A harbinger of the inverse Portillo moment as a Labour bigwig loses to Reform.
Any prediction of where that could be? I don't see any of the Labour front bench as being particularly vulnerable to a Reform surge, but I could be wrong.
A couple of people have suggest Yvette Cooper but I really don't see it. I suspect the logic is that she only retained her seat because Brexit split the Tory vote but it would require all Tory voters to actually vote Reform and that doesn't look likely..
He might not count as a bigwig but Dan Jarvis is probably the most vulnerable statistically.
Thangam Debbonaire.
Yes, but she's fighting the Greens rather than Reform.
There was some talk on here a few days ago re whether people who have seen the opening of postal votes may have an impact on betting markets.
The movements are not huge but in the last 24 to 48 hours several Betfair markets have moved in the direction of the Conservatives doing a bit better than previously thought. eg:
Con to get over 100 seats now 2.3 (was about 2.7) Con to get more votes than Reform now 1.17 (was about 1.3) Con to finish 2nd in seats now 1.2 (was about 1.35)
I was thinking about this earlier - are we sure it's not more likely a reaction to there being a lull in polls showing Lib Dems 2nd / Tories under 100 seats for quite a few days?
This is weird, I had an emailled article from this substack in my inbox today: "Tower Hamlets Will Reject Labour Party, Predicts East London Mosque Imam"
It's been six years since I lived in the East End. My first thoughts are that someone's got hold of my email from a council or other database to spam (ex) residents with undue spiritual influence.
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
They would pass an Act impeaching the more egregious justices like Thomas and Alito and make it clear that the POTUS is subject to the law, just as everyone else is.
Even given the appalling decisions of late I am genuinely shocked by this ruling.
This ruling is the sort of thing you see in the prologue of those dystopian films and TV shows like The Handmaid's Tale.
Suburban Science Teacher here, but...
1 What is the best workable case that can be made for this ruling? Because it looks f#&!ING scary. Because if do what you will really is the whole of the law, fewest scruples wins.
2 Is there any way out of this for our American friends?
Any kind-hearted, deep-pocketed PBers willing & able to sponsor my asylum-seeking claim IF yours truly is forced by running dogs of reaction from my native shores?
And to register such a claim, is it obligatory to enter the UK via a small boat?
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
They would pass an Act impeaching the more egregious justices like Thomas and Alito and make it clear that the POTUS is subject to the law, just as everyone else is.
Even given the appalling decisions of late I am genuinely shocked by this ruling.
This ruling is the sort of thing you see in the prologue of those dystopian films and TV shows like The Handmaid's Tale.
Suburban Science Teacher here, but...
1 What is the best workable case that can be made for this ruling? Because it looks f#&!ING scary. Because if do what you will really is the whole of the law, fewest scruples wins.
2 Is there any way out of this for our American friends?
America is more doomed than the Tory Party.
I have joked that I would be like to be the UK's first directly elected dictator, this is the sort of ruling that would give me unlimited power.
It seems to me that the case is being made for our sort of system being more robust than the new fangled USA one. In particular:
Our SC is loads less politicised than theirs because of the appointment system
A (usually sane) party elected to the HoC controls both who is PM and government and they all belong to the same party.
Getting rid of a rogue PM is easy. We do it every few months.
We only have one elected supreme body, so deadlock is usually avoided (Brexit was a test but we are still here).
If courts do stupid things the parliament can legislate to overrule it without much problem.
Our PM can't even drink cheap wine at home without getting a fine for it. If he tried insurrection he wouldn't even get bail.
There was some talk on here a few days ago re whether people who have seen the opening of postal votes may have an impact on betting markets.
The movements are not huge but in the last 24 to 48 hours several Betfair markets have moved in the direction of the Conservatives doing a bit better than previously thought. eg:
Con to get over 100 seats now 2.3 (was about 2.7) Con to get more votes than Reform now 1.17 (was about 1.3) Con to finish 2nd in seats now 1.2 (was about 1.35)
As I have explained before, the parties rarely bother to send anyone to the postal vote verifications, because if they do, they will see jackshit.
Punters as varied as me and Casino have been moving into the ‘over’ on Tory seats for a few days now, and the latest polls suggest we were suitably ahead of the curve.
Fifty quid that the Tories get higher or lower than 26%. He wins if higher, I win if lower
A nicely balanced bet, and if Tim wins then I doff my cap, because at the time the polls were nearly all showing the Tories well below that, so he was brave
Yeah that’s a fun wager. Good luck to both of you.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
They would pass an Act impeaching the more egregious justices like Thomas and Alito and make it clear that the POTUS is subject to the law, just as everyone else is.
Even given the appalling decisions of late I am genuinely shocked by this ruling.
This ruling is the sort of thing you see in the prologue of those dystopian films and TV shows like The Handmaid's Tale.
Suburban Science Teacher here, but...
1 What is the best workable case that can be made for this ruling? Because it looks f#&!ING scary. Because if do what you will really is the whole of the law, fewest scruples wins.
2 Is there any way out of this for our American friends?
Any kind-hearted, deep-pocketed PBers willing & able to sponsor my asylum-seeking claim IF yours truly is forced by running dogs of reaction from my native shores?
And to register such a claim, is it obligatory to enter the UK via a small boat?
Just get on an electric boat. You'll be safe enough from Trump there.
But - if you need to actually take it somewhere, I'm sure we can have a whip round.
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
I know I’m disagreeing with a professional lawyer….
@DavidL I think we *do have* a real Supreme Court in this country. It is the highest court in the land.
It’s just that our version takes as a fundamental rule that the legislature legislates, the executive executes and the judicial judges.
Despite multiple attempts by the Fox Killer (and others), they have refused to do other than sum up the existing pile of laws, in order of precedence, to judge what is the current state of the law on the matter to hand.
The events in the US are why this is a very wide position.
Don’t get me wrong. I think our Supreme Court do the job right, especially since Lady Hale moved on. But this undemocratic rubbish we are seeing over the pond shows how dangerous The Hale court was.
Parliament is sovereign. The people who elect Parliament are sovereign. That is the way it should be and, by and large, the way it is.
Yes.
“constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions” - attempts to rule by lawyers generating law for their own ends, against the will of the people will end in an overthrough of the law.
Fifty quid that the Tories get higher or lower than 26%. He wins if higher, I win if lower
A nicely balanced bet, and if Tim wins then I doff my cap, because at the time the polls were nearly all showing the Tories well below that, so he was brave
Yeah that’s a fun wager. Good luck to both of you.
I have a sinking feeling he is going to win, now. The Reformistes are fading and scared Tories are coming home, that not only means I lose fifty smackers, it also means they avoid wipe out. BOOOOO
A harbinger of the inverse Portillo moment as a Labour bigwig loses to Reform.
I still have outside hopes that goober Streeting loses
I have been rather impresed with Streeting on the NHS. Nothing ruled out and some genuine thinking outside the box.
I accept it all may come to nothing but I will be interested to see if anything transfers into Government.
Quite the opposite in my case. His approach is i) talk hard to the staff, ii) move stuff off to the private sector. It sounds good in theory but it won't work: the spare capacity in the private sector isn't there. It's not a case of being against the private sector, more a case of it not being big enough to help. Plus IIRC they were (still are?) intending to sell off data to some American Big Data firm like Palantir: I assume @rcs1000 knows more about this than I do. I think that should be limited to a British firm. We need to stop selling our souls to the world.
Dear old @Roger lives in Villefranche-sur-Mer, in the “4th circonscription des Alpes-Maritimes”
How did it vote? Have a guess? Yes, it voted for Le Pen and RN. But - this is the fun bit - the RN got an overall majority, more than 50% of the vote, absolutely thrashing any rivals. This means the RN candidate is already elected, there won’t be a 2nd round - the RN victory was so emphatic
Les résultats du premier tour des élections législatives dans la 4e circonscription des Alpes-Maritimes
Virginie PARENT Parti communiste français-NFP 13,81 % 345
Christine BEYL divers écologistes 3,96 % 99
Etc
So @Roger, who constantly derides the awful racist Brits and who tells us “the French will never vote for the Far Right” actually lives in a corner of France which is about as Far Right as it gets, and more than half of his neighbours support Le pen
Weirdly, in his post election commentary, he has not mentioned this, perhaps he hasn’t noticed
Some reports suggest that the biggest supporter of Senile Joe not withdrawing is Hunter Biden.
Wonderful imagery for the Dems.
That being so, the voters are going to hate convicted felon candidate Donald J. Trump.
They already do.
And that, frankly, is why I think most of what is going on at the moment is noise. Did the debate look bad? Yes. Did it make any significant shifts in the polls? No. Is Trump winning where he needs to? At best he's neck and neck, and he tends to underperform his polling.
I'm also not altogether sure the Supreme Court giving absolute power to a convicted criminal who boasts about wanting to be a dictator is going to play quite as well in swing states as they and he seem to think it will.
I hope you are right. Some of the more enthusiastic Trumpsters on here are nonetheless greatly cheered by Biden's poor display last week.
Joe's memory isn't what it was, but it would appear he doesn't require a lifetime supply of adult Pampers. Apparently the aroma around the defendant in that New York courtroom was reminiscent of eau de decomposing squirrel.
Some reports suggest that the biggest supporter of Senile Joe not withdrawing is Hunter Biden.
Wonderful imagery for the Dems.
That being so, the voters are going to hate convicted felon candidate Donald J. Trump.
They already do.
And that, frankly, is why I think most of what is going on at the moment is noise. Did the debate look bad? Yes. Did it make any significant shifts in the polls? No. Is Trump winning where he needs to? At best he's neck and neck, and he tends to underperform his polling.
I'm also not altogether sure the Supreme Court giving absolute power to a convicted criminal who boasts about wanting to be a dictator is going to play quite as well in swing states as they and he seem to think it will.
I hope you are right. Some of the more enthusiastic Trumpsters on here are nonetheless greatly cheered by Biden's poor display last week.
Joe's memory isn't what it was, but it would appear he doesn't require a lifetime supply of adult Pampers. Apparently the aroma around the defendant in that New York courtroom was reminiscent of eau de decomposing squirrel.
Did none of that strike you as at all infantile while you were typing it? How funny actually is incontinence in the elderly? Did Biden really show nothing worse than memory deficit in that debate?
I was greatly cheered by Bidens poor showing and I will tell you why. He is almost guaranteed to be incontrovertibly demented by November and to lose, so I want him demented by August and replaced by someone who might beat Trump. But easier if you put me down as a Trumpster.
A harbinger of the inverse Portillo moment as a Labour bigwig loses to Reform.
Any prediction of where that could be? I don't see any of the Labour front bench as being particularly vulnerable to a Reform surge, but I could be wrong.
A couple of people have suggest Yvette Cooper but I really don't see it. I suspect the logic is that she only retained her seat because Brexit split the Tory vote but it would require all Tory voters to actually vote Reform and that doesn't look likely..
I live in Cooper’s seat. I’ll be totally gobsmacked if she loses. I just can’t see it. Reform will probably get more votes than I would like but I cannot see them winning it.
As an aside, their candidate is called John Thomas.
l really hope this sort of campaign does work, I so want other party leaders to try it in future years. Much better than visiting a factory of bored workers in hard hats, or sticking leaflets through doors.
A normal campaign visit uses up a lot of time by the local volunteers who could be otherwise canvassing etc. So Ed's exploits whilst planned from the centre may not take up vital local resources.
I don't think it makes any difference in terms of resources used. They still need a good turnout from the local campaigners and it still takes some planning locally. I know for our stunt the campaign organiser was tied up organising stuff just beforehand and we had a big team of local people present all taken away from door knocking and leafleting for a few hours.
However I think it has all been really worth it. Better than the old factory visit or coach arriving.
At this stage in 2017, am I right in thinking that some, polls had picked up the surge in the Corbyn vote, but this time the polls are pretty static, and are probably settling on Labour 38% Tories 25%
Survation was the outlier among the reputable pollsters with Labour on 40%. Most of the rest had the Tory lead around 10% just before the vote.
Albeit the pollsters were all reporting quite significant rises in the Labour vote. During the campaign, the Labour polling average had risen from 25% on 18 April, to 37% on the Monday of election week.
Some people must have made a killing on the spreads, I have been waiting all campaign for some sign of a Tory comeback, which would would determine my betting, but it looks unlikely now. It is still very difficult to call the Tory seat total though, and fraught with danger
If you’re up on the Tories, and not at stupid numbers, best wait until the results start coming in. Then decide whether to stick, bail or twist.
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
They would pass an Act impeaching the more egregious justices like Thomas and Alito and make it clear that the POTUS is subject to the law, just as everyone else is.
Even given the appalling decisions of late I am genuinely shocked by this ruling.
This ruling is the sort of thing you see in the prologue of those dystopian films and TV shows like The Handmaid's Tale.
Suburban Science Teacher here, but...
1 What is the best workable case that can be made for this ruling? Because it looks f#&!ING scary. Because if do what you will really is the whole of the law, fewest scruples wins.
2 Is there any way out of this for our American friends?
Any kind-hearted, deep-pocketed PBers willing & able to sponsor my asylum-seeking claim IF yours truly is forced by running dogs of reaction from my native shores?
And to register such a claim, is it obligatory to enter the UK via a small boat?
The UK? Wouldn't the easiest way to get the protection of His Majesty be to get on a boat to Vancouver Island?
A harbinger of the inverse Portillo moment as a Labour bigwig loses to Reform.
Any prediction of where that could be? I don't see any of the Labour front bench as being particularly vulnerable to a Reform surge, but I could be wrong.
A couple of people have suggest Yvette Cooper but I really don't see it. I suspect the logic is that she only retained her seat because Brexit split the Tory vote but it would require all Tory voters to actually vote Reform and that doesn't look likely..
He might not count as a bigwig but Dan Jarvis is probably the most vulnerable statistically.
Thangam Debbonaire.
Yes, but she's fighting the Greens rather than Reform.
Nandy?
They are falling like ninepins tonight.
Thangham is the most likely, which is a shame particularly as she is engaging and capable compared to the wildly overated Denyer.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
I fear a small labour majority far more than a supermajority.
With a supermajority, Starmer can ignore the sundry demitrots on his back benches. With a small majority, he needs their votes to get legislation through.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
I fear a small labour majority far more than a supermajority.
With a supermajority, Starmer can ignore the sundry demitrots on his back benches. With a small majority, he needs their votes to get legislation through.
I don't think a near-200 seat majority qualifies as a "small majority"...
A harbinger of the inverse Portillo moment as a Labour bigwig loses to Reform.
Any prediction of where that could be? I don't see any of the Labour front bench as being particularly vulnerable to a Reform surge, but I could be wrong.
A couple of people have suggest Yvette Cooper but I really don't see it. I suspect the logic is that she only retained her seat because Brexit split the Tory vote but it would require all Tory voters to actually vote Reform and that doesn't look likely..
He might not count as a bigwig but Dan Jarvis is probably the most vulnerable statistically.
Thangam Debbonaire.
Yes, but she's fighting the Greens rather than Reform.
A harbinger of the inverse Portillo moment as a Labour bigwig loses to Reform.
Any prediction of where that could be? I don't see any of the Labour front bench as being particularly vulnerable to a Reform surge, but I could be wrong.
A couple of people have suggest Yvette Cooper but I really don't see it. I suspect the logic is that she only retained her seat because Brexit split the Tory vote but it would require all Tory voters to actually vote Reform and that doesn't look likely..
I live in Cooper’s seat. I’ll be totally gobsmacked if she loses. I just can’t see it. Reform will probably get more votes than I would like but I cannot see them winning it.
As an aside, their candidate is called John Thomas.
I used to have a resident in my ward called John Thomas. First time I canvassed him, in 1994, I called him by his name, as written on the voting register, and he got the right hump and said that no-one ever calls him that, not even his family; he always used his middle name. He sent me away with a flea in my ear, and I don’t think he voted for me that time.
Fortunately my record keeping was immaculate and in 1998 I canvassed him again and used his middle name, and he was so impressed - especially when I confessed to my mistake four years earlier - that he promised to vote for me that time, and did so every time through to 2014.
Amazing what some good canvassing notes can achieve,
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
I fear a small labour majority far more than a supermajority.
With a supermajority, Starmer can ignore the sundry demitrots on his back benches. With a small majority, he needs their votes to get legislation through.
Fifty quid that the Tories get higher or lower than 26%. He wins if higher, I win if lower
A nicely balanced bet, and if Tim wins then I doff my cap, because at the time the polls were nearly all showing the Tories well below that, so he was brave
Yeah that’s a fun wager. Good luck to both of you.
I have a sinking feeling he is going to win, now. The Reformistes are fading and scared Tories are coming home, that not only means I lose fifty smackers, it also means they avoid wipe out. BOOOOO
But well played TimS if he is correct
Whereas I have a nice hedge, because I also want to see them below 100 seats and in the low 20s.
l really hope this sort of campaign does work, I so want other party leaders to try it in future years. Much better than visiting a factory of bored workers in hard hats, or sticking leaflets through doors.
This Christmas's must have toy will surely be the Ed Davey action figure
A harbinger of the inverse Portillo moment as a Labour bigwig loses to Reform.
Any prediction of where that could be? I don't see any of the Labour front bench as being particularly vulnerable to a Reform surge, but I could be wrong.
A couple of people have suggest Yvette Cooper but I really don't see it. I suspect the logic is that she only retained her seat because Brexit split the Tory vote but it would require all Tory voters to actually vote Reform and that doesn't look likely..
He might not count as a bigwig but Dan Jarvis is probably the most vulnerable statistically.
Thangam Debbonaire.
I have placed a bet on the Greens to take Bristol Central. StatsForLefties[1] says its a shoo-in, Apogee[2] says it's 50/50, and some spoddy website[3] says it's possible.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
Starmer would bite your hand off, 188 is a massive majority, and considering he took over, with the Torys gifted an 80 seat majority, a remarkable turnaround, the talk back in 2020, was that the Torys would be in power till the 2030s. And to be fair to Starmer he has played his part in the turnaround, it isn't solely down to the last shambolic 5 years of Tory government
At this stage in 2017, am I right in thinking that some, polls had picked up the surge in the Corbyn vote, but this time the polls are pretty static, and are probably settling on Labour 38% Tories 25%
Of the 19 polls conducted over the past week, just four had Labour on 38 or below, and the Tories reached 25 or above in only one.
It's perfectly reasonable to hope for some movement in the next few days, but over the past week the gap has averaged 17.8 points rather than the 13 that you suggest.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
Here is my OFFICIAL LEONDAMUS PREDICTION
I think you have a point but you undercook Reform. Farage has real support and his voters are enthused, and he is still mainly poaching votes from the Tories, not Labour. However Labour are fading slightly due to the utter tediousness of Monsieur Starmer and their total lack of policies, amongst other things. Lib Dems are doing OK just by being NOTA
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
They would pass an Act impeaching the more egregious justices like Thomas and Alito and make it clear that the POTUS is subject to the law, just as everyone else is.
Even given the appalling decisions of late I am genuinely shocked by this ruling.
This ruling is the sort of thing you see in the prologue of those dystopian films and TV shows like The Handmaid's Tale.
Suburban Science Teacher here, but...
1 What is the best workable case that can be made for this ruling? Because it looks f#&!ING scary. Because if do what you will really is the whole of the law, fewest scruples wins.
2 Is there any way out of this for our American friends?
Any kind-hearted, deep-pocketed PBers willing & able to sponsor my asylum-seeking claim IF yours truly is forced by running dogs of reaction from my native shores?
And to register such a claim, is it obligatory to enter the UK via a small boat?
The UK? Wouldn't the easiest way to get the protection of His Majesty be to get on a boat to Vancouver Island?
I believe that escaping slaves found climbing onto an RN ship and enlisting was a bulletproof manoeuvre.
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
They would pass an Act impeaching the more egregious justices like Thomas and Alito and make it clear that the POTUS is subject to the law, just as everyone else is.
Even given the appalling decisions of late I am genuinely shocked by this ruling.
This ruling is the sort of thing you see in the prologue of those dystopian films and TV shows like The Handmaid's Tale.
Suburban Science Teacher here, but...
1 What is the best workable case that can be made for this ruling? Because it looks f#&!ING scary. Because if do what you will really is the whole of the law, fewest scruples wins.
2 Is there any way out of this for our American friends?
Any kind-hearted, deep-pocketed PBers willing & able to sponsor my asylum-seeking claim IF yours truly is forced by running dogs of reaction from my native shores?
And to register such a claim, is it obligatory to enter the UK via a small boat?
I’m sure for our American friends a nice public declaration of loyalty to the King and an acknowledgement that the result of the vote of the Second Congressional Congress in1776 was fake news will suffice. *
If you happen to own a huge tech firm and are willing to move the company and it’s tax domicile here then you can skip the above requirement.
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
They would pass an Act impeaching the more egregious justices like Thomas and Alito and make it clear that the POTUS is subject to the law, just as everyone else is.
Even given the appalling decisions of late I am genuinely shocked by this ruling.
This ruling is the sort of thing you see in the prologue of those dystopian films and TV shows like The Handmaid's Tale.
Suburban Science Teacher here, but...
1 What is the best workable case that can be made for this ruling? Because it looks f#&!ING scary. Because if do what you will really is the whole of the law, fewest scruples wins.
2 Is there any way out of this for our American friends?
America is more doomed than the Tory Party.
I have joked that I would be like to be the UK's first directly elected dictator, this is the sort of ruling that would give me unlimited power.
It seems to me that the case is being made for our sort of system being more robust than the new fangled USA one. In particular:
Our SC is loads less politicised than theirs because of the appointment system
A (usually sane) party elected to the HoC controls both who is PM and government and they all belong to the same party.
Getting rid of a rogue PM is easy. We do it every few months.
We only have one elected supreme body, so deadlock is usually avoided (Brexit was a test but we are still here).
If courts do stupid things the parliament can legislate to overrule it without much problem.
Our PM can't even drink cheap wine at home without getting a fine for it. If he tried insurrection he wouldn't even get bail.
Look how easy it was dispose of PMs Johnson and Truss.
No courts involved, just the man from the 1922 having a word.
Have we any evidence that the supermajority line is working? Notwithstanding the Tory numbers improving slightly, I thought everything was suggesting the supermajority line specifically was having pretty lukewarm cut through?
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
They would pass an Act impeaching the more egregious justices like Thomas and Alito and make it clear that the POTUS is subject to the law, just as everyone else is.
Even given the appalling decisions of late I am genuinely shocked by this ruling.
This ruling is the sort of thing you see in the prologue of those dystopian films and TV shows like The Handmaid's Tale.
Suburban Science Teacher here, but...
1 What is the best workable case that can be made for this ruling? Because it looks f#&!ING scary. Because if do what you will really is the whole of the law, fewest scruples wins.
2 Is there any way out of this for our American friends?
America is more doomed than the Tory Party.
I have joked that I would be like to be the UK's first directly elected dictator, this is the sort of ruling that would give me unlimited power.
America is really only a small step away, perhaps after appointing some new even more extreme Supreme Court Justices, from something like the Enabling Act coming into place and the Executive supplanting the Legislature. It would have sounded completely mad to even suggest such a thing a few years ago, but now it no longer seems all that fanciful to me.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
Starmer would bite your hand off, 188 is a massive majority, and considering he took over, with the Torys gifted an 80 seat majority, a remarkable turnaround, the talk back in 2020, was that the Torys would be in power till the 2030s. And to be fair to Starmer he has played his part in the turnaround, it isn't solely down to the last shambolic 5 years of Tory government
Yes it is ginormous but it is where we seem to be right now. Give all of Reform to the Cons and it's a different story. I don't think it is impossible for Reform to decline because unlike UKIP they don't have a flagship policy which people really, really want. But equally I think people do really, really want to give the Cons a kicking so there is that. I will back a few Reform <10% markets for some fun but I think there is a rump fuck 'em all 5-7%.
I wonder if the Cons will make a last ditch and extreme appeal to Reform, eyeing the eg JLP poll which had Cons + Ref > Lab.
As for the past five years I don't wholly disagree but Covid. That derailed so much of what might have been a sensible Cons levelling up agenda and plunged us into crisis. I don't think for academic purposes we should ignore the damage that did to the economy or how it hampered "proper" government.
Have we any evidence that the supermajority line is working? Notwithstanding the Tory numbers improving slightly, I thought everything was suggesting the supermajority line specifically was having pretty lukewarm cut through?
Doesn't feel like it has been pushed as much in the last week, I feel like that means it was not working much.
Have we any evidence that the supermajority line is working? Notwithstanding the Tory numbers improving slightly, I thought everything was suggesting the supermajority line specifically was having pretty lukewarm cut through?
I mentioned earlier on in my Lab held Lab/Lib Dem seat that the Lib Dem activists told me the supermajority line was helping them in this seat.
Some reports suggest that the biggest supporter of Senile Joe not withdrawing is Hunter Biden.
Wonderful imagery for the Dems.
That being so, the voters are going to hate convicted felon candidate Donald J. Trump.
They already do.
And that, frankly, is why I think most of what is going on at the moment is noise. Did the debate look bad? Yes. Did it make any significant shifts in the polls? No. Is Trump winning where he needs to? At best he's neck and neck, and he tends to underperform his polling.
I'm also not altogether sure the Supreme Court giving absolute power to a convicted criminal who boasts about wanting to be a dictator is going to play quite as well in swing states as they and he seem to think it will.
I hope you are right. Some of the more enthusiastic Trumpsters on here are nonetheless greatly cheered by Biden's poor display last week.
Joe's memory isn't what it was, but it would appear he doesn't require a lifetime supply of adult Pampers. Apparently the aroma around the defendant in that New York courtroom was reminiscent of eau de decomposing squirrel.
Did none of that strike you as at all infantile while you were typing it? How funny actually is incontinence in the elderly? Did Biden really show nothing worse than memory deficit in that debate?
I was greatly cheered by Bidens poor showing and I will tell you why. He is almost guaranteed to be incontrovertibly demented by November and to lose, so I want him demented by August and replaced by someone who might beat Trump. But easier if you put me down as a Trumpster.
Well I touched a nerve there.
Yes it is infantile and it might be disingenuous to those unfortunate enough to have lost control of their functions. My father finished his days with a stoma, so under normal circumstances I would not jest about such a serious matter. The gentleman in question however claims personal perfection so any point which punctures his inflated ego is fine by me.
As has been mentioned by others on here FDR was in terminal decline, and Reagan in the later stages of dementia during their later years in office. So the situation of a declining Biden might be sub optimal but it is not something that hasn't been dealt with before.
A completely mad narcissistic psychopathic Putin apologist with severe age related mental impairment, surrounded by bad actors, would be far, far more dangerous than sleepy Joe.
On topic - Its JL Partners herding with MIC. These two polling companies generally are on the Con-friendly end of things. That does not mean they are not right of course. I think there are signs some Lab voters are switching to Reform in Lab heartlands (the desperation factor). In marginals I'm not so sure.
Its hard to see the Cons getting over 200 or less than 100. I note Con sources said they would get 30 or 200 but nothing in between! Meanwhile, an extinction election seems very unlikely which I suspect suits Lab. A gravely wounded Con party led by discredited veterans of the Juhnson/Truss/Sunak era is just perfect for them
Have we any evidence that the supermajority line is working? Notwithstanding the Tory numbers improving slightly, I thought everything was suggesting the supermajority line specifically was having pretty lukewarm cut through?
I mentioned earlier on in my Lab held Lab/Lib Dem seat that the Lib Dem activists told me the supermajority line was helping them in this seat.
Clearly you should have voted LibDem, like you originally intended
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
They would pass an Act impeaching the more egregious justices like Thomas and Alito and make it clear that the POTUS is subject to the law, just as everyone else is.
Even given the appalling decisions of late I am genuinely shocked by this ruling.
This ruling is the sort of thing you see in the prologue of those dystopian films and TV shows like The Handmaid's Tale.
Suburban Science Teacher here, but...
1 What is the best workable case that can be made for this ruling? Because it looks f#&!ING scary. Because if do what you will really is the whole of the law, fewest scruples wins.
2 Is there any way out of this for our American friends?
Any kind-hearted, deep-pocketed PBers willing & able to sponsor my asylum-seeking claim IF yours truly is forced by running dogs of reaction from my native shores?
And to register such a claim, is it obligatory to enter the UK via a small boat?
The UK? Wouldn't the easiest way to get the protection of His Majesty be to get on a boat to Vancouver Island?
I believe that escaping slaves found climbing onto an RN ship and enlisting was a bulletproof manoeuvre.
Certain shortage of RN ships at sea these days, though.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
Here is my OFFICIAL LEONDAMUS PREDICTION
I think you have a point but you undercook Reform. Farage has real support and his voters are enthused, and he is still mainly poaching votes from the Tories, not Labour. However Labour are fading slightly due to the utter tediousness of Monsieur Starmer and their total lack of policies, amongst other things. Lib Dems are doing OK just by being NOTA
I’m content with that. Pleasingly it means I win my bet with @TimS and the Tories go into double figures, which definitely makes for a dramatic night
As I noted above Reform really is just an anti-vote. UKIP at least had a policy and hence could bind people positively. For Reform you are looking only at the "what are you rebelling against what have you got" vote which I wouldn't put as high as 13% and actually think it could go (well?) below 10%.
Have we any evidence that the supermajority line is working? Notwithstanding the Tory numbers improving slightly, I thought everything was suggesting the supermajority line specifically was having pretty lukewarm cut through?
Is it a core True Tory belief, that British voters are immune to what psephologists call the bandwagon effect?
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
Thanks. I wonder whether a couple of recent polls which happen to be from outfits tending to have the Tories doing better than most have skewed the sense of the trend.
The truly consistent thread for some time has been that Tories poll half (50% approx) the Labour figure.
I don't think that will be the score on Thursday, but it won't be far off.
Your excellent argument has the Tories polling 71% of the Labour figure. I think that switch is too far too fast. I expect more like Labour 39-40%, Tories 23-25%. As to seats? No idea. Too much depends on tactical voting patterns.
Will you stay on as party leader? "That would be an ecumenical matter"
I once replied "That is an Ecumenical matter" to a particularly sensitive question in a very tense client meeting.
Everyone fell around laughing and it was left at that.
I have no idea what it even means in that context. Is this some Sir Humphrey Speak amongst washed-up politicians?
What he actually means is: "That's for the arse brigade" ie the rump Tory MPs.
In religious context, "The adjective ecumenical is . . . applied to any non-denominational initiative that encourages greater cooperation and union among Christian denominations and churches." (wikipedia)
SO in a political context, is Rishi Sunak referring to potential post-election effort to unite what's gonna be left of CUP with like-minded right-wingers leading, supporting and FUNDING the Faragists?
It also refers to official universal decisions of the church, the Ecumenical Councils. There are none of these universally accepted since the 7th century (some think earlier) because of course the church divides as soon as any decision is made.
However Father Jack may be referring to the Roman habit of declaring all its councils 'ecumenical' on the simple belief that in the Roman church subsists the entire of the true church, so he may be referring not to Nicaea or Chalcedon but to novelties like the Lateran Councils, Trent or Vatican II, which last occurred but yesterday in church time. That's the one which made singing 'Kumbaya' compulsory.
------------------- Quotes borked. I start here:
I don't think I see the Ecumenical Council reference in a British sitcom for a British audience - an Irish one maybe, unless it was an in joke or Easter Egg.
No British general audience has any knowledge to speak of about religion, so humour consists in stroking stereotypes, and similarly for press coverage.
At this stage in 2017, am I right in thinking that some, polls had picked up the surge in the Corbyn vote, but this time the polls are pretty static, and are probably settling on Labour 38% Tories 25%
Of the 19 polls conducted over the past week, just four had Labour on 38 or below, and the Tories reached 25 or above in only one.
It's perfectly reasonable to hope for some movement in the next few days, but over the past week the gap has averaged 17.8 points rather than the 13 that you suggest.
Have we any evidence that the supermajority line is working? Notwithstanding the Tory numbers improving slightly, I thought everything was suggesting the supermajority line specifically was having pretty lukewarm cut through?
I mentioned earlier on in my Lab held Lab/Lib Dem seat that the Lib Dem activists told me the supermajority line was helping them in this seat.
Clearly you should have voted LibDem, like you originally intended
Sunak brought back Dave, the Lib Dems never stood a chance of getting back my vote.
Plus JohnO would have kicked me out of the PB Tories club.
Edit - Plus the Lib Dems really don't want my vote.
I have voted four times in Sheffield Hallam and never voted for the winner (1997, 2015, 2017, and 2019.)
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
I am thinking that Reform's urging people still to vote for the candidates they have withdrawn support for, which seemed somewhat odd, reflects an objective of surpassing the Lib Dems in the popular vote (rather than the Tories).
A harbinger of the inverse Portillo moment as a Labour bigwig loses to Reform.
I still have outside hopes that goober Streeting loses
Got an ANONYMOUS LEAFLET today dissing Wes Streeting, basically saying he's in the pay of private health firms. As far as I can see, no Party affiliation from the sender!
Look for the tiny imprint. If there isn't one, it is illegal.
Have we any evidence that the supermajority line is working? Notwithstanding the Tory numbers improving slightly, I thought everything was suggesting the supermajority line specifically was having pretty lukewarm cut through?
I mentioned earlier on in my Lab held Lab/Lib Dem seat that the Lib Dem activists told me the supermajority line was helping them in this seat.
Yup, that was very interesting to me. Evidence of it working *against* the Tories was intriguing. Can see the logic. Similarly can see it emboldening many who may vote Tory to think "Well, if Labour have won anyway, I guess my Reform vote won't be wasted any more than a Tory vote would be"
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
Thanks. I wonder whether a couple of recent polls which happen to be from outfits tending to have the Tories doing better than most have skewed the sense of the trend.
The truly consistent thread for some time has been that Tories poll half (50% approx) the Labour figure.
I don't think that will be the score on Thursday, but it won't be far off.
Your excellent argument has the Tories polling 71% of the Labour figure. I think that switch is too far too fast. I expect more like Labour 39-40%, Tories 23-25%. As to seats? No idea. Too much depends on tactical voting patterns.
Yes I haven't factored in tactical voting. As for 50% => 70% that probably says more about me than the electorate in that we are so used to a two-party FPTP system that I think people may take refuge in maintaining it so that there is some kind of a cohesive opposition. For all his being shot out of cannons I don't think anyone sees, for example, the LibDems as the Official Opposition and we do want an Official Opposition.
Have we any evidence that the supermajority line is working? Notwithstanding the Tory numbers improving slightly, I thought everything was suggesting the supermajority line specifically was having pretty lukewarm cut through?
I mentioned earlier on in my Lab held Lab/Lib Dem seat that the Lib Dem activists told me the supermajority line was helping them in this seat.
Clearly you should have voted LibDem, like you originally intended
Sunak brought back Dave, the Lib Dems never stood a chance of getting back my vote.
Plus JohnO would have kicked me out of the PB Tories club.
Edit - Plus the Lib Dems really don't want my vote.
I have voted three times in Sheffield Hallam and never voted for the winner (1997, 2015, and 2019.)
Dave is history; let it go.
Anyhow, voting Tory in Sheffield was never going to keep him his job.
Some reports suggest that the biggest supporter of Senile Joe not withdrawing is Hunter Biden.
Wonderful imagery for the Dems.
That being so, the voters are going to hate convicted felon candidate Donald J. Trump.
They already do.
And that, frankly, is why I think most of what is going on at the moment is noise. Did the debate look bad? Yes. Did it make any significant shifts in the polls? No. Is Trump winning where he needs to? At best he's neck and neck, and he tends to underperform his polling.
I'm also not altogether sure the Supreme Court giving absolute power to a convicted criminal who boasts about wanting to be a dictator is going to play quite as well in swing states as they and he seem to think it will.
I hope you are right. Some of the more enthusiastic Trumpsters on here are nonetheless greatly cheered by Biden's poor display last week.
Joe's memory isn't what it was, but it would appear he doesn't require a lifetime supply of adult Pampers. Apparently the aroma around the defendant in that New York courtroom was reminiscent of eau de decomposing squirrel.
Did none of that strike you as at all infantile while you were typing it? How funny actually is incontinence in the elderly? Did Biden really show nothing worse than memory deficit in that debate?
I was greatly cheered by Bidens poor showing and I will tell you why. He is almost guaranteed to be incontrovertibly demented by November and to lose, so I want him demented by August and replaced by someone who might beat Trump. But easier if you put me down as a Trumpster.
Well I touched a nerve there.
Yes it is infantile and it might be disingenuous to those unfortunate enough to have lost control of their functions. My father finished his days with a stoma, so under normal circumstances I would not jest about such a serious matter. The gentleman in question however claims personal perfection so any point which punctures his inflated ego is fine by me.
As has been mentioned by others on here FDR was in terminal decline, and Reagan in the later stages of dementia during their later years in office. So the situation of a declining Biden might be sub optimal but it is not something that hasn't been dealt with before.
A completely mad narcissistic psychopathic Putin apologist with severe age related mental impairment, surrounded by bad actors, would be far, far more dangerous than sleepy Joe.
Ah yes the old Say something twattish, get told it is twattish, play the I touched a nerve there routine. Well played.
Your routine is literally Your man poos in his pants and smells of wee; you think there's some sort of clever meta spin on that, but there is not. Re-read what I wrote and try to understand that I welcome Biden's deterioration precisely because I hate Trump.
Also I wouldn't bet more than buttons against biden having continence issues.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
I am thinking that Reform's urging people still to vote for the candidates they have withdrawn support for, which seemed somewhat odd, reflects an objective of surpassing the Lib Dems in the popular vote (rather than the Tories).
Perhaps, but I don't see them as building for the longer term. No one in politics has too much of a long-term plan and I wouldn't put Reform down as having any kind of a post-July 4th vision.
Will you stay on as party leader? "That would be an ecumenical matter"
I once replied "That is an Ecumenical matter" to a particularly sensitive question in a very tense client meeting.
Everyone fell around laughing and it was left at that.
I have no idea what it even means in that context. Is this some Sir Humphrey Speak amongst washed-up politicians?
What he actually means is: "That's for the arse brigade" ie the rump Tory MPs.
In religious context, "The adjective ecumenical is . . . applied to any non-denominational initiative that encourages greater cooperation and union among Christian denominations and churches." (wikipedia)
SO in a political context, is Rishi Sunak referring to potential post-election effort to unite what's gonna be left of CUP with like-minded right-wingers leading, supporting and FUNDING the Faragists?
It also refers to official universal decisions of the church, the Ecumenical Councils. There are none of these universally accepted since the 7th century (some think earlier) because of course the church divides as soon as any decision is made.
However Father Jack may be referring to the Roman habit of declaring all its councils 'ecumenical' on the simple belief that in the Roman church subsists the entire of the true church, so he may be referring not to Nicaea or Chalcedon but to novelties like the Lateran Councils, Trent or Vatican II, which last occurred but yesterday in church time. That's the one which made singing 'Kumbaya' compulsory.
------------------- Quotes borked. I start here:
I don't think I see the Ecumenical Council reference in a British sitcom for a British audience - an Irish one maybe, unless it was an in joke or Easter Egg.
No British general audience has any knowledge to speak of about religion, so humour consists in stroking stereotypes, and similarly for press coverage.
Some reports suggest that the biggest supporter of Senile Joe not withdrawing is Hunter Biden.
Wonderful imagery for the Dems.
That being so, the voters are going to hate convicted felon candidate Donald J. Trump.
They already do.
And that, frankly, is why I think most of what is going on at the moment is noise. Did the debate look bad? Yes. Did it make any significant shifts in the polls? No. Is Trump winning where he needs to? At best he's neck and neck, and he tends to underperform his polling.
I'm also not altogether sure the Supreme Court giving absolute power to a convicted criminal who boasts about wanting to be a dictator is going to play quite as well in swing states as they and he seem to think it will.
I hope you are right. Some of the more enthusiastic Trumpsters on here are nonetheless greatly cheered by Biden's poor display last week.
Joe's memory isn't what it was, but it would appear he doesn't require a lifetime supply of adult Pampers. Apparently the aroma around the defendant in that New York courtroom was reminiscent of eau de decomposing squirrel.
Did none of that strike you as at all infantile while you were typing it? How funny actually is incontinence in the elderly? Did Biden really show nothing worse than memory deficit in that debate?
I was greatly cheered by Bidens poor showing and I will tell you why. He is almost guaranteed to be incontrovertibly demented by November and to lose, so I want him demented by August and replaced by someone who might beat Trump. But easier if you put me down as a Trumpster.
Well I touched a nerve there.
Yes it is infantile and it might be disingenuous to those unfortunate enough to have lost control of their functions. My father finished his days with a stoma, so under normal circumstances I would not jest about such a serious matter. The gentleman in question however claims personal perfection so any point which punctures his inflated ego is fine by me.
As has been mentioned by others on here FDR was in terminal decline, and Reagan in the later stages of dementia during their later years in office. So the situation of a declining Biden might be sub optimal but it is not something that hasn't been dealt with before.
A completely mad narcissistic psychopathic Putin apologist with severe age related mental impairment, surrounded by bad actors, would be far, far more dangerous than sleepy Joe.
Ah yes the old Say something twattish, get told it is twattish, play the I touched a nerve there routine. Well played.
Your routine is literally Your man poos in his pants and smells of wee; you think there's some sort of clever meta spin on that, but there is not. Re-read what I wrote and try to understand that I welcome Biden's deterioration precisely because I hate Trump.
Also I wouldn't bet more than buttons against biden having continence issues.
Sadly, my medically qualified friend has identified exactly that with some of Biden’s stranger postures
I just watched Ed Davey's bunjee jump. People were joking about him doing one... Respect.
People also joked about him wing walking... He wouldn't... Would he?
You know, we all took the piss out of Mr Davey at the start of the campaign. But he's certainly managed to keep himself in the news, which given his party is behind Labour, Reform and Conservatives in the polls, is no small feat.
Does anyone have a good enough memory to make a realistic comparison with an Ashdown campaign?
IIRC he used to run a schedule that drove journalists into the ground.
Apologies if this has been done to death already but bloody hell, the US Supreme Court has done devastating damage to US democracy and the rule of law.
Biden should use these new immunities to lock Trump up until after the election. We can argue about whether that is an official act or not afterwards. Thank God we don’t have a real Supreme Court on this country. If you ever wanted evidence of how dangerous a court without a sovereign Parliament can be look no further.
What would the US House of Commons do about such a ruling?
Thatcher - Pass an act overruling the Asses and Cocklecarrots. Starmer - Genuflect to the Lawyerly unelected Priesthood.
Liberals and Tory Wets like Sunak. See Starmer for further details.
They would pass an Act impeaching the more egregious justices like Thomas and Alito and make it clear that the POTUS is subject to the law, just as everyone else is.
Even given the appalling decisions of late I am genuinely shocked by this ruling.
This ruling is the sort of thing you see in the prologue of those dystopian films and TV shows like The Handmaid's Tale.
Suburban Science Teacher here, but...
1 What is the best workable case that can be made for this ruling? Because it looks f#&!ING scary. Because if do what you will really is the whole of the law, fewest scruples wins.
2 Is there any way out of this for our American friends?
America is more doomed than the Tory Party.
I have joked that I would be like to be the UK's first directly elected dictator, this is the sort of ruling that would give me unlimited power.
America is really only a small step away, perhaps after appointing some new even more extreme Supreme Court Justices, from something like the Enabling Act coming into place and the Executive supplanting the Legislature. It would have sounded completely mad to even suggest such a thing a few years ago, but now it no longer seems all that fanciful to me.
They could do that with the court they have now.
I was genuinely shocked by today’s decision. I thought they’d find a way of finessing it for Trump, but this is a wholesale wrecking ball opinion. It’s hard to overstate how dangerous it.
The Tories seem to be consistently banging on about Angela Rayner in their ads and social media activity. It’s too pervasive to be accidental.
Have they found this really resonating in focus groups? It seems odd and I’m surprised she would be a vote swinger for them, especially if have thought among potential Reform voters. But there’s obviously a strategy at work there.
We’ve had 3 attack narratives pushed in a concerted way during this campaign:
£2k extra tax Supermajority Angela Rayner
Bear in mind they are appealing to their base, and people like me, and not you.
I’d have expected them to be appealing to people lost to Reform, rather than their base. But I suppose if it’s purely a GOTV there is maybe some logic. Is Rayner really that scary though?
I'd guess it's aimed at blue wall types who haven't been particularly moved by the £2k extra tax stuff but, as you say, it's a line that must actively repel Refuk switchers.
Have we any evidence that the supermajority line is working? Notwithstanding the Tory numbers improving slightly, I thought everything was suggesting the supermajority line specifically was having pretty lukewarm cut through?
I mentioned earlier on in my Lab held Lab/Lib Dem seat that the Lib Dem activists told me the supermajority line was helping them in this seat.
Clearly you should have voted LibDem, like you originally intended
Sunak brought back Dave, the Lib Dems never stood a chance of getting back my vote.
Plus JohnO would have kicked me out of the PB Tories club.
Edit - Plus the Lib Dems really don't want my vote.
I have voted three times in Sheffield Hallam and never voted for the winner (1997, 2015, and 2019.)
Dave is history; let it go.
Anyhow, voting Tory in Sheffield was never going to keep him his job.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
Here is my OFFICIAL LEONDAMUS PREDICTION
I think you have a point but you undercook Reform. Farage has real support and his voters are enthused, and he is still mainly poaching votes from the Tories, not Labour. However Labour are fading slightly due to the utter tediousness of Monsieur Starmer and their total lack of policies, amongst other things. Lib Dems are doing OK just by being NOTA
The contradiction I’d like the polls to resolve is why SKS personal ratings have been increasing as the election campaign has gone on, but Labour has slipped quite markedly in voter intention.
Perhaps it is a bit of Reform leakage and a tiny bit to the Lib Dems, but it remains a mystery.
i guess as you get closer to the day voters decide on their tactical vote to get the Tories out
I don't think anyone doubts that moments after Lab get in they will look at a Council Tax revision. Unlike CGT which only affects other people, everyone pays Council Tax and such a line would, imo, if used by the Cons in earnest, give much of the electorate the heebeegeebies.
Some reports suggest that the biggest supporter of Senile Joe not withdrawing is Hunter Biden.
Wonderful imagery for the Dems.
That being so, the voters are going to hate convicted felon candidate Donald J. Trump.
They already do.
And that, frankly, is why I think most of what is going on at the moment is noise. Did the debate look bad? Yes. Did it make any significant shifts in the polls? No. Is Trump winning where he needs to? At best he's neck and neck, and he tends to underperform his polling.
I'm also not altogether sure the Supreme Court giving absolute power to a convicted criminal who boasts about wanting to be a dictator is going to play quite as well in swing states as they and he seem to think it will.
I hope you are right. Some of the more enthusiastic Trumpsters on here are nonetheless greatly cheered by Biden's poor display last week.
Joe's memory isn't what it was, but it would appear he doesn't require a lifetime supply of adult Pampers. Apparently the aroma around the defendant in that New York courtroom was reminiscent of eau de decomposing squirrel.
Did none of that strike you as at all infantile while you were typing it? How funny actually is incontinence in the elderly? Did Biden really show nothing worse than memory deficit in that debate?
I was greatly cheered by Bidens poor showing and I will tell you why. He is almost guaranteed to be incontrovertibly demented by November and to lose, so I want him demented by August and replaced by someone who might beat Trump. But easier if you put me down as a Trumpster.
Well I touched a nerve there.
Yes it is infantile and it might be disingenuous to those unfortunate enough to have lost control of their functions. My father finished his days with a stoma, so under normal circumstances I would not jest about such a serious matter. The gentleman in question however claims personal perfection so any point which punctures his inflated ego is fine by me.
As has been mentioned by others on here FDR was in terminal decline, and Reagan in the later stages of dementia during their later years in office. So the situation of a declining Biden might be sub optimal but it is not something that hasn't been dealt with before.
A completely mad narcissistic psychopathic Putin apologist with severe age related mental impairment, surrounded by bad actors, would be far, far more dangerous than sleepy Joe.
Ah yes the old Say something twattish, get told it is twattish, play the I touched a nerve there routine. Well played.
Your routine is literally Your man poos in his pants and smells of wee; you think there's some sort of clever meta spin on that, but there is not. Re-read what I wrote and try to understand that I welcome Biden's deterioration precisely because I hate Trump.
Also I wouldn't bet more than buttons against biden having continence issues.
l really hope this sort of campaign does work, I so want other party leaders to try it in future years. Much better than visiting a factory of bored workers in hard hats, or sticking leaflets through doors.
This Christmas's must have toy will surely be the Ed Davey action figure
I think he has a post-politics career presenting Total Wipeout Returns on cruises or SAGA holidays, or something similar.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
Here is my OFFICIAL LEONDAMUS PREDICTION
I think you have a point but you undercook Reform. Farage has real support and his voters are enthused, and he is still mainly poaching votes from the Tories, not Labour. However Labour are fading slightly due to the utter tediousness of Monsieur Starmer and their total lack of policies, amongst other things. Lib Dems are doing OK just by being NOTA
I think we might see also something fun on the night, like the Lib Dems being a fraction behind the Tories in seats in the exit poll, and then ending up marginally ahead once the results are done.
EDIT: Just realised the above seat totals gives a hilarious incentive for the Reform Tory merger...
Have we any evidence that the supermajority line is working? Notwithstanding the Tory numbers improving slightly, I thought everything was suggesting the supermajority line specifically was having pretty lukewarm cut through?
I mentioned earlier on in my Lab held Lab/Lib Dem seat that the Lib Dem activists told me the supermajority line was helping them in this seat.
Although Mandy Rice-Davies would be the candidate in that scenario
A harbinger of the inverse Portillo moment as a Labour bigwig loses to Reform.
I still have outside hopes that goober Streeting loses
Got an ANONYMOUS LEAFLET today dissing Wes Streeting, basically saying he's in the pay of private health firms. As far as I can see, no Party affiliation from the sender!
Look for the tiny imprint. If there isn't one, it is illegal.
Would it be illegal if a private individual on behalf of no-one has merely produced and published it? SFAICS no - at least WRT election law.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
Here is my OFFICIAL LEONDAMUS PREDICTION
I think you have a point but you undercook Reform. Farage has real support and his voters are enthused, and he is still mainly poaching votes from the Tories, not Labour. However Labour are fading slightly due to the utter tediousness of Monsieur Starmer and their total lack of policies, amongst other things. Lib Dems are doing OK just by being NOTA
Reform starting to look good value at 12% or lower
I can see a significant late swing from Reform to the Can't Be Arsed Party.
Or back to the Tories. Notice how, just lately, that practically the entire Conservative campaign has been about nothing but Keir Starmer's supermajority? They gave up trying to spin the £2k tax bombshell, for example, some time ago. Whether or not that means they believe they have good evidence, from focus groups or canvassing, that it is working, who can say? But I've seen some of the Tory social media output and it's essentially them telling old people that, if they indulge themselves by voting for Reform, the supermajority will be the result and Evil Keir will then fill the electorate with sixteen year olds and foreigners, so that Labour gets to rule forever.
There's still a bit of stuff about taxes on houses and taxes on pensions and such like, but basically it's the Conservatives telling the grey vote that if they don't get back on side there'll be a socialist dictatorship for all eternity. It's crude and laughable, but if they think they have evidence that it'll terrify enough old duckies back into line then of course they're going to do it.
Some reports suggest that the biggest supporter of Senile Joe not withdrawing is Hunter Biden.
Wonderful imagery for the Dems.
That being so, the voters are going to hate convicted felon candidate Donald J. Trump.
They already do.
And that, frankly, is why I think most of what is going on at the moment is noise. Did the debate look bad? Yes. Did it make any significant shifts in the polls? No. Is Trump winning where he needs to? At best he's neck and neck, and he tends to underperform his polling.
I'm also not altogether sure the Supreme Court giving absolute power to a convicted criminal who boasts about wanting to be a dictator is going to play quite as well in swing states as they and he seem to think it will.
I hope you are right. Some of the more enthusiastic Trumpsters on here are nonetheless greatly cheered by Biden's poor display last week.
Joe's memory isn't what it was, but it would appear he doesn't require a lifetime supply of adult Pampers. Apparently the aroma around the defendant in that New York courtroom was reminiscent of eau de decomposing squirrel.
Did none of that strike you as at all infantile while you were typing it? How funny actually is incontinence in the elderly? Did Biden really show nothing worse than memory deficit in that debate?
I was greatly cheered by Bidens poor showing and I will tell you why. He is almost guaranteed to be incontrovertibly demented by November and to lose, so I want him demented by August and replaced by someone who might beat Trump. But easier if you put me down as a Trumpster.
Well I touched a nerve there.
Yes it is infantile and it might be disingenuous to those unfortunate enough to have lost control of their functions. My father finished his days with a stoma, so under normal circumstances I would not jest about such a serious matter. The gentleman in question however claims personal perfection so any point which punctures his inflated ego is fine by me.
As has been mentioned by others on here FDR was in terminal decline, and Reagan in the later stages of dementia during their later years in office. So the situation of a declining Biden might be sub optimal but it is not something that hasn't been dealt with before.
A completely mad narcissistic psychopathic Putin apologist with severe age related mental impairment, surrounded by bad actors, would be far, far more dangerous than sleepy Joe.
Ah yes the old Say something twattish, get told it is twattish, play the I touched a nerve there routine. Well played.
Your routine is literally Your man poos in his pants and smells of wee; you think there's some sort of clever meta spin on that, but there is not. Re-read what I wrote and try to understand that I welcome Biden's deterioration precisely because I hate Trump.
Also I wouldn't bet more than buttons against biden having continence issues.
Sadly, my medically qualified friend has identified exactly that with some of Biden’s stranger postures
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
I am thinking that Reform's urging people still to vote for the candidates they have withdrawn support for, which seemed somewhat odd, reflects an objective of surpassing the Lib Dems in the popular vote (rather than the Tories).
Perhaps, but I don't see them as building for the longer term. No one in politics has too much of a long-term plan and I wouldn't put Reform down as having any kind of a post-July 4th vision.
If nothing else, if he is elected wouldn't Farage love to present himself as representing the third party in terms of the popular vote
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
Here is my OFFICIAL LEONDAMUS PREDICTION
I think you have a point but you undercook Reform. Farage has real support and his voters are enthused, and he is still mainly poaching votes from the Tories, not Labour. However Labour are fading slightly due to the utter tediousness of Monsieur Starmer and their total lack of policies, amongst other things. Lib Dems are doing OK just by being NOTA
I’m content with that. Pleasingly it means I win my bet with @TimS and the Tories go into double figures, which definitely makes for a dramatic night
I think you're right about the SNP - their window is 15 to 20.
Also think shy Tories will get them over 100. Lab 400?
Reform maybe 2 or 3 max (Ashfield, Boston, Clacton) but I will LOL if they win seats, but Farage still loses.
Things I'd also like;
John Sweeney to unseat Andrew Mitchell in Sutton Colefield Galloway to get kicked out in Rochdale Corbyn to fail DRoss to lose Shabana Mahmood to hold in B'ham Ladywood The Greens to fail in Brizzle The End Of Truss
Will you stay on as party leader? "That would be an ecumenical matter"
I once replied "That is an Ecumenical matter" to a particularly sensitive question in a very tense client meeting.
Everyone fell around laughing and it was left at that.
I have no idea what it even means in that context. Is this some Sir Humphrey Speak amongst washed-up politicians?
What he actually means is: "That's for the arse brigade" ie the rump Tory MPs.
In religious context, "The adjective ecumenical is . . . applied to any non-denominational initiative that encourages greater cooperation and union among Christian denominations and churches." (wikipedia)
SO in a political context, is Rishi Sunak referring to potential post-election effort to unite what's gonna be left of CUP with like-minded right-wingers leading, supporting and FUNDING the Faragists?
It also refers to official universal decisions of the church, the Ecumenical Councils. There are none of these universally accepted since the 7th century (some think earlier) because of course the church divides as soon as any decision is made.
However Father Jack may be referring to the Roman habit of declaring all its councils 'ecumenical' on the simple belief that in the Roman church subsists the entire of the true church, so he may be referring not to Nicaea or Chalcedon but to novelties like the Lateran Councils, Trent or Vatican II, which last occurred but yesterday in church time. That's the one which made singing 'Kumbaya' compulsory.
------------------- Quotes borked. I start here:
I don't think I see the Ecumenical Council reference in a British sitcom for a British audience - an Irish one maybe, unless it was an in joke or Easter Egg.
No British general audience has any knowledge to speak of about religion, so humour consists in stroking stereotypes, and similarly for press coverage.
............. Algarkirk restarts here:
We do our jokes dry round here.
Tdee starts here:
Fun sponging fact: Hē Oikoumenē [gē] in Greek means the inhabited earth, the whole world. So an ecumenical council is an international one.
The Newfoundland Regiment (then independent of Canada) went over the top 108 years ago today on the first day of the Somme.
Scheduled to go over the top, IIRC, sometime around 9am, after the initial waves attacked at 7.30, the 470 men couldn’t reach the frontline trench they were supposed to attack from because all the trenches were full of wounded and dying men from previous waves. So they got out of the support trenches they were stuck in and into the open. They were mown down before they even got level with the frontline trenches they were supposed to attack from. 68 men were available for duty the next day.
Newfoundland buried their own unknown soldier today, finally. An appropriate date in two senses, being Canada’s national day too.
Some reports suggest that the biggest supporter of Senile Joe not withdrawing is Hunter Biden.
Wonderful imagery for the Dems.
That being so, the voters are going to hate convicted felon candidate Donald J. Trump.
They already do.
And that, frankly, is why I think most of what is going on at the moment is noise. Did the debate look bad? Yes. Did it make any significant shifts in the polls? No. Is Trump winning where he needs to? At best he's neck and neck, and he tends to underperform his polling.
I'm also not altogether sure the Supreme Court giving absolute power to a convicted criminal who boasts about wanting to be a dictator is going to play quite as well in swing states as they and he seem to think it will.
I hope you are right. Some of the more enthusiastic Trumpsters on here are nonetheless greatly cheered by Biden's poor display last week.
Joe's memory isn't what it was, but it would appear he doesn't require a lifetime supply of adult Pampers. Apparently the aroma around the defendant in that New York courtroom was reminiscent of eau de decomposing squirrel.
Some reports suggest that the biggest supporter of Senile Joe not withdrawing is Hunter Biden.
Wonderful imagery for the Dems.
That being so, the voters are going to hate convicted felon candidate Donald J. Trump.
They already do.
And that, frankly, is why I think most of what is going on at the moment is noise. Did the debate look bad? Yes. Did it make any significant shifts in the polls? No. Is Trump winning where he needs to? At best he's neck and neck, and he tends to underperform his polling.
I'm also not altogether sure the Supreme Court giving absolute power to a convicted criminal who boasts about wanting to be a dictator is going to play quite as well in swing states as they and he seem to think it will.
I hope you are right. Some of the more enthusiastic Trumpsters on here are nonetheless greatly cheered by Biden's poor display last week.
Joe's memory isn't what it was, but it would appear he doesn't require a lifetime supply of adult Pampers. Apparently the aroma around the defendant in that New York courtroom was reminiscent of eau de decomposing squirrel.
Did none of that strike you as at all infantile while you were typing it? How funny actually is incontinence in the elderly? Did Biden really show nothing worse than memory deficit in that debate?
I was greatly cheered by Bidens poor showing and I will tell you why. He is almost guaranteed to be incontrovertibly demented by November and to lose, so I want him demented by August and replaced by someone who might beat Trump. But easier if you put me down as a Trumpster.
Well I touched a nerve there.
Yes it is infantile and it might be disingenuous to those unfortunate enough to have lost control of their functions. My father finished his days with a stoma, so under normal circumstances I would not jest about such a serious matter. The gentleman in question however claims personal perfection so any point which punctures his inflated ego is fine by me.
As has been mentioned by others on here FDR was in terminal decline, and Reagan in the later stages of dementia during their later years in office. So the situation of a declining Biden might be sub optimal but it is not something that hasn't been dealt with before.
A completely mad narcissistic psychopathic Putin apologist with severe age related mental impairment, surrounded by bad actors, would be far, far more dangerous than sleepy Joe.
Ah yes the old Say something twattish, get told it is twattish, play the I touched a nerve there routine. Well played.
Your routine is literally Your man poos in his pants and smells of wee; you think there's some sort of clever meta spin on that, but there is not. Re-read what I wrote and try to understand that I welcome Biden's deterioration precisely because I hate Trump.
Also I wouldn't bet more than buttons against biden having continence issues.
He really believes his own destiny, doesn’t he? Oops
He became President before he was 40 and formed his own party which then won an easy majority, overcoming the traditional parties of the state. I'd believe in my own destiny.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
Thanks. I wonder whether a couple of recent polls which happen to be from outfits tending to have the Tories doing better than most have skewed the sense of the trend.
The truly consistent thread for some time has been that Tories poll half (50% approx) the Labour figure.
I don't think that will be the score on Thursday, but it won't be far off.
Your excellent argument has the Tories polling 71% of the Labour figure. I think that switch is too far too fast. I expect more like Labour 39-40%, Tories 23-25%. As to seats? No idea. Too much depends on tactical voting patterns.
Yes I haven't factored in tactical voting. As for 50% => 70% that probably says more about me than the electorate in that we are so used to a two-party FPTP system that I think people may take refuge in maintaining it so that there is some kind of a cohesive opposition. For all his being shot out of cannons I don't think anyone sees, for example, the LibDems as the Official Opposition and we do want an Official Opposition.
I've read a lot of stuff this weekend about how a surprising amount of the electorate have no idea about this 'supermajority' talk like we political junkies do. Many of them still think a hung parliament is a decently likely outcome!
As such I'm not sure the average voter is factoring in that kind of thing in their head as much
Comments
https://towerhamletstoday.substack.com/
It's been six years since I lived in the East End. My first thoughts are that someone's got hold of my email from a council or other database to spam (ex) residents with undue spiritual influence.
Predicting this election is like herding pollsters.
And to register such a claim, is it obligatory to enter the UK via a small boat?
Our SC is loads less politicised than theirs because of the appointment system
A (usually sane) party elected to the HoC controls both who is PM and government and they all belong to the same party.
Getting rid of a rogue PM is easy. We do it every few months.
We only have one elected supreme body, so deadlock is usually avoided (Brexit was a test but we are still here).
If courts do stupid things the parliament can legislate to overrule it without much problem.
Our PM can't even drink cheap wine at home without getting a fine for it. If he tried insurrection he wouldn't even get bail.
As I have explained before, the parties rarely bother to send anyone to the postal vote verifications, because if they do, they will see jackshit.
Punters as varied as me and Casino have been moving into the ‘over’ on Tory seats for a few days now, and the latest polls suggest we were suitably ahead of the curve.
Currently we have Cons around 20%, Lab around 40%, LibDems 12% and Reform 16%.
I think that there will indeed be some swingback Cons (and now Lab) => Reform. Reform we know stands for nothing and is defined in terms of what it stands against. It is a pressure group (an effective one but no more); no one is going to vote Reform for a strong fiscal policy and at the end of the day it's the economy, stupid. People will want a party that at least is theoretically in a position to enact an economic programme. Hence I think Cons will poll higher than the opinion polls are showing now, and Reform lower.
People will fear a Lab s*p*rm*j*r*ty. And hence not be motivated to vote Lab or vote Green/LibDems so as not to make it a crazy Lab number. So I think 40% might be where they end up. Maybe (maybe) even sub-40%.
LibDems and Greens are likely to be the home of many disaffected or cautious or nowhere else to go voters. I think therefore that this will result in higher voteshares for them in particular the LibDems.
So that gives my base case as follows:
Lab 38%, Cons 27%, Reform 10%, LibDems 14%, Green 5%.
Baxtering gives a 188-seat Lab majority which is not too shabby.
Cons party seats 121, Lab 419 which I have backed.
But - if you need to actually take it somewhere, I'm sure we can have a whip round.
Yes.
“constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions” - attempts to rule by lawyers generating law for their own ends, against the will of the people will end in an overthrough of the law.
But well played TimS if he is correct
But probably a fairly small thing.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-diapers-over-dems/
I was greatly cheered by Bidens poor showing and I will tell you why. He is almost guaranteed to be incontrovertibly demented by November and to lose, so I want him demented by August and replaced by someone who might beat Trump. But easier if you put me down as a Trumpster.
As an aside, their candidate is called John Thomas.
However I think it has all been really worth it. Better than the old factory visit or coach arriving.
They are falling like ninepins tonight.
Thangham is the most likely, which is a shame particularly as she is engaging and capable compared to the wildly overated Denyer.
With a supermajority, Starmer can ignore the sundry demitrots on his back benches. With a small majority, he needs their votes to get legislation through.
Fortunately my record keeping was immaculate and in 1998 I canvassed him again and used his middle name, and he was so impressed - especially when I confessed to my mistake four years earlier - that he promised to vote for me that time, and did so every time through to 2014.
Amazing what some good canvassing notes can achieve,
Edit: I see Topping got there first
Notes
It's perfectly reasonable to hope for some movement in the next few days, but over the past week the gap has averaged 17.8 points rather than the 13 that you suggest.
Here is my OFFICIAL LEONDAMUS PREDICTION
I think you have a point but you undercook Reform. Farage has real support and his voters are enthused, and he is still mainly poaching votes from the Tories, not Labour. However Labour are fading slightly due to the utter tediousness of Monsieur Starmer and their total lack of policies, amongst other things. Lib Dems are doing OK just by being NOTA
So:
Labour: 39%
Con: 25%
Reform: 13%
LDs: 13%
Greens: 4%
Baxtered:
Labour: 438
Con: 98
LDs: 68
Reform: 5
SNP: 15 (too low, surely)
I’m content with that. Pleasingly it means I win my bet with @TimS and the Tories go into double figures, which definitely makes for a dramatic night
TBF it's not difficult, given that the odds are 32, 13 and 7 at present on BFX
If you happen to own a huge tech firm and are willing to move the company and it’s tax domicile here then you can skip the above requirement.
No courts involved, just the man from the 1922 having a word.
I wonder if the Cons will make a last ditch and extreme appeal to Reform, eyeing the eg JLP poll which had Cons + Ref > Lab.
As for the past five years I don't wholly disagree but Covid. That derailed so much of what might have been a sensible Cons levelling up agenda and plunged us into crisis. I don't think for academic purposes we should ignore the damage that did to the economy or how it hampered "proper" government.
Yes it is infantile and it might be disingenuous to those unfortunate enough to have lost control of their functions. My father finished his days with a stoma, so under normal circumstances I would not jest about such a serious matter. The gentleman in question however claims personal perfection so any point which punctures his inflated ego is fine by me.
As has been mentioned by others on here FDR was in terminal decline, and Reagan in the later stages of dementia during their later years in office. So the situation of a declining Biden might be sub optimal but it is not something that hasn't been dealt with before.
A completely mad narcissistic psychopathic Putin apologist with severe age related mental impairment, surrounded by bad actors, would be far, far more dangerous than sleepy Joe.
Its hard to see the Cons getting over 200 or less than 100. I note Con sources said they would get 30 or 200 but nothing in between! Meanwhile, an extinction election seems very unlikely which I suspect suits Lab. A gravely wounded Con party led by discredited veterans of the Juhnson/Truss/Sunak era is just perfect for them
The truly consistent thread for some time has been that Tories poll half (50% approx) the Labour figure.
I don't think that will be the score on Thursday, but it won't be far off.
Your excellent argument has the Tories polling 71% of the Labour figure. I think that switch is too far too fast. I expect more like Labour 39-40%, Tories 23-25%. As to seats? No idea. Too much depends on tactical voting patterns.
It also refers to official universal decisions of the church, the Ecumenical Councils. There are none of these universally accepted since the 7th century (some think earlier) because of course the church divides as soon as any decision is made.However Father Jack may be referring to the Roman habit of declaring all its councils 'ecumenical' on the simple belief that in the Roman church subsists the entire of the true church, so he may be referring not to Nicaea or Chalcedon but to novelties like the Lateran Councils, Trent or Vatican II, which last occurred but yesterday in church time. That's the one which made singing 'Kumbaya' compulsory.
-------------------
Quotes borked. I start here:
I don't think I see the Ecumenical Council reference in a British sitcom for a British audience - an Irish one maybe, unless it was an in joke or Easter Egg.
No British general audience has any knowledge to speak of about religion, so humour consists in stroking stereotypes, and similarly for press coverage.
Plus JohnO would have kicked me out of the PB Tories club.
Edit - Plus the Lib Dems really don't want my vote.
I have voted four times in Sheffield Hallam and never voted for the winner (1997, 2015, 2017, and 2019.)
Anyhow, voting Tory in Sheffield was never going to keep him his job.
Quite a dramatic fall for the Jupiterian president
Macron is perhaps the purest example of Hubris >> Nemesis in modern global politics
Your routine is literally Your man poos in his pants and smells of wee; you think there's some sort of clever meta spin on that, but there is not. Re-read what I wrote and try to understand that I welcome Biden's deterioration precisely because I hate Trump.
Also I wouldn't bet more than buttons against biden having continence issues.
Quotes borked. I start here:
I don't think I see the Ecumenical Council reference in a British sitcom for a British audience - an Irish one maybe, unless it was an in joke or Easter Egg.
No British general audience has any knowledge to speak of about religion, so humour consists in stroking stereotypes, and similarly for press coverage.
.............
Algarkirk restarts here:
We do our jokes dry round here.
IIRC he used to run a schedule that drove journalists into the ground.
I was genuinely shocked by today’s decision. I thought they’d find a way of finessing it for Trump, but this is a wholesale wrecking ball opinion.
It’s hard to overstate how dangerous it.
I'd guess it's aimed at blue wall types who haven't been particularly moved by the £2k extra tax stuff but, as you say, it's a line that must actively repel Refuk switchers.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/emmanuel-macrons-jupiterian-presidency-crashes-to-earth-europe-france-2f866df8
Labour: 40%, 461
Lib Dems: 13%, 71
Con: 22%, 66
Reform UK: 16%, 6
Green: 5%, 3
SNP: 3%, 15
Plaid: 0.5%, 3
I think we might see also something fun on the night, like the Lib Dems being a fraction behind the Tories in seats in the exit poll, and then ending up marginally ahead once the results are done.
EDIT: Just realised the above seat totals gives a hilarious incentive for the Reform Tory merger...
There's still a bit of stuff about taxes on houses and taxes on pensions and such like, but basically it's the Conservatives telling the grey vote that if they don't get back on side there'll be a socialist dictatorship for all eternity. It's crude and laughable, but if they think they have evidence that it'll terrify enough old duckies back into line then of course they're going to do it.
Also think shy Tories will get them over 100. Lab 400?
Reform maybe 2 or 3 max (Ashfield, Boston, Clacton) but I will LOL if they win seats, but Farage still loses.
Things I'd also like;
John Sweeney to unseat Andrew Mitchell in Sutton Colefield
Galloway to get kicked out in Rochdale
Corbyn to fail
DRoss to lose
Shabana Mahmood to hold in B'ham Ladywood
The Greens to fail in Brizzle
The End Of Truss
https://x.com/monty_brogan69/status/1806276396215390266
Algarkirk restarts here:
We do our jokes dry round here.
Tdee starts here:
Fun sponging fact: Hē Oikoumenē [gē] in Greek means the inhabited earth, the whole world. So an ecumenical council is an international one.
Scheduled to go over the top, IIRC, sometime around 9am, after the initial waves attacked at 7.30, the 470 men couldn’t reach the frontline trench they were supposed to attack from because all the trenches were full of wounded and dying men from previous waves. So they got out of the support trenches they were stuck in and into the open. They were mown down before they even got level with the frontline trenches they were supposed to attack from. 68 men were available for duty the next day.
Newfoundland buried their own unknown soldier today, finally. An appropriate date in two senses, being Canada’s national day too.
He really believes his own destiny, doesn’t he? Oops
The French both expect it, and then condemn them for it.
Would account for the lack of herding.
We will know either way when Sunderland South comes in
As such I'm not sure the average voter is factoring in that kind of thing in their head as much