Just trying to formulate what the Tories would consider relative 'success' from the doldrums they've put themselves in? I'm guessing the minimum aim must be to be HM opposition with enough MPs to properly shadow the government and run a 1922 committee plus provide a deputy speaker, so, what, 110 MPs minimum? They're aiming no doubt to beat the 156 low total
110 would be uncomfortably tight, I think.
There'll inevitably be some MPs who aren't suitable for a formal role (allowing for illness, disaffection, being a bit too independently-minded, etc), so they'd really need to have closer to 125-130 in order to run a full Official Opposition in the traditional style.
Even at that level, they might be well advised to double up on some of the more junior shadow positions.
John Major's interim shadow cabinet in May 1997 might be a good model until the leadership election is finished, and possibly for the whole of the first session. And didn't either Hague or IDS make a virtue of having a slimmed-down shadow cabinet at some point?
Pretty grim prospects for them and for proper opposition really
Yes, I would say 125 or so seats would allow them to continue business as usual from the opposition benches.
Don't forget they have a lot of Councillors and the whole Party infrastructure which goes with being in Office for thirteen years (never mind the couple of hundred before that.) It wouldn't all vanish overnight.
They must at all costs avoid dropping behind the LDs. The loss of influence becomes dramatic then,and there's always the danger the public quite likes the look of the new Opposition.
If they do manage to retain that kind of number, my main concern about their future would resolve around what sort of Party the New Conservatives would be. If you cast your eye down the list of likely survivors, the prospects don't look great. You'd have to expect some vicious infighting.
The Economist only has Labour clearing the winning post by 55 seats, which doesn't seem that many, (although of course you double that figure to get the majority).
If they do manage to retain that kind of number, my main concern about their future would resolve around what sort of Party the New Conservatives would be. If you cast your eye down the list of likely survivors, the prospects don't look great. You'd have to expect some vicious infighting.
This has been mentioned elsewhere.
While you might expect there to be a fight, the history of the non-batshit wing is that they don't fight.
The Economist only has Labour clearing the winning post by 55 seats, which doesn't seem that many, (although of course you double that figure to get the majority).
Just trying to formulate what the Tories would consider relative 'success' from the doldrums they've put themselves in? I'm guessing the minimum aim must be to be HM opposition with enough MPs to properly shadow the government and run a 1922 committee plus provide a deputy speaker, so, what, 110 MPs minimum? They're aiming no doubt to beat the 156 low total
110 would be uncomfortably tight, I think.
There'll inevitably be some MPs who aren't suitable for a formal role (allowing for illness, disaffection, being a bit too independently-minded, etc), so they'd really need to have closer to 125-130 in order to run a full Official Opposition in the traditional style.
Even at that level, they might be well advised to double up on some of the more junior shadow positions.
John Major's interim shadow cabinet in May 1997 might be a good model until the leadership election is finished, and possibly for the whole of the first session. And didn't either Hague or IDS make a virtue of having a slimmed-down shadow cabinet at some point?
Pretty grim prospects for them and for proper opposition really
Even if they do end up at the top end of their expectations, going into opposition is going to be a huge wrench for them.
If IDS fails in his bid for re-election, they should get him into the lords asap and lean heavily on his, Hague's and Howard's experience. People like Michael Ancram too, and whoever else they can get who had a senior role in opposition.
I really hope they've got a team looking at past experiences of post-defeat leaders - not just Tories, but Milliband too.
On the other hand prime minster Farage would not have allowed in 2.4 million migrants in 3 years
Yeah, he would.
He would blame the French
If Farage had been the PM we'd have lost a short war against France, ceded a strip of the south coast to them and Yorkshire would have declared independence. England's population would have gone down from 55 million to 42 million, and therefore commentary from certain quarters would be calling it all a huge success.
In Farage I see someone who from a public platform has never uttered one word of kindness towards the fellow citizens he is not trying to recruit, never extended a conciliating hand to anyone who differs, never built a bridge or talked about compromise, and never indicated sympathy with (or even interest in) a contrary opinion, or any willingness to reconsider his own. The grin is broad but the vive is negativeL whom or what do we hate? Come hate with me.
I don't think it is quite the same thing as the extreme offensiveness and odiousness that Trump displays, where is just so vulgar and unpleasant all the time even if you agree with him on 90% of things, as Farage does have a kind of chummy, earnest kind of charismatic appeal. He can come across as pretty ordinary, despite being a professional politician for decades.
After the massive villification that Farage gets, and is still getting, especially from those invested in the European project, both still inside it, or longing to be back inside it, is it really down to him to be walking around offering olive branches to all and sundry? He's leading a (peaceful) political insurgency ffs.
The point being made is not about Farage not reaching out to uber Remainers. It’s that he doesn’t reach out to anyone.
Farage: The people of the UK should be able to decide whether they want to be in the EU Also Farage: The people of Eastern Europe shouldn't be able to decide whether they want to be in the EU
Well that implies that the other European countries don’t have a say in the matter of who joins.
No it doesn't. Do you really need someone to explain this to you?
A country in the EU can decide to leave without the consent of the rest of the EU. The same is not true for countries wishing to join the EU. So, Farage’s thesis is that the fault lies with the countries that enabled this expansion, and not with the people in Eastern Europe, which is not what was described in the previous post.
Not that I agree with it, as I have stated elsewhere
I'm tempted to take a nibble of Con 150 to 200 seats, on the basis that if 'the fear' works, the lower end of that is probably doable. I get the feeling they'll either hold a 97 position or collapse way below, not the in between
If they do manage to retain that kind of number, my main concern about their future would resolve around what sort of Party the New Conservatives would be. If you cast your eye down the list of likely survivors, the prospects don't look great. You'd have to expect some vicious infighting.
This has been mentioned elsewhere.
While you might expect there to be a fight, the history of the non-batshit wing is that they don't fight.
Which is largely why we are where we are now.
With the most left wing conservative government in history?
I think it will be bad for the country for Labour to have huge majority, but I think it would be even worse for the country to re-elect the current collection of spineless twits, incompetents and swivel-eyed loons.
ANME update: Postal ballot has arrived and it didn't occur to me before looking at it that @RochdalePioneers name is alphabetically first on the list. Anybody know how much of a boost that's worth? It is a small boost, isn't it?
It’s a bigger boost in a multi-vote election, or a preferential election. In single member FPTP it probably isn’t worth that much.
"Vote Aaron Aardvark for electoral reform".
Aaron A Aardvark was the first citizen to die when Judge Cal decided to execute the whole of Megacity 1.
Just trying to formulate what the Tories would consider relative 'success' from the doldrums they've put themselves in? I'm guessing the minimum aim must be to be HM opposition with enough MPs to properly shadow the government and run a 1922 committee plus provide a deputy speaker, so, what, 110 MPs minimum? They're aiming no doubt to beat the 156 low total
110 would be uncomfortably tight, I think.
There'll inevitably be some MPs who aren't suitable for a formal role (allowing for illness, disaffection, being a bit too independently-minded, etc), so they'd really need to have closer to 125-130 in order to run a full Official Opposition in the traditional style.
Even at that level, they might be well advised to double up on some of the more junior shadow positions.
John Major's interim shadow cabinet in May 1997 might be a good model until the leadership election is finished, and possibly for the whole of the first session. And didn't either Hague or IDS make a virtue of having a slimmed-down shadow cabinet at some point?
Pretty grim prospects for them and for proper opposition really
Even if they do end up at the top end of their expectations, going into opposition is going to be a huge wrench for them.
If IDS fails in his bid for re-election, they should get him into the lords asap and lean heavily on his, Hague's and Howard's experience. People like Michael Ancram too, and whoever else they can get who had a senior role in opposition.
I really hope they've got a team looking at past experiences of post-defeat leaders - not just Tories, but Milliband too.
Ruth Davidson needs to play an active role in rebuilding probably from the younger generation, and Annabel Goldie knows all about opposition from a very weak position
I remember my very first trip to Edinburgh. I was about 25. I wandered around the castle, the cathedral, the war memorials, the Georgian bits and the medieval bits. Everything. It was great fun and I had my first pint of 4 shillings of whatever they call it
But I recall it was that trip that made me realise: Scotland is very definitely a nation. With a sense of itself and a proud and distinct culture. Only various accidents of history/geography prevented it from being as independent as Denmark or Norway, say
I am still a firm unionist. Obvs. I believe all nations of the UK benefit from this ancient alliance, despite recent evidence otherwise. But I can also see why the Nats feel very differently
From this I derive several lessons. The most relevant is this: to understand something complex and political and historical you have to see it. With your own eyes. See it, smell it, taste it, hear it
No amount of book learning can make up for this. Eg I did not understand the concept of “transnistria” until I recently went there and saw what it looks like and how it relates to Moldova/russia/ukraine
Ditto Ukraine and the war. You can’t understand it until you see it, taste it, hear it. And you can’t understand why Ukraine is simultaneously an independent nation and yet also intrinsically Russian (in places) until you go to Kyiv and Odessa
70/- or 80/-, probably ...
These days more like 120/- in Edinburgh.
More like 100/- actually (if one's not so ill-advised as to go in Arts Festival time). But the shilling prices were actually traditional names for strengths/types of beer, presumably you know that? From the price per barrel long before when even Leon was young.
Indeed. Spent enough time in Scotland with family to understand the nomenclature. Maybe I once made a joke with a barman about what the price should be.
In Farage I see someone who from a public platform has never uttered one word of kindness towards the fellow citizens he is not trying to recruit, never extended a conciliating hand to anyone who differs, never built a bridge or talked about compromise, and never indicated sympathy with (or even interest in) a contrary opinion, or any willingness to reconsider his own. The grin is broad but the vive is negativeL whom or what do we hate? Come hate with me.
I don't think it is quite the same thing as the extreme offensiveness and odiousness that Trump displays, where is just so vulgar and unpleasant all the time even if you agree with him on 90% of things, as Farage does have a kind of chummy, earnest kind of charismatic appeal. He can come across as pretty ordinary, despite being a professional politician for decades.
After the massive villification that Farage gets, and is still getting, especially from those invested in the European project, both still inside it, or longing to be back inside it, is it really down to him to be walking around offering olive branches to all and sundry? He's leading a (peaceful) political insurgency ffs.
The point being made is not about Farage not reaching out to uber Remainers. It’s that he doesn’t reach out to anyone.
Farage: The people of the UK should be able to decide whether they want to be in the EU Also Farage: The people of Eastern Europe shouldn't be able to decide whether they want to be in the EU
Well that implies that the other European countries don’t have a say in the matter of who joins.
No it doesn't. Do you really need someone to explain this to you?
A country in the EU can decide to leave without the consent of the rest of the EU. The same is not true for countries wishing to join the EU. So, Farage’s thesis is that the fault lies with the countries that enabled this expansion, and not with the people in Eastern Europe, which is not what was described in the previous post.
Not that I agree with it, as I have stated elsewhere
Ok. Looks like you DO need it explained to you.
The people of Eastern Europe should be able to decide they want to be in the EU. It's not up to Russia. The EU should be able to decide whether to let them in and on what conditions. Also not up to Russia.
At no point does anyone need to consult Russia. It's none of their business.
On the other hand prime minster Farage would not have allowed in 2.4 million migrants in 3 years
Yeah, he would.
He would blame the French
If Farage had been the PM we'd have lost a short war against France, ceded a strip of the south coast to them and Yorkshire would have declared independence. England's population would have gone down from 55 million to 42 million, and therefore commentary from certain quarters would be calling it all a huge success.
If Farage was PM he would be like the dog that caught the milk cart.
It is all very well talking big when you never have to do anything (a la Lib Dems) but if he became PM he would soon learn that posturing and reality seldom work well together. Look at Boris as an example - the hero who would rescue us all and he turned out to be nothing more than a broken record spouting lies and latin nonsense.
Indeed. They've just uploaded still more maps - including more large scale OS maps of much of the UK - so far as copyright allows. And I really like the Lidar - peering under tree cover at old earthworks.
(And there is also an overlay option, of course.)
I want the Definitive Map and Statement for Nottinghamshire.
Isn't that held by the county council, presumably? Not the OS.
Yes, but not online in any useful form.
In Derbyshire it's just another layer of data on their mapping system.
For me to inspect something is a 50 mile round trip, so it's easier to put an FOI in.
If I did that with all the footpaths I need to know about, they would have a fugue.
The data is on rowmaps.com I think - depends how happy you are at playing around with GIS software!
Just trying to formulate what the Tories would consider relative 'success' from the doldrums they've put themselves in? I'm guessing the minimum aim must be to be HM opposition with enough MPs to properly shadow the government and run a 1922 committee plus provide a deputy speaker, so, what, 110 MPs minimum? They're aiming no doubt to beat the 156 low total
110 would be uncomfortably tight, I think.
There'll inevitably be some MPs who aren't suitable for a formal role (allowing for illness, disaffection, being a bit too independently-minded, etc), so they'd really need to have closer to 125-130 in order to run a full Official Opposition in the traditional style.
Even at that level, they might be well advised to double up on some of the more junior shadow positions.
John Major's interim shadow cabinet in May 1997 might be a good model until the leadership election is finished, and possibly for the whole of the first session. And didn't either Hague or IDS make a virtue of having a slimmed-down shadow cabinet at some point?
Pretty grim prospects for them and for proper opposition really
Even if they do end up at the top end of their expectations, going into opposition is going to be a huge wrench for them.
If IDS fails in his bid for re-election, they should get him into the lords asap and lean heavily on his, Hague's and Howard's experience. People like Michael Ancram too, and whoever else they can get who had a senior role in opposition.
I really hope they've got a team looking at past experiences of post-defeat leaders - not just Tories, but Milliband too.
Ruth Davidson needs to play an active role in rebuilding probably from the younger generation, and Annabel Goldie knows all about opposition from a very weak position
ANME update: we got a letter from Ruth Davidson encouraging us to vote Conservative Duggie Ross to keep the SNP out. She did not mention the strong challenge from PB favourite Rochdale.
The more I think about it, the more Farage's comments feel like a huge mistake the Tories should be exploiting. NOT because of his views on the origins of the war, but because it can be painted as proof that he is literally a paid Putinite puppet. He has appeared on Russia Today, he did so after Crimea
That will be deadly for a lot of his potential voters. That's not "deeply patriotic", is it?
I guess the Tories have to be wary of the libel laws, but they could surely chuck out some innuendo. A screenshot of him on Russia Today, his quotes about Ukraine, and just a question - "who is he working for"?
That could be brutally effective and drive down the Reform vote well under 15%, potentially saving the Tories from disaster. This is a gift. Are they going to take it?
But if he isn't a paid Putinite puppet (or if there's just no actual evidence that he is), that approach could be very dangerous. Putin is very good at getting apologies off people. CCHQ doesn't want to be in the position at having to apologise publicly to him during an election campaign.
Do you mean Putin is very good at getting apologies off people?
Enabling them to fall out of tenth storey windows is more his style, I thought.
President Putin managed to get an absolutely lovely, heartfelt apology from Prigozhin shortly before he sadly had an accident.
Prigozhin chickening out of his coup attempt will be one of the great 'what if's of history.
That was one of the weirdest days in recent years. I was on holiday with the missus, and we sat watching the TV all day hoping that the end result would be a Russian civil war.
It was indeed weird. How on earth did Prigozhin not realise he had absolutely nothing to lose? There was absolutely no chance Putin was going to let him live after that. He is a murderous barsteward. Prigozhin must have known that.
The Tory on Any Questions accepting that we should at least “have a conversation” about electoral reform…a first straw in the wind?
The system that has worked to our advantage since 1945 now looks to be working against us. Boo hoo....
Sorry I want electoral reform but it's not a priority I can think of 20-30 other issues that are more pressing because the previous Government did nothing to solve any of those issues.
Labour would probably focus on quick, easy to achieve electoral changes rather than spend time and capital on it. Hence votes at 16 but surprisingly not changes to voter ID rules.
The Tory on Any Questions accepting that we should at least “have a conversation” about electoral reform…a first straw in the wind?
The system that has worked to our advantage since 1945 now looks to be working against us. Boo hoo....
Sorry I want electoral reform but it's not a priority I can think of 20-30 other issues that are more pressing because the previous Government did nothing to solve any of those issues.
Indeed.
I’d also insist on House of Lords reform as part of the change to the voting system.
Bonkers to have more unelected peers than actual MPs.
Labour have announced some fairly straightforward proposals to that effect, which could be an indication that the larger issue will be parked after some easy reductions - eg unelected peers out, age limits.
The only peers who are elected are hereditaries though!
If you meant just kick them out then you have a wholly appointed house, which would be a disaster
Yes, an entirely appointed House seems to be the worst of all possible worlds, with its composition largely at the discretion of got government of the day.
Just trying to formulate what the Tories would consider relative 'success' from the doldrums they've put themselves in? I'm guessing the minimum aim must be to be HM opposition with enough MPs to properly shadow the government and run a 1922 committee plus provide a deputy speaker, so, what, 110 MPs minimum? They're aiming no doubt to beat the 156 low total
110 would be uncomfortably tight, I think.
There'll inevitably be some MPs who aren't suitable for a formal role (allowing for illness, disaffection, being a bit too independently-minded, etc), so they'd really need to have closer to 125-130 in order to run a full Official Opposition in the traditional style.
Even at that level, they might be well advised to double up on some of the more junior shadow positions.
John Major's interim shadow cabinet in May 1997 might be a good model until the leadership election is finished, and possibly for the whole of the first session. And didn't either Hague or IDS make a virtue of having a slimmed-down shadow cabinet at some point?
Pretty grim prospects for them and for proper opposition really
Even if they do end up at the top end of their expectations, going into opposition is going to be a huge wrench for them.
If IDS fails in his bid for re-election, they should get him into the lords asap and lean heavily on his, Hague's and Howard's experience. People like Michael Ancram too, and whoever else they can get who had a senior role in opposition.
I really hope they've got a team looking at past experiences of post-defeat leaders - not just Tories, but Milliband too.
Ruth Davidson needs to play an active role in rebuilding probably from the younger generation, and Annabel Goldie knows all about opposition from a very weak position
ANME update: we got a letter from Ruth Davidson encouraging us to vote Conservative Duggie Ross to keep the SNP out. She did not mention the strong challenge from PB favourite Rochdale.
The Economist only has Labour clearing the winning post by 55 seats, which doesn't seem that many, (although of course you double that figure to get the majority).
In Farage I see someone who from a public platform has never uttered one word of kindness towards the fellow citizens he is not trying to recruit, never extended a conciliating hand to anyone who differs, never built a bridge or talked about compromise, and never indicated sympathy with (or even interest in) a contrary opinion, or any willingness to reconsider his own. The grin is broad but the vive is negativeL whom or what do we hate? Come hate with me.
I don't think it is quite the same thing as the extreme offensiveness and odiousness that Trump displays, where is just so vulgar and unpleasant all the time even if you agree with him on 90% of things, as Farage does have a kind of chummy, earnest kind of charismatic appeal. He can come across as pretty ordinary, despite being a professional politician for decades.
After the massive villification that Farage gets, and is still getting, especially from those invested in the European project, both still inside it, or longing to be back inside it, is it really down to him to be walking around offering olive branches to all and sundry? He's leading a (peaceful) political insurgency ffs.
The point being made is not about Farage not reaching out to uber Remainers. It’s that he doesn’t reach out to anyone.
Farage: The people of the UK should be able to decide whether they want to be in the EU Also Farage: The people of Eastern Europe shouldn't be able to decide whether they want to be in the EU
Well that implies that the other European countries don’t have a say in the matter of who joins.
No it doesn't. Do you really need someone to explain this to you?
A country in the EU can decide to leave without the consent of the rest of the EU. The same is not true for countries wishing to join the EU. So, Farage’s thesis is that the fault lies with the countries that enabled this expansion, and not with the people in Eastern Europe, which is not what was described in the previous post.
Not that I agree with it, as I have stated elsewhere
Ok. Looks like you DO need it explained to you.
The people of Eastern Europe should be able to decide they want to be in the EU. It's not up to Russia. The EU should be able to decide whether to let them in and on what conditions. Also not up to Russia.
At no point does anyone need to consult Russia. It's none of their business.
I think Farage was mentioning or referring to this (debunked) deal in the early 90s that would limit the expansion of the West further into Eastern Europe. He is suggesting it was the West’s fault for allowing this expansion, not the fault of the people in Eastern Europe as was suggested in the tweet I was replying to.
No idea if this is going to post ok as my logging in seems totally random (which is why I started lurking, as a few years ago I just couldn’t get logged in, so I gave up and lurked).
Anyhoo, presupposing I’ve surfaced, ( for the little it’s worth), where are we now in relation to the past five years and going forward? Just some random musings.
1) Tories did well on vaccines and Ukraine. Just about everything else has been mired in incompetence and frankly moral slide.
Post partygate it should’ve taken the Tories six days not six months to remove Johnson. Sometimes is pretty straightforward: you can’t demand the greatest curtailment of freedom from the citizenry in peacetime (if not ever, war included) and flout it brazenly, and repeatedly, and not expect to be vilified at the ballot box. Tissue Price in his NO alter ego spoke well for us all in his speech on the House concerning a family funeral.
That alone list the Tories this election.
2) Truss: where to begin? The Tories Corbyn lunacy moment. The sole good to come out of it was the demonstration to governments of all shades that the bond market will screw you to the floor if you annoy it. I’m sure Rachel Reeves has noted.
That lost the Tories the election of 2028 in my view.
3) Sunak was always doomed post Truss but he’s played a bad hand badly. The betting scandal is symptomatic of much of the fin de siecle feel. What kind of Grade A fool do you have to be to be working for the PM and place a bet on the election date? Again this one’s easy: it’s not right. I might have a bit of a nodding wry acceptance of competence if they’d found a loophole of legal but immoral betting, and they were winning serious cash but it’s not even that.
4) Farage is wrong side of history with Putin. Totally wrong.
5) Starmer is the luckiest general since lucky generals were invented. Since Hartlepool either walking or chewing gum would’ve done the trick, the ability to do both given the competition makes a politician look like a cross between Abraham Lincoln and FDR.
That said credit where credit is due. Four and a half years ago Labour we’re offering PM Corbyn and Diane Abbott in charge of MI5. We are light years from that, and I’m very pleased at the backing for the U.K. nuclear deterrent. We’ve never needed it more.
He’ll have little money, unlike Blair, (CGT will go up but hey ho), but it’s hard to see anything too bonkers in their offering and at least they are coherent which cannot be said of the Tories.
8) I’m in a totally uncompetitive seat so my vote is pure luxury really. It won’t affect the outcome.
I’m a lifelong Tory vote in GE’s and I’m vacillating between deliberately spoiling my paper, but more likely actually voting for Starmer, on the grounds of it’s the only option for stable Govt for the next few years we have.
Hopefully the Tories will spend some time becoming sane and competent again and will begin the process by telling Farage to bugger off big time. We can but hope.
Regarding Ukraine. In response to some of the more useful commentary today have been thinking what my position actually is, what should happen.
I think firstly, that the objective should be to de-escalate the conflict. This would be undertaken in full knowledge that it will restart when Russia thinks it has an advantage. So it would not be done naively and the first principle would be that Ukraine retains the ability to defend itself. Beyond this the goal should be to try and find a strategic solution to the issue of security in Europe, given the threat from Russia.
To change my mind about this I would need some evidence that Ukraine can actually win the war. What equipment do they need etc, what would be the strategy, have they got the people to do it. Or alternatively, that the Russian state is about to collapse. But it just appears highly resilient to me. Also, reassurance that the nuclear paradox can be overcome- a relevant factor in both scenarios. I am not going to give any weight to the 'moral argument' or being called a Putin appeaser.
Just trying to formulate what the Tories would consider relative 'success' from the doldrums they've put themselves in? I'm guessing the minimum aim must be to be HM opposition with enough MPs to properly shadow the government and run a 1922 committee plus provide a deputy speaker, so, what, 110 MPs minimum? They're aiming no doubt to beat the 156 low total
110 would be uncomfortably tight, I think.
There'll inevitably be some MPs who aren't suitable for a formal role (allowing for illness, disaffection, being a bit too independently-minded, etc), so they'd really need to have closer to 125-130 in order to run a full Official Opposition in the traditional style.
Even at that level, they might be well advised to double up on some of the more junior shadow positions.
John Major's interim shadow cabinet in May 1997 might be a good model until the leadership election is finished, and possibly for the whole of the first session. And didn't either Hague or IDS make a virtue of having a slimmed-down shadow cabinet at some point?
Pretty grim prospects for them and for proper opposition really
Even if they do end up at the top end of their expectations, going into opposition is going to be a huge wrench for them.
If IDS fails in his bid for re-election, they should get him into the lords asap and lean heavily on his, Hague's and Howard's experience. People like Michael Ancram too, and whoever else they can get who had a senior role in opposition.
I really hope they've got a team looking at past experiences of post-defeat leaders - not just Tories, but Milliband too.
Ruth Davidson needs to play an active role in rebuilding probably from the younger generation, and Annabel Goldie knows all about opposition from a very weak position
ANME update: we got a letter from Ruth Davidson encouraging us to vote Conservative Duggie Ross to keep the SNP out. She did not mention the strong challenge from PB favourite Rochdale.
She'll have loved writing that lol
One suspects, cynically, that it was written by some campaign staffer and waved at Ruthie to get her seal of approval. Very much a case of "hmmm, who have we got that hasn't totally fucked their reputation in the last few years?" and they could only think of one name.
The Economist only has Labour clearing the winning post by 55 seats, which doesn't seem that many, (although of course you double that figure to get the majority).
I have always believed that I vote for my constituency MP to represent me to the best of their ability. In Edinburgh SW there is no way my party candidate will win (she is a good person who I know through my wife), I do not want Labour to have the largest ever super-majority, so - do I vote tactically for Joanna Cherry who is a competent MP and supports LGB & Women's rights in a way I support? I do not support the SNP but I support her. Quandary time.
The more I think about it, the more Farage's comments feel like a huge mistake the Tories should be exploiting. NOT because of his views on the origins of the war, but because it can be painted as proof that he is literally a paid Putinite puppet. He has appeared on Russia Today, he did so after Crimea
That will be deadly for a lot of his potential voters. That's not "deeply patriotic", is it?
I guess the Tories have to be wary of the libel laws, but they could surely chuck out some innuendo. A screenshot of him on Russia Today, his quotes about Ukraine, and just a question - "who is he working for"?
That could be brutally effective and drive down the Reform vote well under 15%, potentially saving the Tories from disaster. This is a gift. Are they going to take it?
But if he isn't a paid Putinite puppet (or if there's just no actual evidence that he is), that approach could be very dangerous. Putin is very good at getting apologies off people. CCHQ doesn't want to be in the position at having to apologise publicly to him during an election campaign.
Do you mean Putin is very good at getting apologies off people?
Enabling them to fall out of tenth storey windows is more his style, I thought.
President Putin managed to get an absolutely lovely, heartfelt apology from Prigozhin shortly before he sadly had an accident.
Prigozhin chickening out of his coup attempt will be one of the great 'what if's of history.
That was one of the weirdest days in recent years. I was on holiday with the missus, and we sat watching the TV all day hoping that the end result would be a Russian civil war.
It was indeed weird. How on earth did Prigozhin not realise he had absolutely nothing to lose? There was absolutely no chance Putin was going to let him live after that. He is a murderous barsteward. Prigozhin must have known that.
If you aim for the King you had better not miss.
History is full of rebellions that with nothing between them and the capital just went home.
People are strange and not very logical.
Consider the number of people involved with The Pilgrimage Of Grace who thought they were doing a Loyal But Performative Dance for the King. Rather than challenging a King - which in the history of Kings is do/die for both sides.
The Economist only has Labour clearing the winning post by 55 seats, which doesn't seem that many, (although of course you double that figure to get the majority).
In Farage I see someone who from a public platform has never uttered one word of kindness towards the fellow citizens he is not trying to recruit, never extended a conciliating hand to anyone who differs, never built a bridge or talked about compromise, and never indicated sympathy with (or even interest in) a contrary opinion, or any willingness to reconsider his own. The grin is broad but the vive is negativeL whom or what do we hate? Come hate with me.
I don't think it is quite the same thing as the extreme offensiveness and odiousness that Trump displays, where is just so vulgar and unpleasant all the time even if you agree with him on 90% of things, as Farage does have a kind of chummy, earnest kind of charismatic appeal. He can come across as pretty ordinary, despite being a professional politician for decades.
After the massive villification that Farage gets, and is still getting, especially from those invested in the European project, both still inside it, or longing to be back inside it, is it really down to him to be walking around offering olive branches to all and sundry? He's leading a (peaceful) political insurgency ffs.
The point being made is not about Farage not reaching out to uber Remainers. It’s that he doesn’t reach out to anyone.
Farage: The people of the UK should be able to decide whether they want to be in the EU Also Farage: The people of Eastern Europe shouldn't be able to decide whether they want to be in the EU
Well that implies that the other European countries don’t have a say in the matter of who joins.
No it doesn't. Do you really need someone to explain this to you?
A country in the EU can decide to leave without the consent of the rest of the EU. The same is not true for countries wishing to join the EU. So, Farage’s thesis is that the fault lies with the countries that enabled this expansion, and not with the people in Eastern Europe, which is not what was described in the previous post.
Not that I agree with it, as I have stated elsewhere
Ok. Looks like you DO need it explained to you.
The people of Eastern Europe should be able to decide they want to be in the EU. It's not up to Russia. The EU should be able to decide whether to let them in and on what conditions. Also not up to Russia.
At no point does anyone need to consult Russia. It's none of their business.
I think Farage was mentioning or referring to this (debunked) deal in the early 90s that would limit the expansion of the West further into Eastern Europe. He is suggesting it was the West’s fault for allowing this expansion, not the fault of the people in Eastern Europe as was suggested in the tweet I was replying to.
The final joke in the whole thing why a number of countries in the East wanted to be in block entirely separate from Russia.
Because they had a long history of dealing with Russia.
Russia made them want to have nothing to do with Russia. *Russia* is making Poland want the biggest airforce and army on the continent.
The Economist only has Labour clearing the winning post by 55 seats, which doesn't seem that many, (although of course you double that figure to get the majority).
I have always believed that I vote for my constituency MP to represent me to the best of their ability. In Edinburgh SW there is no way my party candidate will win (she is a good person who I know through my wife), I do not want Labour to have the largest ever super-majority, so - do I vote tactically for Joanna Cherry who is a competent MP and supports LGB & Women's rights in a way I support? I do not support the SNP but I support her. Quandary time.
I'm tempted to take a nibble of Con 150 to 200 seats, on the basis that if 'the fear' works, the lower end of that is probably doable. I get the feeling they'll either hold a 97 position or collapse way below, not the in between
My current feeling is the Tories are going to fall just short of 150 seats. Maybe Con 147, Lab 395, Lib 67, Ref 2 or 3, Green 2 or 3. Overall Lab majority circa 140ish. But I still took 8/1 on Con 150-200 seats earlier this week when it was on offer, as I think it's good value.
Meanwhile the really tricky decision will be whether to defer any capital disposals for the next five years, or to bugger off somewhere else for five years, assuming CGT gets bolted onto income tax and done at 45%. Decisions decisions. Either way, the CGT raise will not raise a single penny from me...
The more I think about it, the more Farage's comments feel like a huge mistake the Tories should be exploiting. NOT because of his views on the origins of the war, but because it can be painted as proof that he is literally a paid Putinite puppet. He has appeared on Russia Today, he did so after Crimea
That will be deadly for a lot of his potential voters. That's not "deeply patriotic", is it?
I guess the Tories have to be wary of the libel laws, but they could surely chuck out some innuendo. A screenshot of him on Russia Today, his quotes about Ukraine, and just a question - "who is he working for"?
That could be brutally effective and drive down the Reform vote well under 15%, potentially saving the Tories from disaster. This is a gift. Are they going to take it?
But if he isn't a paid Putinite puppet (or if there's just no actual evidence that he is), that approach could be very dangerous. Putin is very good at getting apologies off people. CCHQ doesn't want to be in the position at having to apologise publicly to him during an election campaign.
Do you mean Putin is very good at getting apologies off people?
Enabling them to fall out of tenth storey windows is more his style, I thought.
President Putin managed to get an absolutely lovely, heartfelt apology from Prigozhin shortly before he sadly had an accident.
Prigozhin chickening out of his coup attempt will be one of the great 'what if's of history.
That was one of the weirdest days in recent years. I was on holiday with the missus, and we sat watching the TV all day hoping that the end result would be a Russian civil war.
It was indeed weird. How on earth did Prigozhin not realise he had absolutely nothing to lose? There was absolutely no chance Putin was going to let him live after that. He is a murderous barsteward. Prigozhin must have known that.
If you aim for the King you had better not miss.
History is full of rebellions that with nothing between them and the capital just went home.
People are strange and not very logical.
Consider the number of people involved with The Pilgrimage Of Grace who thought they were doing a Loyal But Performative Dance for the King. Rather than challenging a King - which in the history of Kings is do/die for both sides.
Robert v William the Conker. They had Billy Bastard wounded and on the floor and just let him go.
For no apparent reason and certainly not seriously evidenced by the latest polls, PB.com appears to be in an extraordinarily bullish frame of mind this afternoon towards the Tories with several posters suggesting that they could win close on 200 seats in 12 days time.
All the evidence suggests that they will emerge with little more than half that number at best.
The spread-betting markets are seldom wrong, at least not to any major extent and Spreadex/Sporting's mid spreads for the three major parties are currently:
Labour 425 seats Tories 114 seats LibDems 58 seats
On this basis Labout would achieve an overall majority of 200 seats.
Regarding Ukraine. In response to some of the more useful commentary today have been thinking what my position actually is, what should happen.
I think firstly, that the objective should be to de-escalate the conflict. This would be undertaken in full knowledge that it will restart when Russia thinks it has an advantage. So it would not be done naively and the first principle would be that Ukraine retains the ability to defend itself. Beyond this the goal should be to try and find a strategic solution to the issue of security in Europe, given the threat from Russia.
To change my mind about this I would need some evidence that Ukraine can actually win the war. What equipment do they need etc, what would be the strategy, have they got the people to do it. Or alternatively, that the Russian state is about to collapse. But it just appears highly resilient to me. Also, reassurance that the nuclear paradox can be overcome- a relevant factor in both scenarios. I am not going to give any weight to the 'moral argument' or being called a Putin appeaser.
What about 'de-escalate', negotiate, temporise, pause, cease fire, discuss etc to the point where, without warning, it is announced by NATO and its members that Ukraine from this moment has its treaty protections. Russia may return to fighting but these are now the terms....
NATO has successfully either prevented Russia or bluffed Russia (USSR) since 1948. At some point we are bound to find out which it is.
It has the additional small merit that Farage would be against it.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
Regarding Ukraine. In response to some of the more useful commentary today have been thinking what my position actually is, what should happen.
I think firstly, that the objective should be to de-escalate the conflict. This would be undertaken in full knowledge that it will restart when Russia thinks it has an advantage. So it would not be done naively and the first principle would be that Ukraine retains the ability to defend itself. Beyond this the goal should be to try and find a strategic solution to the issue of security in Europe, given the threat from Russia.
To change my mind about this I would need some evidence that Ukraine can actually win the war. What equipment do they need etc, what would be the strategy, have they got the people to do it. Or alternatively, that the Russian state is about to collapse. But it just appears highly resilient to me. Also, reassurance that the nuclear paradox can be overcome- a relevant factor in both scenarios. I am not going to give any weight to the 'moral argument' or being called a Putin appeaser.
Broadly agree. The red line for Ukraine I think would be no Russian say over the parts of Ukraine it doesn't control. So it would be free to arm and defend itself and enter into alliances with Western states. Ukraine would then need to trade territory for peace. Question is how much territory it is prepared to trade, if any at all, to get a peace treaty. I could see Donbas and Crimea maybe including Mariupol, but I think they will want clear the Russians out of the so called land bridge to the Crimean isthmus.
Then there's the question whether the Russians would agree to this.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
Good that your wife let you post them. Did she come with you to make sure you didn't put them in the dog poo bin by mistake?
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
Well done. May you be a force of many millions, peering over the edge and going "Nah....."!
For no apparent reason and certainly not seriously evidenced by the latest polls, PB.com appears to be in an extraordinarily bullish frame of mind this afternoon towards the Tories with several posters suggesting that they could win close on 200 seats in 12 days time.
All the evidence suggests that they will emerge with little more than half that number at best.
The spread-betting markets are seldom wrong, at least not to any major extent and Spreadex/Sporting's mid spreads for the three major parties are currently:
Labour 425 seats Tories 114 seats LibDems 58 seats
On this basis Labout would achieve an overall majority of 200 seats.
Regretfully agree, (my regret is because I predicted NOM and hope crept out under the door some time ago) Electoral Calculus predict Tories 76, (range 41-227); Labour 457. I think that 76 is just as likely as 114.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
Well it will if enough people do it...
Also, I thought it was only Clacton voters, and then *members of the Conservative Party* who had any say?
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
If everyone votes CON it would stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority 👍
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
Good that your wife let you post them. Did she come with you to make sure you didn't put them in the dog poo bin by mistake?
Regarding Ukraine. In response to some of the more useful commentary today have been thinking what my position actually is, what should happen.
I think firstly, that the objective should be to de-escalate the conflict. This would be undertaken in full knowledge that it will restart when Russia thinks it has an advantage. So it would not be done naively and the first principle would be that Ukraine retains the ability to defend itself. Beyond this the goal should be to try and find a strategic solution to the issue of security in Europe, given the threat from Russia.
To change my mind about this I would need some evidence that Ukraine can actually win the war. What equipment do they need etc, what would be the strategy, have they got the people to do it. Or alternatively, that the Russian state is about to collapse. But it just appears highly resilient to me. Also, reassurance that the nuclear paradox can be overcome- a relevant factor in both scenarios. I am not going to give any weight to the 'moral argument' or being called a Putin appeaser.
You are never going to get anything that constitutes evidence one way or another. Wars are day-to-day decisions and everything is changing everywhere. They aren't deterministic, they are Markov chains where each step depends on the one before. Each side will fight until one side can't fight any more. So what you seek cannot be found.
The only decision the UK can take each day is whether to help the Ukrainians or betray them. Everything else is in the lap of the gods.
For no apparent reason and certainly not seriously evidenced by the latest polls, PB.com appears to be in an extraordinarily bullish frame of mind this afternoon towards the Tories with several posters suggesting that they could win close on 200 seats in 12 days time.
All the evidence suggests that they will emerge with little more than half that number at best.
The spread-betting markets are seldom wrong, at least not to any major extent and Spreadex/Sporting's mid spreads for the three major parties are currently:
Labour 425 seats Tories 114 seats LibDems 58 seats
On this basis Labout would achieve an overall majority of 200 seats.
Who is saying that the Tories will get 200 seats and do they want a bet?
What I am reading is that people are still finding it hard to believe that the Tories face complete evisceration and think that many unhappy people will follow @Big_G_NorthWales and vote Tory after all. Big, big Labour win but not the end of the Tory party as we know it.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
Good that your wife let you post them. Did she come with you to make sure you didn't put them in the dog poo bin by mistake?
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
And this is how Sunak gets re-elected. Lots of households where the LD/RUK waverer goes back to their regular programming.
The more I think about it, the more Farage's comments feel like a huge mistake the Tories should be exploiting. NOT because of his views on the origins of the war, but because it can be painted as proof that he is literally a paid Putinite puppet. He has appeared on Russia Today, he did so after Crimea
That will be deadly for a lot of his potential voters. That's not "deeply patriotic", is it?
I guess the Tories have to be wary of the libel laws, but they could surely chuck out some innuendo. A screenshot of him on Russia Today, his quotes about Ukraine, and just a question - "who is he working for"?
That could be brutally effective and drive down the Reform vote well under 15%, potentially saving the Tories from disaster. This is a gift. Are they going to take it?
But if he isn't a paid Putinite puppet (or if there's just no actual evidence that he is), that approach could be very dangerous. Putin is very good at getting apologies off people. CCHQ doesn't want to be in the position at having to apologise publicly to him during an election campaign.
Do you mean Putin is very good at getting apologies off people?
Enabling them to fall out of tenth storey windows is more his style, I thought.
President Putin managed to get an absolutely lovely, heartfelt apology from Prigozhin shortly before he sadly had an accident.
Prigozhin chickening out of his coup attempt will be one of the great 'what if's of history.
That was one of the weirdest days in recent years. I was on holiday with the missus, and we sat watching the TV all day hoping that the end result would be a Russian civil war.
It was indeed weird. How on earth did Prigozhin not realise he had absolutely nothing to lose? There was absolutely no chance Putin was going to let him live after that. He is a murderous barsteward. Prigozhin must have known that.
If you aim for the King you had better not miss.
History is full of rebellions that with nothing between them and the capital just went home.
People are strange and not very logical.
Consider the number of people involved with The Pilgrimage Of Grace who thought they were doing a Loyal But Performative Dance for the King. Rather than challenging a King - which in the history of Kings is do/die for both sides.
During the French Jacquerie, of 1358-60, and the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, the rebels could not conceive of overthrowing the king, which placed them at a huge disadvantage, psychologically and militarily.
I have always believed that I vote for my constituency MP to represent me to the best of their ability. In Edinburgh SW there is no way my party candidate will win (she is a good person who I know through my wife), I do not want Labour to have the largest ever super-majority, so - do I vote tactically for Joanna Cherry who is a competent MP and supports LGB & Women's rights in a way I support? I do not support the SNP but I support her. Quandary time.
I have to warn you that there is an outside possibility, more theoretical than actual, that Joanna Cherry KC MP might be in favour of Scottish independence. It's only a rumour but you might want to take that into account.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
If all those intending to vote Labour but switching to Conservative specifically to keep Farage out that gets a returned landslide Conservative Government.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
If all those intending to vote Labour but switching to Conservative specifically to keep Farage out that gets a returned landslide Conservative Government.
I'm tempted to take a nibble of Con 150 to 200 seats, on the basis that if 'the fear' works, the lower end of that is probably doable. I get the feeling they'll either hold a 97 position or collapse way below, not the in between
My current feeling is the Tories are going to fall just short of 150 seats. Maybe Con 147, Lab 395, Lib 67, Ref 2 or 3, Green 2 or 3. Overall Lab majority circa 140ish. But I still took 8/1 on Con 150-200 seats earlier this week when it was on offer, as I think it's good value.
Meanwhile the really tricky decision will be whether to defer any capital disposals for the next five years, or to bugger off somewhere else for five years, assuming CGT gets bolted onto income tax and done at 45%. Decisions decisions. Either way, the CGT raise will not raise a single penny from me...
Defer for 5 years because the Tories will get back in and reverse the raise? They won't, and even if they do they won't. Bugger off for five years and then do what when labour change 5 years to 10? Honestly you will never have it so good again. Your portfolio is crying out to be rebalanced anyway if it is mainly one multibagger. Markets are at an all time high. There's zero guarantee lab will wait till October rather than rush through an emergency budget. If you want to play tax exile you can do that anyway to reduce the 20% to nil.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
Regarding Ukraine. In response to some of the more useful commentary today have been thinking what my position actually is, what should happen.
I think firstly, that the objective should be to de-escalate the conflict. This would be undertaken in full knowledge that it will restart when Russia thinks it has an advantage. So it would not be done naively and the first principle would be that Ukraine retains the ability to defend itself. Beyond this the goal should be to try and find a strategic solution to the issue of security in Europe, given the threat from Russia.
To change my mind about this I would need some evidence that Ukraine can actually win the war. What equipment do they need etc, what would be the strategy, have they got the people to do it. Or alternatively, that the Russian state is about to collapse. But it just appears highly resilient to me. Also, reassurance that the nuclear paradox can be overcome- a relevant factor in both scenarios. I am not going to give any weight to the 'moral argument' or being called a Putin appeaser.
Sadly, in Geopolitics moral arguments and allowing emotional considerations, fairness and pity to influence your key strategic decisions are a dangerous indulgence.
Weird thread. Voters who ten days out still don’t know who they want to be in government don’t want a huge Labour majority. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
Weird thread. Voters who ten days out still don’t know who they want to be in government don’t want a huge Labour majority. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
Implications for betting. If undecideds break Tory, what effect does that have on the seats?
Regarding Ukraine. In response to some of the more useful commentary today have been thinking what my position actually is, what should happen.
I think firstly, that the objective should be to de-escalate the conflict. This would be undertaken in full knowledge that it will restart when Russia thinks it has an advantage. So it would not be done naively and the first principle would be that Ukraine retains the ability to defend itself. Beyond this the goal should be to try and find a strategic solution to the issue of security in Europe, given the threat from Russia.
To change my mind about this I would need some evidence that Ukraine can actually win the war. What equipment do they need etc, what would be the strategy, have they got the people to do it. Or alternatively, that the Russian state is about to collapse. But it just appears highly resilient to me. Also, reassurance that the nuclear paradox can be overcome- a relevant factor in both scenarios. I am not going to give any weight to the 'moral argument' or being called a Putin appeaser.
Broadly agree. The red line for Ukraine I think would be no Russian say over the parts of Ukraine it doesn't control. So it would be free to arm and defend itself and enter into alliances with Western states. Ukraine would then need to trade territory for peace. Question is how much territory it is prepared to trade, if any at all, to get a peace treaty. I could see Donbas and Crimea maybe including Mariupol, but I think they will want clear the Russians out of the so called land bridge to the Crimean isthmus.
Then there's the question whether the Russians would agree to this.
The only way the Russians - or Putin at least - agree to anything is if they are dragged, kicking and screaming by circumstance. Which may be because their troops are in no position to fight. Or their economy is unable to fund their Special Military Operation. Neither looks imminent, but if all their refineries within 1200km of the border start burning, they may have to sue for peace.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
And this is how Sunak gets re-elected. Lots of households where the LD/RUK waverer goes back to their regular programming.
As an MP, possibly. As PM not a snowball's chance in hell.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
If all those intending to vote Labour but switching to Conservative specifically to keep Farage out that gets a returned landslide Conservative Government.
I see what you did there.
They should, for the greater good.
Are you suggesting another five years of this current shower is optimal for our nation?
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
If all those intending to vote Labour but switching to Conservative specifically to keep Farage out that gets a returned landslide Conservative Government.
I see what you did there.
They should, for the greater good.
Are you suggesting another five years of this current shower is optimal for our nation?
I have always believed that I vote for my constituency MP to represent me to the best of their ability. In Edinburgh SW there is no way my party candidate will win (she is a good person who I know through my wife), I do not want Labour to have the largest ever super-majority, so - do I vote tactically for Joanna Cherry who is a competent MP and supports LGB & Women's rights in a way I support? I do not support the SNP but I support her. Quandary time.
I have to warn you that there is an outside possibility, more theoretical than actual, that Joanna Cherry KC MP might be in favour of Scottish independence. It's only a rumour but you might want to take that into account.
It's possible that the Labour candidate I shall vote for believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy, but he will stand the same chance of legislating for this belief to be compulsory as J Cherry KC will have of successfully enabling Scottish independence legislation during the parliament of 2024-2029. Nor will her vote bring in Prime Minister Farage. So if she's good at filling in potholes and knows what distinguishes women from men (IIRC she does) she might be safe to vote for.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
Good that your wife let you post them. Did she come with you to make sure you didn't put them in the dog poo bin by mistake?
I have always believed that I vote for my constituency MP to represent me to the best of their ability. In Edinburgh SW there is no way my party candidate will win (she is a good person who I know through my wife), I do not want Labour to have the largest ever super-majority, so - do I vote tactically for Joanna Cherry who is a competent MP and supports LGB & Women's rights in a way I support? I do not support the SNP but I support her. Quandary time.
I have to warn you that there is an outside possibility, more theoretical than actual, that Joanna Cherry KC MP might be in favour of Scottish independence. It's only a rumour but you might want to take that into account.
I have also heard rumours to this effect. Stay away.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
And this is how Sunak gets re-elected. Lots of households where the LD/RUK waverer goes back to their regular programming.
As an MP, possibly. As PM not a snowball's chance in hell.
That's true. Reform is not polling much above the Ukip vote in 2015, nor are the LDs particularly inflated, so I would also suggest that this mechanism isn't one to rely on nationally.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
If all those intending to vote Labour but switching to Conservative specifically to keep Farage out that gets a returned landslide Conservative Government.
I see what you did there.
They should, for the greater good.
Are you suggesting another five years of this current shower is optimal for our nation?
Well that's what you were suggesting in 2019 isn't it?
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
If all those intending to vote Labour but switching to Conservative specifically to keep Farage out that gets a returned landslide Conservative Government.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is something blowing in the breeze which the polls aren't picking up. I have knocked today in two constituencies - my own (Aberdeenshire North & Moray East), and also in Gordon & Buchan.
I haven't yet found *anyone* who says the country is in a good state. Even the people wedded to voting Tory or SNP because they always do agreed that things are pretty bad.
What I am finding is that the Tory and SNP last time votes are really soft. They are listening to a change election message, and they agree that voting Con to stop Tory or vice versa is the wrong call because there is no change. I picked up a lot of votes from the doors I knocked today.
I'm still a 66/1 shot. With (Labour) 8/1. So I need to keep picking up the disaffected Con and SNP votes, and go after the few thousand Labour votes. Because with both Tory and SNP camps saying their doorknocks also find people saying the country is a mess, it remains all to play for.
I'm sure it makes sense to someone. Reform candidate for Bmth West: “These endless takes from Jews are horrendous. Many of the powerful groups agitating for the mass import into England of Muslims from the Third World are Jewish.”
Disgusting and unpleasant. 1/2
Reform spokesman says they are pleased he “thinks and speaks like an ordinary person.”
Regarding Ukraine. In response to some of the more useful commentary today have been thinking what my position actually is, what should happen.
I think firstly, that the objective should be to de-escalate the conflict. This would be undertaken in full knowledge that it will restart when Russia thinks it has an advantage. So it would not be done naively and the first principle would be that Ukraine retains the ability to defend itself. Beyond this the goal should be to try and find a strategic solution to the issue of security in Europe, given the threat from Russia.
To change my mind about this I would need some evidence that Ukraine can actually win the war. What equipment do they need etc, what would be the strategy, have they got the people to do it. Or alternatively, that the Russian state is about to collapse. But it just appears highly resilient to me. Also, reassurance that the nuclear paradox can be overcome- a relevant factor in both scenarios. I am not going to give any weight to the 'moral argument' or being called a Putin appeaser.
You are never going to get anything that constitutes evidence one way or another. Wars are day-to-day decisions and everything is changing everywhere. They aren't deterministic, they are Markov chains where each step depends on the one before. Each side will fight until one side can't fight any more. So what you seek cannot be found.
The only decision the UK can take each day is whether to help the Ukrainians or betray them. Everything else is in the lap of the gods.
Wars are not totally chaotic, I don't accept that. Also there are different types of 'help'. Refusing to do everything that is demanded of someone is not 'betrayal', this sounds to me like emotional blackmail.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
If all those intending to vote Labour but switching to Conservative specifically to keep Farage out that gets a returned landslide Conservative Government.
I see what you did there.
They should, for the greater good.
Are you suggesting another five years of this current shower is optimal for our nation?
Well that's what you were suggesting in 2019 isn't it?
I've never voted Tory in my life. Corbyn was a disaster but so was Johnson. Let's not revisit that one again.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is something blowing in the breeze which the polls aren't picking up. I have knocked today in two constituencies - my own (Aberdeenshire North & Moray East), and also in Gordon & Buchan.
I haven't yet found *anyone* who says the country is in a good state. Even the people wedded to voting Tory or SNP because they always do agreed that things are pretty bad.
What I am finding is that the Tory and SNP last time votes are really soft. They are listening to a change election message, and they agree that voting Con to stop Tory or vice versa is the wrong call because there is no change. I picked up a lot of votes from the doors I knocked today.
I'm still a 66/1 shot. With (Labour) 8/1. So I need to keep picking up the disaffected Con and SNP votes, and go after the few thousand Labour votes. Because with both Tory and SNP camps saying their doorknocks also find people saying the country is a mess, it remains all to play for.
Well, yes, I can only agree that would be a very foolish strategy.
Just trying to formulate what the Tories would consider relative 'success' from the doldrums they've put themselves in? I'm guessing the minimum aim must be to be HM opposition with enough MPs to properly shadow the government and run a 1922 committee plus provide a deputy speaker, so, what, 110 MPs minimum? They're aiming no doubt to beat the 156 low total
110 would be uncomfortably tight, I think.
There'll inevitably be some MPs who aren't suitable for a formal role (allowing for illness, disaffection, being a bit too independently-minded, etc), so they'd really need to have closer to 125-130 in order to run a full Official Opposition in the traditional style.
Even at that level, they might be well advised to double up on some of the more junior shadow positions.
John Major's interim shadow cabinet in May 1997 might be a good model until the leadership election is finished, and possibly for the whole of the first session. And didn't either Hague or IDS make a virtue of having a slimmed-down shadow cabinet at some point?
Pretty grim prospects for them and for proper opposition really
Even if they do end up at the top end of their expectations, going into opposition is going to be a huge wrench for them.
If IDS fails in his bid for re-election, they should get him into the lords asap and lean heavily on his, Hague's and Howard's experience. People like Michael Ancram too, and whoever else they can get who had a senior role in opposition.
I really hope they've got a team looking at past experiences of post-defeat leaders - not just Tories, but Milliband too.
Regarding Ukraine. In response to some of the more useful commentary today have been thinking what my position actually is, what should happen.
I think firstly, that the objective should be to de-escalate the conflict. This would be undertaken in full knowledge that it will restart when Russia thinks it has an advantage. So it would not be done naively and the first principle would be that Ukraine retains the ability to defend itself. Beyond this the goal should be to try and find a strategic solution to the issue of security in Europe, given the threat from Russia.
To change my mind about this I would need some evidence that Ukraine can actually win the war. What equipment do they need etc, what would be the strategy, have they got the people to do it. Or alternatively, that the Russian state is about to collapse. But it just appears highly resilient to me. Also, reassurance that the nuclear paradox can be overcome- a relevant factor in both scenarios. I am not going to give any weight to the 'moral argument' or being called a Putin appeaser.
Sadly, in Geopolitics moral arguments and allowing emotional considerations, fairness and pity to influence your key strategic decisions are a dangerous indulgence.
Geopolitics can be cold. But there's also an awful lot of 'coldly pragmatic' takes that are nothing of the sort, especially when pretending some kind of high minded neutrality.
I have always believed that I vote for my constituency MP to represent me to the best of their ability. In Edinburgh SW there is no way my party candidate will win (she is a good person who I know through my wife), I do not want Labour to have the largest ever super-majority, so - do I vote tactically for Joanna Cherry who is a competent MP and supports LGB & Women's rights in a way I support? I do not support the SNP but I support her. Quandary time.
Cherry is a good egg, and deserves as much support as possible in the circumstances.
Comments
Don't forget they have a lot of Councillors and the whole Party infrastructure which goes with being in Office for thirteen years (never mind the couple of hundred before that.) It wouldn't all vanish overnight.
They must at all costs avoid dropping behind the LDs. The loss of influence becomes dramatic then,and there's always the danger the public quite likes the look of the new Opposition.
If they do manage to retain that kind of number, my main concern about their future would resolve around what sort of Party the New Conservatives would be. If you cast your eye down the list of likely survivors, the prospects don't look great. You'd have to expect some vicious infighting.
Nothing new about that though.
He would blame the French
While you might expect there to be a fight, the history of the non-batshit wing is that they don't fight.
Which is largely why we are where we are now.
A lot of CON would be privately pleased with 175.
If IDS fails in his bid for re-election, they should get him into the lords asap and lean heavily on his, Hague's and Howard's experience. People like Michael Ancram too, and whoever else they can get who had a senior role in opposition.
I really hope they've got a team looking at past experiences of post-defeat leaders - not just Tories, but Milliband too.
Not that I agree with it, as I have stated elsewhere
Extreme Geek trivia fact.
The people of Eastern Europe should be able to decide they want to be in the EU. It's not up to Russia. The EU should be able to decide whether to let them in and on what conditions. Also not up to Russia.
At no point does anyone need to consult Russia. It's none of their business.
They are incompetent.
…..
……… a ferry
😶
It is all very well talking big when you never have to do anything (a la Lib Dems) but if he became PM he would soon learn that posturing and reality seldom work well together. Look at Boris as an example - the hero who would rescue us all and he turned out to be nothing more than a broken record spouting lies and latin nonsense.
If you aim for the King you had better not miss.
Anyhoo, presupposing I’ve surfaced, ( for the little it’s worth), where are we now in relation to the past five years and going forward? Just some random musings.
1) Tories did well on vaccines and Ukraine.
Just about everything else has been mired
in incompetence and frankly moral slide.
Post partygate it should’ve taken the Tories six days not six months to remove Johnson. Sometimes is pretty straightforward: you can’t demand the greatest curtailment of freedom from the citizenry in peacetime (if not ever, war included) and flout it brazenly, and repeatedly, and not expect to be vilified at the ballot box. Tissue Price in his NO alter ego spoke well for us all in his speech on the House concerning a family funeral.
That alone list the Tories this election.
2) Truss: where to begin? The Tories Corbyn lunacy moment. The sole good to come out of it was the demonstration to governments of all shades that the bond market will screw you to the floor if you annoy it. I’m sure Rachel Reeves has
noted.
That lost the Tories the election of 2028 in my view.
3) Sunak was always doomed post Truss
but he’s played a bad hand badly. The betting scandal is symptomatic of much of the fin de siecle feel. What kind of Grade A fool do you have to be to be working for the PM and place a bet on the election date? Again this one’s easy: it’s not right.
I might have a bit of a nodding wry acceptance of competence if they’d found a loophole of legal but immoral betting, and they were winning serious cash but it’s not even that.
4) Farage is wrong side of history with Putin. Totally wrong.
5) Starmer is the luckiest general since lucky generals were invented. Since Hartlepool either walking or chewing gum would’ve done the trick, the ability to do both given the competition makes a politician look like a cross between Abraham Lincoln and FDR.
That said credit where credit is due. Four and a half years ago Labour we’re offering PM Corbyn and Diane Abbott in charge of MI5. We are light years from that, and I’m very pleased at the backing for the U.K. nuclear deterrent. We’ve never needed it more.
He’ll have little money, unlike Blair, (CGT will go up but hey ho), but it’s hard to see anything too bonkers in their offering and at least they are coherent which cannot be said of the Tories.
8) I’m in a totally uncompetitive seat so my vote is pure luxury really. It won’t affect the outcome.
I’m a lifelong Tory vote in GE’s and I’m vacillating between deliberately spoiling my paper, but more likely actually voting for Starmer, on the grounds of it’s the only option for stable Govt for the next few years we have.
Hopefully the Tories will spend some time becoming sane and competent again and
will begin the process by telling Farage to bugger off big time. We can but hope.
I think firstly, that the objective should be to de-escalate the conflict.
This would be undertaken in full knowledge that it will restart when Russia thinks it has an advantage.
So it would not be done naively and the first principle would be that Ukraine retains the ability to defend itself.
Beyond this the goal should be to try and find a strategic solution to the issue of security in Europe, given the threat from Russia.
To change my mind about this I would need some evidence that Ukraine can actually win the war.
What equipment do they need etc, what would be the strategy, have they got the people to do it.
Or alternatively, that the Russian state is about to collapse. But it just appears highly resilient to me.
Also, reassurance that the nuclear paradox can be overcome- a relevant factor in both scenarios.
I am not going to give any weight to the 'moral argument' or being called a Putin appeaser.
Just put a bet on the correct score being Portugal 1, Turkey 0 at odds of 9.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.229546033
Also, I have a decent amount of money on Cons coming second, I hope they don`t screw things more in the next few days.
I have always believed that I vote for my constituency MP to represent me to the best of their ability. In Edinburgh SW there is no way my party candidate will win (she is a good person who I know through my wife), I do not want Labour to have the largest ever super-majority, so - do I vote tactically for Joanna Cherry who is a competent MP and supports LGB & Women's rights in a way I support? I do not support the SNP but I support her. Quandary time.
People are strange and not very logical.
Consider the number of people involved with The Pilgrimage Of Grace who thought they were doing a Loyal But Performative Dance for the King. Rather than challenging a King - which in the history of Kings is do/die for both sides.
Doesn't make it true though.
Because they had a long history of dealing with Russia.
Russia made them want to have nothing to do with Russia. *Russia* is making Poland want the biggest airforce and army on the continent.
Meanwhile the really tricky decision will be whether to defer any capital disposals for the next five years, or to bugger off somewhere else for five years, assuming CGT gets bolted onto income tax and done at 45%. Decisions decisions. Either way, the CGT raise will not raise a single penny from me...
All the evidence suggests that they will emerge with little more than half that number at best.
The spread-betting markets are seldom wrong, at least not to any major extent and Spreadex/Sporting's mid spreads for the three major parties are currently:
Labour 425 seats
Tories 114 seats
LibDems 58 seats
On this basis Labout would achieve an overall majority of 200 seats.
NATO has successfully either prevented Russia or bluffed Russia (USSR) since 1948. At some point we are bound to find out which it is.
It has the additional small merit that Farage would be against it.
To all those conservatives thinking of voting Labour or any other party but absolutely do not want Farage to have a future in the conservative party, then the only way to do that is to vote conservative notwithstanding so many doubts to ensure a conservative party has enough seats to provide a non Farage opposition
I have just posted our 2 votes for our conservative
Voting conservative will not stop Starmer becoming PM with a substantial majority
Then there's the question whether the Russians would agree to this.
The only decision the UK can take each day is whether to help the Ukrainians or betray them. Everything else is in the lap of the gods.
What I am reading is that people are still finding it hard to believe that the Tories face complete evisceration and think that many unhappy people will follow @Big_G_NorthWales and vote Tory after all. Big, big Labour win but not the end of the Tory party as we know it.
I see what you did there.
This is of course not financial advice.
I called it. 😎
But probably not then with Putin in charge.
The last weekend before voting day.
Or it might be the antibiotics.
Labour leads Reform by 29% in Wales.
New lowest Conservative %.
Welsh Westminster Voting Intention (19-20 June):
LAB 46% (+1)
RFM 17% (-1)
CON 15% (-3)
PLC 10% (-1)
LIB 7% (+2)
GRN 4% (=0)
OTH 1% (+1)
Changes +/- 5-7 June
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-welsh-w…
"@GoodwinMJ
MOST READ #3 this week. What is Faragism? Five areas where Reform aim to outflank the big parties
3:08 PM · Jun 22, 2024"
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1804516815730532540
Last weeks was
Lab 40
Con 23
Ref 14
Would expect Lab and Con to go backwards with Reform up.
I am going
LAB 38
CON 21
REF 18
So lead still circa 17
I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is something blowing in the breeze which the polls aren't picking up. I have knocked today in two constituencies - my own (Aberdeenshire North & Moray East), and also in Gordon & Buchan.
I haven't yet found *anyone* who says the country is in a good state. Even the people wedded to voting Tory or SNP because they always do agreed that things are pretty bad.
What I am finding is that the Tory and SNP last time votes are really soft. They are listening to a change election message, and they agree that voting Con to stop Tory or vice versa is the wrong call because there is no change. I picked up a lot of votes from the doors I knocked today.
I'm still a 66/1 shot. With (Labour) 8/1. So I need to keep picking up the disaffected Con and SNP votes, and go after the few thousand Labour votes. Because with both Tory and SNP camps saying their doorknocks also find people saying the country is a mess, it remains all to play for.
Reform candidate for Bmth West: “These endless takes from Jews are horrendous. Many of the powerful groups agitating for the mass import into England of Muslims from the Third World are Jewish.”
Disgusting and unpleasant. 1/2
Reform spokesman says they are pleased he “thinks and speaks like an ordinary person.”
He should be condemned as the racist Antisemite he is. Nigel Farage should sack him and urge people not to vote for him. Let’s see. 2/2
https://nitter.poast.org/ConorBurnsUK/status/1804266176006230353#m
Reopening Brexit debate would bring ‘turmoil’, says Keir Starmer
Labour leader rules out rejoining EU, single market or customs union
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/22/brexit-keir-starmer-eu