resources" be better allocated in that sport to avoid sex segregation? The article says -

"Inclusion also chips away at the overarching narrative that women’s and girls’ sports are second tier, and therefore women and girls, as athletes, are inferior to men. "

That's the exact opposite of what would happen. Gender segregation promotes participation and inclusion, ensuring that female athletes have opportunities to excel and be recognized in their sports. No woman has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m in America despite Title IX in the States devoting millions in resources to the sport. Your solution would kill women's track and field.

In games of pick up basketball, or park football, from Hackney to Honduras there are few "resources" involved and the only fair way to ensure participation for both sexes is to have segregated teams - otherwise women would *generally* not be able to play (men being *on average* 15% taller, stronger and faster)

You are the site's leftist Leon.

I have never claimed that women are biologically the same as men - what I have said is that the differences between them and their ability to perform in sports is more down to resources and societal pressures than it is those biological differences.

I've not played much sport, but the years prior to covid I played co-ed netball with my work colleagues. And, as a 6ft 4 man, I was often outplayed by shorter, older, women. Why? Because netball is considered a women's game, most of the women playing had much better history of playing netball and my physical advantages didn't make up for that fact. It's almost as if the physical advantages of a mediocre man are not actually enough to outdo skill and training and investment in a sport.

Title IX has been bad for women's sport - as this article argues.

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

Yes - I do. I think the reason that all the finalists and semi-finalists (and beyond) in the Men's 100m in the Olympics run a faster time than the winner of the equivalent Women's event is because there are differences between men and women that no amount of sociological sophistry can overcome. Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting.

Indeed so. And, for another argument (were any more arguments needed – they aren't), mixing sports after about age 12 actively alienates girls from playing. It is the best way to put them off sport, having to play with boys who, as soon as they have even a whiff of puberty are stronger, faster and more aggressive. Simple biology.

I see where you're going wrong. You're basing your opinions on reality instead of Bend it Like Beckham.

A cardinal error. Apologies.

HYUFD

Anabobazina said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

wooliedyed said:

One assumes they've enough canvassing data that even the dimwits at CCHQ know where they are in general terms - 50, 100, 150 or 200. With the exception of the odd London or Scottish seat, defending 10,000 majorities seems pointless, 15,000 draws a line at about '1997' levels and 20,000 is basically a 100 seat strategy. Let's see where the resource goes in, but in this much of a shellacking they might easily overestimate chances still

The problem is, there comes a point where admitting how fucked they are could fuck them further. If they think they are sub 100 seats, for example, then letting that get out will embolden more people to abandon them - people don't like backing a loser and if Reform is on the up and up getting in whilst they're still new and exciting will be preferable for many people. I think the Tories need to walk this line quite delicately - admitting they're losing to try and get people to stay on the sinking ship to help bail out the water to sail again another day is needed, but if people think the boat can't be salvaged they'll abandon ship even quicker.

And this would be Labour's worst nightmare. If you could hypothetically drive the Tory vote down to zero, the political map would suddenly look like a sea of light blue and yellow.

I can assure you that Labour supporters have several worse nightmares than the near-extinction of the Tory party.

Farage as leader of the opposition of a Reform Party with over 200 seats taking over a rump Tory party of less than 10 seats and challenging for PM in 2029 as the economy under the Starmer government collapses with high taxes, high inflation and strikes?

HYUFD

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

Rishi is a strategic genius. And we've all missed it.

We all knew his position was under threat. Poor polling in the spring, and a bad (and oddly forgotten) set of local election results finally crystallised the plan to save his job as Conservative leader.

1. Call an election, catching your own party on the hop
2. Campaign like an apparent idiot (D-Day? We'll leave early! Feeding sheep? Here, splash this fox-piss cologne to spook them! etc)
3. Two weeks before polling day, pull all resources from around the country to defend Sunak's seat
4. The Conservatives win 1 seat, Richmond and Northallerton
5. Rishi Sunak is now unopposed as party leader. He's also Chair of the 1922 Committee as the only MP.

This is six dimensional chess, and I believe I'm the first one to have fully figured it out.

No, if the Tories got under 10 seats and absolute meltdown Rishi would lose his seat too.

Dr Neil Hudson would hold on in Epping Forest though as it has no Reform Party candidate and is not in the top 250 Labour target seats or the top 100 LD target seats. So Dr Neil would become the first ex Vet Tory leader (makes a change from a PPE Spad, barrister or banker anyway)

Any chance of them turning to you in their hour of need, Hyufd?


They could do a lot worse.

I am not an MP candidate so can't, unless I got a peerage maybe!

PedestrianRock

Think the value of the LDs and Reform in ‘most seats without Labour’ is better than the market in the header for the Tories coming 3rd/4th.

However if you want to bet on the Tories coming 5th then maybe those odds are better than what you would get otherwise. As far as I know you can’t get better value on proxy markets, like ‘10-20 Tory seats’ - only 0-50

occasionalranter

Sean_F said:

occasionalranter said:

"a pounding of which there is no suitable analogy"

We're beyond Stepmom territory here, we're talking the kind of stuff only Leon could write.

The kind of stuff that Piers Anthony would write, the only man to be commissioned to write a pornographic story for Playboy, and have it rejected for being too gross.

Talking of that esteemed publication, maybe the Tory party is like the protagonist in Chuck Palahniuk's Guts, and Reform is the pool drain...

DougSeal

I'm with @Mexicanpete and think there's value on a smallish Tory majority. Going to be off the board for the rest of the afternoon as I have a splitting headache after being kicked in the head by a horse earlier.

Sean_F

occasionalranter said:

Sean_F said:

occasionalranter said:

"a pounding of which there is no suitable analogy"

We're beyond Stepmom territory here, we're talking the kind of stuff only Leon could write.

The kind of stuff that Piers Anthony would write, the only man to be commissioned to write a pornographic story for Playboy, and have it rejected for being too gross.

Talking of that esteemed publication, maybe the Tory party is like the protagonist in Chuck Palahniuk's Guts, and Reform is the pool drain...

Ha, ha, ha.

DougSeal

HYUFD said:

Anabobazina said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

wooliedyed said:

One assumes they've enough canvassing data that even the dimwits at CCHQ know where they are in general terms - 50, 100, 150 or 200. With the exception of the odd London or Scottish seat, defending 10,000 majorities seems pointless, 15,000 draws a line at about '1997' levels and 20,000 is basically a 100 seat strategy. Let's see where the resource goes in, but in this much of a shellacking they might easily overestimate chances still

The problem is, there comes a point where admitting how fucked they are could fuck them further. If they think they are sub 100 seats, for example, then letting that get out will embolden more people to abandon them - people don't like backing a loser and if Reform is on the up and up getting in whilst they're still new and exciting will be preferable for many people. I think the Tories need to walk this line quite delicately - admitting they're losing to try and get people to stay on the sinking ship to help bail out the water to sail again another day is needed, but if people think the boat can't be salvaged they'll abandon ship even quicker.

And this would be Labour's worst nightmare. If you could hypothetically drive the Tory vote down to zero, the political map would suddenly look like a sea of light blue and yellow.

I can assure you that Labour supporters have several worse nightmares than the near-extinction of the Tory party.

Farage as leader of the opposition of a Reform Party with over 200 seats taking over a rump Tory party of less than 10 seats and challenging for PM in 2029 as the economy under the Starmer government collapses with high taxes, high inflation and strikes?

Lets take each of those things one at a time shall we?

Dumbosaurus

I'm frit, I've mostly closed out my back of Suank to hold on in Richmond for a small loss..

(reserve the right to get back in again at a better price if we go there)

williamglenn

The betting story could be the final straw for the Tories:

https://x.com/jimwaterson/status/1803794890175721724

Excl: Here's what happens if you scrape Betfair data for bets on a July election.

This graph cuts off at the end of 21 May, the day before Sunak announced the election.

There's a flood of bets that day - before Rishi formally told the cabinet and stood in Downing Street.

PedestrianRock

https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1803798644862095815?s=46

I hear that one of the seats CCHQ has pulled funding and activists out of - a no hoper in other words - was won by the tories in 2019 with a majority of over 20,000

Sean_F

williamglenn said:

Anabobazina said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

DougSeal said:

148grss said:

I try not to start topics on this conversation, instead playing defence against anti-trans posters. But seeing this I can only think - this is the world you're asking for. And, of course, it won't just be used for those students known to be trans; any child accused of being trans could easily be put before such a board. But those of us demanding autonomy and dignity for trans people and trans kids are the risk to child wellbeing...

This is indeed appalling. Your solution appears to be to let anyone who wants to compete in women's sports because you posit there is no competitive advantage to biological males, ignoring, evidence to the contrary, sometimes making your own evidence up - your infamous made up assertion regarding women in tennis being a case in point. When people point this out you jam your fingers in your ears and call us "transphobic". Which is not the case. However you are not a good faith participant in this debate.

Please come up with a solution rather than picking fights for the sake of it. How do we make the participation of males in female sport fair? There is a problem here and I don't see any workable solutions from either side.

My solution is what it has always been - more equitable distribution of resources between the currently gender segregated sports, with the aim of making non segregated sports easier. And calling transwomen males is not really a point in favour of you taking this issue in good faith.

Also, more history of previously non segregated sports becoming gender segregated after women start beating men:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/endings/2023/02/27/new-state-of-the-game

So, in 1903, a woman came second in a figure skating competition. And that is proof that women are biologically the same as men? Do you know how silly that sounds? Figure skating is a sport which straddles the line with art. Points are given on artistic merit not speed, height or strength. The fact that you choose that shows how weak that argument is. I read this article when it came out and it lacks a basic understanding of what sport is. What sport do you play out of interest? How could "resources" be better allocated in that sport to avoid sex segregation? The article says -

"Inclusion also chips away at the overarching narrative that women’s and girls’ sports are second tier, and therefore women and girls, as athletes, are inferior to men. "

That's the exact opposite of what would happen. Gender segregation promotes participation and inclusion, ensuring that female athletes have opportunities to excel and be recognized in their sports. No woman has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m in America despite Title IX in the States devoting millions in resources to the sport. Your solution would kill women's track and field.

In games of pick up basketball, or park football, from Hackney to Honduras there are few "resources" involved and the only fair way to ensure participation for both sexes is to have segregated teams - otherwise women would *generally* not be able to play (men being *on average* 15% taller, stronger and faster)

You are the site's leftist Leon.

I have never claimed that women are biologically the same as men - what I have said is that the differences between them and their ability to perform in sports is more down to resources and societal pressures than it is those biological differences.

I've not played much sport, but the years prior to covid I played co-ed netball with my work colleagues. And, as a 6ft 4 man, I was often outplayed by shorter, older, women. Why? Because netball is considered a women's game, most of the women playing had much better history of playing netball and my physical advantages didn't make up for that fact. It's almost as if the physical advantages of a mediocre man are not actually enough to outdo skill and training and investment in a sport.

Title IX has been bad for women's sport - as this article argues.

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?

Yes - I do. I think the reason that all the finalists and semi-finalists (and beyond) in the Men's 100m in the Olympics run a faster time than the winner of the equivalent Women's event is because there are differences between men and women that no amount of sociological sophistry can overcome. Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting.

Indeed so. And, for another argument (were any more arguments needed – they aren't), mixing sports after about age 12 actively alienates girls from playing. It is the best way to put them off sport, having to play with boys who, as soon as they have even a whiff of puberty are stronger, faster and more aggressive. Simple biology.

I see where you're going wrong. You're basing your opinions on reality instead of Bend it Like Beckham.

Or cheesy fantasy series in which young women, in chain mail bikinis, take down knights wearing plate armour, with kung fu kicks.

ClippP

HYUFD said:

Anabobazina said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

wooliedyed said:

One assumes they've enough canvassing data that even the dimwits at CCHQ know where they are in general terms - 50, 100, 150 or 200. With the exception of the odd London or Scottish seat, defending 10,000 majorities seems pointless, 15,000 draws a line at about '1997' levels and 20,000 is basically a 100 seat strategy. Let's see where the resource goes in, but in this much of a shellacking they might easily overestimate chances still

The problem is, there comes a point where admitting how fucked they are could fuck them further. If they think they are sub 100 seats, for example, then letting that get out will embolden more people to abandon them - people don't like backing a loser and if Reform is on the up and up getting in whilst they're still new and exciting will be preferable for many people. I think the Tories need to walk this line quite delicately - admitting they're losing to try and get people to stay on the sinking ship to help bail out the water to sail again another day is needed, but if people think the boat can't be salvaged they'll abandon ship even quicker.

And this would be Labour's worst nightmare. If you could hypothetically drive the Tory vote down to zero, the political map would suddenly look like a sea of light blue and yellow.

I can assure you that Labour supporters have several worse nightmares than the near-extinction of the Tory party.

Farage as leader of the opposition of a Reform Party with over 200 seats taking over a rump Tory party of less than 10 seats and challenging for PM in 2029 as the economy under the Starmer government collapses with high taxes, high inflation and strikes?

Is that the legacy you Tories are handing over to the next government, young HY?

RobD

williamglenn said:

The betting story could be the final straw for the Tories:

https://x.com/jimwaterson/status/1803794890175721724

Excl: Here's what happens if you scrape Betfair data for bets on a July election.

This graph cuts off at the end of 21 May, the day before Sunak announced the election.

There's a flood of bets that day - before Rishi formally told the cabinet and stood in Downing Street.

Flood of bets? It could be a couple of punters with large bets.

Still, totally scummy behaviour and those that did this with insider info should be ashamed of themselves.

Alanbrooke

Sean_F said:

wooliedyed said:

kyf_100 said:

Ghedebrav said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:

My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before.
Sound plausible?

I'm starting to suspect it's the other way round. Reform picks up 50 or so seats, the Conservatives pick up 40. Rump Con then has to merge with Reform and bend the knee. Especially if the Lib Dems pick up 51 seats or more, because it's the only way they'll be the main opposition.

That's only if the Reform narrative continues to pick up pace over the next couple of weeks, though. Otherwise the outcome will likely be the one you suggest.

I can't see Reform winning 50 seats.

That Goodwin poll, Baxtered, would put the Tories on 45 seats and Reform on 51, with the Lib Dems at 64.

So that poll would need to be replicated - at the moment it looks like an outlier. But if that's the direction of travel over the next couple of weeks, and we do end up on a result like that, I think you end up with a reverse takeover with Rump Con being folded into Reform.

The Tories thinking they might lose Sunak's seat in Richmond and Northallerton is proper ravens leaving the tower stuff. Their private polling must be indicating total meltdown.

On the last point, I suspect that's journalistic license based on the Savanta poll. There's no way anyone at CCHQ is admitting that to a journalist.

If this election has shown us anything, it is that there no depth to the stupidity of people at CCHQ.

Setting aside the campaign gaffes, calling the election now is just plain daft. Hard to know why they didnt go long.

- inflation down again
-will be followed ( eventually ) by unterest rates and lower mortgages
- economy creeping back to life
- by October Farage would be too heavily ensconced in USA

Northern_Al

It's not important at all in the big scheme of things. But, as a metaphor for the collapse of the Tory Party's moral compass, their Director of Campaigns betting and/or encouraging his wife to do the same on the July election date, when he probably knew from Sunak, is superb.

It is symbolic, I think, of a much larger narrative about why the Tories are heading for catastrophe: they have become pretty corrupt, engage in sleazy grifting, and can't be trusted. It's a narrative that's been strengthening ever since Theresa May (who I believe was incorruptible and as clean as a whistle) left office.

TheScreamingEagles

Trump is going to lose his shit at Fox.

Fox News highlights new Fox News polling showing Biden pulling ahead of Trump

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1803794061192577323/photo/1

wooliedyed

YouGov make it interesting again
Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (17-18 Jun)

Con: 20% (+2 from 12-13 Jun)
Lab: 36% (-1)
Reform UK: 18% (-1)
Lib Dem: 14% (=)
Green: 7% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)

yougov.co.uk/elections/uk/2…
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1803800190547026058?s=19

Scott_xP

@YouGov

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (17-18 Jun)

Con: 20% (+2 from 12-13 Jun)
Lab: 36% (-1)
Reform UK: 18% (-1)
Lib Dem: 14% (=)
Green: 7% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)

https://x.com/YouGov/status/1803800190547026058

occasionalranter

Sean_F said:

occasionalranter said:

Sean_F said:

occasionalranter said:

"a pounding of which there is no suitable analogy"

We're beyond Stepmom territory here, we're talking the kind of stuff only Leon could write.

The kind of stuff that Piers Anthony would write, the only man to be commissioned to write a pornographic story for Playboy, and have it rejected for being too gross.

Talking of that esteemed publication, maybe the Tory party is like the protagonist in Chuck Palahniuk's Guts, and Reform is the pool drain...

Ha, ha, ha.

I mean, everyone's thought about it, right, even though it's disgusting and humiliating. Flirting with right wing populism, that is.

Mexicanpete

DougSeal said:

I'm with @Mexicanpete and think there's value on a smallish Tory majority. Going to be off the board for the rest of the afternoon as I have a splitting headache after being kicked in the head by a horse earlier.

I'm less convinced than I was. Although the constant Labour landslide narrative could keep the anti -Tory vote split or at home, so there is always an outside chance. The odds are nonetheless spectacular.

Northern_Al

TheScreamingEagles said:

Trump is going to lose his shit at Fox.

Fox News highlights new Fox News polling showing Biden pulling ahead of Trump

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1803794061192577323/photo/1

2024 could yet go down as a magical year: Tories tonked, and Trump toast.

williamglenn

wooliedyed said:

YouGov make it interesting again
Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (17-18 Jun)

Con: 20% (+2 from 12-13 Jun)
Lab: 36% (-1)
Reform UK: 18% (-1)
Lib Dem: 14% (=)
Green: 7% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)

yougov.co.uk/elections/uk/2…
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1803800190547026058?s=19

The Labour slide continues.

noneoftheabove

TheScreamingEagles said:

Trump is going to lose his shit at Fox.

Fox News highlights new Fox News polling showing Biden pulling ahead of Trump

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1803794061192577323/photo/1

Generous photo choice for Biden too.

Pulpstar

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1803798644862095815?s=46

I hear that one of the seats CCHQ has pulled funding and activists out of - a no hoper in other words - was won by the tories in 2019 with a majority of over 20,000

It'd make sense to pull out of Clacton, giving Labour a free run at Farage there. One more Labour MP is way less damaging to the long term survival chances of the Conservatives or a reverse takeover than having Farage in the house.

DougSeal

williamglenn said:

wooliedyed said:

YouGov make it interesting again
Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (17-18 Jun)

Con: 20% (+2 from 12-13 Jun)
Lab: 36% (-1)
Reform UK: 18% (-1)
Lib Dem: 14% (=)
Green: 7% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)

yougov.co.uk/elections/uk/2…
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1803800190547026058?s=19

The Labour slide continues.

Tory majority incoming

biggles

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

The betting story could be the final straw for the Tories:

https://x.com/jimwaterson/status/1803794890175721724

Excl: Here's what happens if you scrape Betfair data for bets on a July election.

This graph cuts off at the end of 21 May, the day before Sunak announced the election.

There's a flood of bets that day - before Rishi formally told the cabinet and stood in Downing Street.

Flood of bets? It could be a couple of punters with large bets.

Still, totally scummy behaviour and those that did this with insider info should be ashamed of themselves.

Someone should have explained to Rishi that he was rich enough to lay that date and take all their money.

Peter_the_Punter

williamglenn said:

The betting story could be the final straw for the Tories:

https://x.com/jimwaterson/status/1803794890175721724

Excl: Here's what happens if you scrape Betfair data for bets on a July election.

This graph cuts off at the end of 21 May, the day before Sunak announced the election.

There's a flood of bets that day - before Rishi formally told the cabinet and stood in Downing Street.

Thanks William.

I lost about £200 on that market. Now as a seasoned punter I'm obviously prepared for that kind of thing and certainly don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me, but if it turns out that political insiders were using privileged positions for personal financial gain, I should say that is a little bit beyond the pale.

biggles

Northern_Al said:

It's not important at all in the big scheme of things. But, as a metaphor for the collapse of the Tory Party's moral compass, their Director of Campaigns betting and/or encouraging his wife to do the same on the July election date, when he probably knew from Sunak, is superb.

It is symbolic, I think, of a much larger narrative about why the Tories are heading for catastrophe: they have become pretty corrupt, engage in sleazy grifting, and can't be trusted. It's a narrative that's been strengthening ever since Theresa May (who I believe was incorruptible and as clean as a whistle) left office.

If we could look at his position on the markets, I wonder how many Tory seats he’s bet on….?

Anabobazina

TheScreamingEagles said:

Trump is going to lose his shit at Fox.

Fox News highlights new Fox News polling showing Biden pulling ahead of Trump

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1803794061192577323/photo/1

hE iS bEhInD.


Etc etc.