I've been for a blood test this morning, in prep for an appointment at lunchtime.
It seems my hospital blood test clinic now allows online bookings of timeslots in addition to the supermarket queue ticket machine, and tells me that since they marked my test 'urgent' it will be done and results available in 4 or 5 minutes, as allowed on the day of the appointment.
That means I can now turn up 30 minutes early and still get the blood test done on time - NHS TQM. That saves, for example, 2 visits taking up places in the car park if I drive.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
I don't see this being 1992. But I do think it possible we could end up with a far smaller Labour majority than has been predicted te last few weeks. Sadly it also means the Tory party will fail to slide down the plughole.
Sadly only in the sense you want Farage to be Leader of the Opposition which most on here don't
No, as I have made absolutely clear on many occasions, I don't want Farage anywhere near the Tory party, or power. I just don't want the Tory party to survive. It will send a powerful message to the other parties and politicians generally if the oldest party in British politics ends up in the sewer.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
If you don't want the Tory party to survive you end up with Farage ultimately LOTO and Reform taking over the Tories, sorry.
Under FPTP you ain't getting another centre right party other than the Tories, certainly not the current LDs
Rubbish. Unless and until we get PR (which is what he wants) Farage is not going to get anywhere near leading the centre right by dint of the simple fact that he is not centre right. He will not be able to take the large majority of centre voters with him. So another party will emerge without the baggage of incompetence and corruption that has marked the Tories since Major. The Right is now pretty much irrevocably split and much of that is due to the arrogance and ineptitude of the Tory party.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
And I'd say good on him. PM needs to be a human being with his family.
Yes, clocking off at 6 on Friday doesn't seem unreasonable. Can't say I'm often still at my desk at that time.
If the family are living in Downing Street it's not like he's too far from the action either.
It is quite likely the Starmer family will spend Friday afternoons pootling up to Chequers for the weekend anyway, so the whole thing is a bit of a nonsense from either side.
He will get a lot of gyp now though from people asking him who will be running the country from 6pm Friday to Monday morning and people saying “it’s alright for you to clock off at 6 on a Friday, some of us junior doctors work all weekend so give us 35% you bastard” (they won’t actually say this).
It would be ironic if Starmer turns out to be just as inept at retail politics as the current incumbent.
The cut through of this Starmer Friday evening family time story shows to me he has been spot on to run this Ming Vase campaign all along. Anyone complaining that he/Labour have been too ‘safe’ needs only look at how his quotes were blown out of all serious proportion.
What a ridiculous country and ridiculous media environment we have where this is something that actually resonates with some people.
I mean, are people genuinely thick enough to believe that if something serious happened at 6:10pm on a Friday, like a terrorist attack or a war or something, Starmer would turn around and say “Sod off, me and my kids are playing Scrabble” ?
This is a guy who has literally been a lawyer for a lot of his life, at a very high level. I’m sure he’s worked far more 2ams than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss et al.
It gives off a subliminal vibe of 'nation first, but only during office hours' Or, Police Squad wise 'not one man on this force will rest for one moment until we find the killer' 'right, let's get a spot of lunch'
Also the country doesn’t want to see its politicians having a nice time, they want them to suffer and toil and feel the strain of the office and their own miseries.
Can you imagine Starmer going on GMTV (is that a programme?) and saying “well Dermot, I feel nice and refreshed as when I finished at 6 on Friday I went off to Chequers with the fam and just relaxed for the weekend. We had a lovely bbq in the grounds there as we always do on a Friday evening, looked at a few documents on Saturday morning and then we had a family padel tournament. Now it’s back to work to increase your taxes.”
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
I hope they would realise offering voters the moon on a stick is not acceptable either
Why wouldn't it be? It usually works.
It has reduced the most successful political party in UK history to the brink of extinction.
The Front Desk problem - if it's not a trope I'm naming it - is where no matter how sophisticated the company's products, if the Desk Guy doesn't know about them, you can't get them. It cropped up when @isam (still absent btw) tried to get profit on Theresa May resigning, and it cropped up here. Another real-life case is when I bought an option from a retail investment firm and I had to carefully explain to the guy on the phone the difference between an options and a futures contract. That really happened.
I must hasten to add that in the article's case it wasn't really the staff's fault, they were nice people and they did at least try. But the disconnect between the bets available online and the bets available in shop/phoneline is now so great that there was nothing they could really do.
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%) 1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%) 1.1 million are retired (11.5%) 1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%) 205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%) 2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
Thanks for providing the breakdown of the figures. All I said was that a 25% non-working rate seemed like a lot. There was no need for you to direct any sarcasm towards me for it.
My wife hasn't been able to work for several years, I had to accept the end of my hopes for more children because we wouldn't be able to afford childcare on my income alone, and it was too much to expect of her to do so in her present condition. I know what the reality of this is like for many people.
But 1-in-4 does still seem like a lot. And less than half the total population in work does seem a bit low. Looking at figures in British history, and for other countries, would help to gain some perspective on this.
Woah! There was absolutely no sarcasm involved or intended. I only mentioned you at all as an opening for posting the figures which I find of interest. Reading back I can't actually see what could be taken as sarcasm in my posting.
Agghhh I have done it again, posted on the last thread. @Leon I asked you a question about the ferry that I would like your feedback on. Cheers.
Ask away
In a car I use the tunnel, but on a bike I use ferries. Cyclists get treated like Gods by the ferries. Front of the queue (and don't have to queue), car escort out.
Are you on foot? Would be good to know how that works?
Unless you have been going to Ireland this year .
It seems that on some but not all Plymouth Roscoff sailings it's £3 cheaper to go with a bike than without one, puzzlingly
Is there another £3 off for having a string of onions around your neck?
Pippa Crerar on X even now saying Starmers 'i will be a part time PM' comments are cutting through. As unfair as that is given the context, and the full quote, its a really stupid thing to say in the run in. Of course it makes no overall difference but its the sort of thing that might tip a few seats and undecideds/Tory waverers/Labour distrusters It does suggest a bit of complacency had sunk in to me
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
If there is anything in it, it would be a great betting tip. Candidates are, however, the very last people to trust for a steer when the election is just a few days away. All you can do is try and diagnose those suffering from irrational optimism (the majority) from those suffering from pre-polling day panic.
Indeed, especially when it is the experienced Tories who have been weighing votes for generations that are worried, and the political newbies first elected in 2019 who are optimistic.
A few days ago someone posted the YouGov showing that the Tories / Sunak were still polling decently compared with the 2019 level with Indian voters.
Has got me wondering whether those seats with large affluent Indian populations - also where parents might send kids to private school more than in other parts of the country - might be value for betting on the Tories.
The private school itself is often in a different constituency to where the parents live so will need to take that into account but I’m sure someone in the know might help with the above?
More generally if there are any areas where it’s got a good proportion of BAME parents sending their kids to private school in the constituency, that might be more of a factor than is measured by polling.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
I hope they would realise offering voters the moon on a stick is not acceptable either
Why wouldn't it be? It usually works.
Indeed. Half the population is of below average intelligence, and many people have little idea or interest in how policies are to be implemented. That's the problem with democracy. It's all a bit crap, but on the whole the alternatives have proven to be worse.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
I don't see this being 1992. But I do think it possible we could end up with a far smaller Labour majority than has been predicted te last few weeks. Sadly it also means the Tory party will fail to slide down the plughole.
Sadly only in the sense you want Farage to be Leader of the Opposition which most on here don't
No, as I have made absolutely clear on many occasions, I don't want Farage anywhere near the Tory party, or power. I just don't want the Tory party to survive. It will send a powerful message to the other parties and politicians generally if the oldest party in British politics ends up in the sewer.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
The reality is that the Tory Party has been many different complexions over the years, so for once your usual sensible analysis doesn't stack up. If the Tory Party completely dies we will be a soft socialist state. Many people may like that. As someone who believes in enterprise and the ability of people to set up businesses and able to keep most of the money they generate without governments stealing it to splurge on featherbedding unions and the public sector I personally think that will be bad.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
And I'd say good on him. PM needs to be a human being with his family.
Yes, clocking off at 6 on Friday doesn't seem unreasonable. Can't say I'm often still at my desk at that time.
If the family are living in Downing Street it's not like he's too far from the action either.
It is quite likely the Starmer family will spend Friday afternoons pootling up to Chequers for the weekend anyway, so the whole thing is a bit of a nonsense from either side.
He will get a lot of gyp now though from people asking him who will be running the country from 6pm Friday to Monday morning and people saying “it’s alright for you to clock off at 6 on a Friday, some of us junior doctors work all weekend so give us 35% you bastard” (they won’t actually say this).
It would be ironic if Starmer turns out to be just as inept at retail politics as the current incumbent.
But not remotely surprising. I thought that, for a barrister, he was woeful in the first debate.
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%) 1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%) 1.1 million are retired (11.5%) 1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%) 205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%) 2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
Thanks for providing the breakdown of the figures. All I said was that a 25% non-working rate seemed like a lot. There was no need for you to direct any sarcasm towards me for it.
My wife hasn't been able to work for several years, I had to accept the end of my hopes for more children because we wouldn't be able to afford childcare on my income alone, and it was too much to expect of her to do so in her present condition. I know what the reality of this is like for many people.
But 1-in-4 does still seem like a lot. And less than half the total population in work does seem a bit low. Looking at figures in British history, and for other countries, would help to gain some perspective on this.
Woah! There was absolutely no sarcasm involved or intended. I only mentioned you at all as an opening for posting the figures which I find of interest. Reading back I can't actually see what could be taken as sarcasm in my posting.
Ah. My apologies. One of the perils of online communication.
My judgement is possibly a bit poor this morning due to the terrible cold I am suffering. Why is it that young children are so delightful to spend time with, but also incubators of all the worst infections?
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Can I wade in here? Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who? So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
But basically, be politer to Big G, ok?
Fourthly, everyone knew he'd vote for the Conservatives anyway. No big surprise; no big deal.
What Big G is being punished for is his scrupulous transparency and honesty.
In the modern parlance he’s been on a journey. It’s a journey back to where Big G started and where everyone expected him to end up so perhaps worthy of less interest and vituperation than he’s received.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
And I'd say good on him. PM needs to be a human being with his family.
Yes, clocking off at 6 on Friday doesn't seem unreasonable. Can't say I'm often still at my desk at that time.
If the family are living in Downing Street it's not like he's too far from the action either.
It is quite likely the Starmer family will spend Friday afternoons pootling up to Chequers for the weekend anyway, so the whole thing is a bit of a nonsense from either side.
He will get a lot of gyp now though from people asking him who will be running the country from 6pm Friday to Monday morning and people saying “it’s alright for you to clock off at 6 on a Friday, some of us junior doctors work all weekend so give us 35% you bastard” (they won’t actually say this).
It would be ironic if Starmer turns out to be just as inept at retail politics as the current incumbent.
His 3D chess is going quite well so far.
But of course, governing is different. By the time a new PM gets the hang of it, the hubris is already setting in.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Can I wade in here? Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who? So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
But basically, be politer to Big G, ok?
Fourthly, everyone knew he'd vote for the Conservatives anyway. No big surprise; no big deal.
What Big G is being punished for is his scrupulous transparency and honesty.
In the modern parlance he’s been on a journey. It’s a journey back to where Big G started and where everyone expected him to end up so perhaps worthy of less interest and vituperation than he’s received.
In his beginning is his end. From Big G to Little Gidding.
Pippa Crerar on X even now saying Starmers 'i will be a part time PM' comments are cutting through. As unfair as that is given the context, and the full quote, its a really stupid thing to say in the run in. Of course it makes no overall difference but its the sort of thing that might tip a few seats and undecideds/Tory waverers/Labour distrusters It does suggest a bit of complacency had sunk in to me
Dave had his dvd nights, BJ was a poster boy for laziness.
It's the Jewish angle that I find interesting. On the one hand it wrong foots the critics for not knowing and respecting Jewish practices (I knew when the Sabbath starts because I used to instruct an orthodox barrister and if you wanted advice on a Friday in winter you made sure to ring early). OTOH I am not sure if I knew lady s was Jewish. That fact coming to prominence could do labour harm in Muslim heavy constituencies.
It won’t be a problem as tomorrow, Starmer will tell us he will be taking Friday mornings off as well, so that he can attend Friday prayers.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
I hope they would realise offering voters the moon on a stick is not acceptable either
Why wouldn't it be? It usually works.
Indeed. Half the population is of below average intelligence, and many people have little idea or interest in how policies are to be implemented. That's the problem with democracy. It's all a bit crap, but on the whole the alternatives have proven to be worse.
The purpose of elections is to make sure our politicians have to worry about the voters when it's not election time.
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%) 1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%) 1.1 million are retired (11.5%) 1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%) 205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%) 2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
Thanks for providing the breakdown of the figures. All I said was that a 25% non-working rate seemed like a lot. There was no need for you to direct any sarcasm towards me for it.
My wife hasn't been able to work for several years, I had to accept the end of my hopes for more children because we wouldn't be able to afford childcare on my income alone, and it was too much to expect of her to do so in her present condition. I know what the reality of this is like for many people.
But 1-in-4 does still seem like a lot. And less than half the total population in work does seem a bit low. Looking at figures in British history, and for other countries, would help to gain some perspective on this.
Woah! There was absolutely no sarcasm involved or intended. I only mentioned you at all as an opening for posting the figures which I find of interest. Reading back I can't actually see what could be taken as sarcasm in my posting.
Actually reading back I see the issue. The 'what a surprise' was directed at Sunak not yourself. Apologies.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Already do, but I hope you don't think that also means I'll stop pointing out hypocrisy
Can I point out that if you respond to a post/poster, by definition you are not disregarding them?
A few days ago someone posted the YouGov showing that the Tories / Sunak were still polling decently compared with the 2019 level with Indian voters.
Has got me wondering whether those seats with large affluent Indian populations - also where parents might send kids to private school more than in other parts of the country - might be value for betting on the Tories.
The private school itself is often in a different constituency to where the parents live so will need to take that into account but I’m sure someone in the know might help with the above?
More generally if there are any areas where it’s got a good proportion of BAME parents sending their kids to private school in the constituency, that might be more of a factor than is measured by polling.
Harrow East is the value bet. If Savanta is right, the Conservatives will hold it.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
I hope they would realise offering voters the moon on a stick is not acceptable either
Why wouldn't it be? It usually works.
Indeed. Half the population is of below average intelligence, and many people have little idea or interest in how policies are to be implemented. That's the problem with democracy. It's all a bit crap, but on the whole the alternatives have proven to be worse.
The purpose of elections is to make sure our politicians have to worry about the voters when it's not election time.
Pippa Crerar on X even now saying Starmers 'i will be a part time PM' comments are cutting through. As unfair as that is given the context, and the full quote, its a really stupid thing to say in the run in. Of course it makes no overall difference but its the sort of thing that might tip a few seats and undecideds/Tory waverers/Labour distrusters It does suggest a bit of complacency had sunk in to me
Starmer's Sheffield Rally.
See above
Tories most seat 230-1.
I'm on (as a massive value loser). Assume you are?
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
That would be a great team .
The problem with polls that suggest no other current Dems would do much better than Biden is that many Americans don’t know much about those candidates .
If Biden would just see sense and stand down that would give time for someone else .
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
The key is how well they do in the battleground states. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada. Would Whitmer have an advantage in the Rust Belt and could Ossoff give them a tick up in the Sun Belt?
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Can I wade in here? Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who? So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
But basically, be politer to Big G, ok?
Fourthly, everyone knew he'd vote for the Conservatives anyway. No big surprise; no big deal.
What Big G is being punished for is his scrupulous transparency and honesty.
In the modern parlance he’s been on a journey. It’s a journey back to where Big G started and where everyone expected him to end up so perhaps worthy of less interest and vituperation than he’s received.
The cut through of this Starmer Friday evening family time story shows to me he has been spot on to run this Ming Vase campaign all along. Anyone complaining that he/Labour have been too ‘safe’ needs only look at how his quotes were blown out of all serious proportion.
What a ridiculous country and ridiculous media environment we have where this is something that actually resonates with some people.
I mean, are people genuinely thick enough to believe that if something serious happened at 6:10pm on a Friday, like a terrorist attack or a war or something, Starmer would turn around and say “Sod off, me and my kids are playing Scrabble” ?
This is a guy who has literally been a lawyer for a lot of his life, at a very high level. I’m sure he’s worked far more 2ams than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss et al.
It gives off a subliminal vibe of 'nation first, but only during office hours' Or, Police Squad wise 'not one man on this force will rest for one moment until we find the killer' 'right, let's get a spot of lunch'
That it's getting cut through reinforces to me that there are millions of people out there who really really want it to cut through.
There is reflexive support for the Conservative party in this country, built on a century of it being the "natural party of government", that means that regardless of how shit a Tory government might be, no matter how disillusioned people might become of it, many of them will always secretly be hoping for the excuse to come back home. Like returning to an unreliable, abusive or cheating lover.
Now the election is upon us all the bluster of the last few weeks and the supposed outrage at Sunak and his cabinet fades away. People and pundits reach around for something, anything, to justify a last minute swing back to the good old Tory fold. And here it is - weak sauce, but it'll do. Keir Starmer is a part timer who is too lazy to focus on the country. Unlike his illustrious predecessors like Boris Johnson or essay crisis Cameron. If it weren't that story it would be something else - tax, supermajority, even the fact that Labour "will be no better than the Tories" might be enough to get people voting for...the Tories.
This is just British electoral logic. It may not be enough to save the Tories from some form of defeat this time, but just watch those last few opinion polls.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Already do, but I hope you don't think that also means I'll stop pointing out hypocrisy
Oh, I guess you won't be voting Starmer then?
Correct, I won't be
And yet you seem so keen for him to be PM. Hypocrite.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
I don't see this being 1992. But I do think it possible we could end up with a far smaller Labour majority than has been predicted te last few weeks. Sadly it also means the Tory party will fail to slide down the plughole.
Sadly only in the sense you want Farage to be Leader of the Opposition which most on here don't
No, as I have made absolutely clear on many occasions, I don't want Farage anywhere near the Tory party, or power. I just don't want the Tory party to survive. It will send a powerful message to the other parties and politicians generally if the oldest party in British politics ends up in the sewer.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
The reality is that the Tory Party has been many different complexions over the years, so for once your usual sensible analysis doesn't stack up. If the Tory Party completely dies we will be a soft socialist state. Many people may like that. As someone who believes in enterprise and the ability of people to set up businesses and able to keep most of the money they generate without governments stealing it to splurge on featherbedding unions and the public sector I personally think that will be bad.
I did say in my follow up reply to HYUFD that I fully expected a new centre right party to emerge. I just don't see how it can come about whilst the Tory party is still in existence. I think it is broken beyond repair and simply has too much baggage.
[snip] do him the courtesy of taking it at face value [snip]
That's like saying you should treat everything in the Telegraph or the Mirror at face value. Debates are much better when you know the profound ideological or tribal bias of the speaker.
Now listen, Farooq, I like you and find you an amusing poster - and this isn't my fight - and I don't normally result to ad hominems - but I'm riled now. Stop it.
Big G isn't a massive media conglomerate with an agenda. He's a retired policeman from Llandudno. He's just telling you what he thinks at any particular time. You might reasonably think - or even say - "ah, that's just how you feel now, but I think you'll vote Con again at election time." But how he feels isn't down to bias or any sort of agenda he's trying to promote. He's just vocalising the thought processes and changes of heart that thousands of voters do over the course of the electoral cycle. We're getting to see it in real time. Isn't in fascinating? I find your implication that you are somehow morally superior for not doing this puzzling. I'm sure you've changed your mind about who you are going to vote for at one time or another - you've just kept it to yourself. Nothing inherently superior about that. And if you've never changed your mind about who you might vote for - well, that's even more peculiar. Even HYUFD has done that.
Thanks for saying that so I don't have to
Was Big G really the heat?
Part of the attraction of PB is that you get called out when you get something wrong or hold a silly position, but not to the extent people feel like they have to leave.
Otherwise BigG would hang out in the Llandudno motorists FB group, and I'd be in the cycle lanes proliferation WhatsApp group. And both all the poorer for it - literally, as I've adjusted my betting position based on BigG's posts!
Not sure you are right on that
I am always very courteous to all cyclists not least because my son, daughter in law and three grandchildren are cyclists, but also the 20mph issue in Wales is being resolved by the Welsh government and it should not be an issue going forward
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Can I wade in here? Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who? So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
But basically, be politer to Big G, ok?
Fourthly, everyone knew he'd vote for the Conservatives anyway. No big surprise; no big deal.
What Big G is being punished for is his scrupulous transparency and honesty.
In the modern parlance he’s been on a journey. It’s a journey back to where Big G started and where everyone expected him to end up so perhaps worthy of less interest and vituperation than he’s received.
Like an odyssey?
Big Gysseus was tempted by the siren call of the LDs but tied himself to the mast..
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
And I'd say good on him. PM needs to be a human being with his family.
Yes, clocking off at 6 on Friday doesn't seem unreasonable. Can't say I'm often still at my desk at that time.
If the family are living in Downing Street it's not like he's too far from the action either.
It is quite likely the Starmer family will spend Friday afternoons pootling up to Chequers for the weekend anyway, so the whole thing is a bit of a nonsense from either side.
He will get a lot of gyp now though from people asking him who will be running the country from 6pm Friday to Monday morning and people saying “it’s alright for you to clock off at 6 on a Friday, some of us junior doctors work all weekend so give us 35% you bastard” (they won’t actually say this).
It would be ironic if Starmer turns out to be just as inept at retail politics as the current incumbent.
But not remotely surprising. I thought that, for a barrister, he was woeful in the first debate.
I have heard that in the CPS the mediocre will always rise to the top.
One things we do not do is discuss the death of cash.
Speaking professionally, withdrawing more than £100 plus flags up on most bank systems as a risk if it happens enough times.
I go to the cash point every week, withdraw the amount of spending money I need for the week, and buy food and travel and things. My commuting costs are around a grand a month. So I take more than £100 out of the account at least once a week, and have done for decades now...
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
Tories most seat is 230.
Two hundred and thirty. You could back your opinion with a ton and win £23,000 if you are right. Twenty three thousand pounds on a £100 bet! Now, I assume you have taken that bet and that you are not just posturing on here to garner attention. Right? Because if you haven't you must either be full of shit or utterly stupid. Which is it?
A few days ago someone posted the YouGov showing that the Tories / Sunak were still polling decently compared with the 2019 level with Indian voters.
Has got me wondering whether those seats with large affluent Indian populations - also where parents might send kids to private school more than in other parts of the country - might be value for betting on the Tories.
The private school itself is often in a different constituency to where the parents live so will need to take that into account but I’m sure someone in the know might help with the above?
More generally if there are any areas where it’s got a good proportion of BAME parents sending their kids to private school in the constituency, that might be more of a factor than is measured by polling.
My constituency, a leafy suburb of the second city, has been predicted to go from Conservative to Labour by some of the polls. But I think that is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons, one of them being the relatively high number of affluent people of Indian heritage who I imagine are more likely to stick with the Conservatives. Dismay at the Labour council's handling of the city finances and the fact that our Tory MP isn't one of the headbangers are other factors that will help to keep him in the job.
Their insistent use of 'supermajority' - an obscure technical term that effectively means 'majority' in the British system - leaves me baffled. Sunak was PM of a government with a supermajority for almost 20 months and the world didn't end.
I get that it's supposed to sound vaguely scary, but won't most people tune it out as being jargon for political geeks? Honestly, it reminds me of nothing so much as one of the really bad Star Trek episodes, where everything hinges on some bit of technobabble.
48 hours to reverse the polarity of the Starmertron beam!
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
I don't see this being 1992. But I do think it possible we could end up with a far smaller Labour majority than has been predicted te last few weeks. Sadly it also means the Tory party will fail to slide down the plughole.
Sadly only in the sense you want Farage to be Leader of the Opposition which most on here don't
No, as I have made absolutely clear on many occasions, I don't want Farage anywhere near the Tory party, or power. I just don't want the Tory party to survive. It will send a powerful message to the other parties and politicians generally if the oldest party in British politics ends up in the sewer.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
The reality is that the Tory Party has been many different complexions over the years, so for once your usual sensible analysis doesn't stack up. If the Tory Party completely dies we will be a soft socialist state. Many people may like that. As someone who believes in enterprise and the ability of people to set up businesses and able to keep most of the money they generate without governments stealing it to splurge on featherbedding unions and the public sector I personally think that will be bad.
I did say in my follow up reply to HYUFD that I fully expected a new centre right party to emerge. I just don't see how it can come about whilst the Tory party is still in existence. I think it is broken beyond repair and simply has too much baggage.
There is no certainty that would happen though. The Conservative Party, when it was effective, was always a broad church, and this would be very difficult to recreate. It could take a century, which is what all socialists hope for. That way perhaps Jeremy Corbyn, or his heirs might one day be "a great Prime Minister". This is what we have to look forward to if the Conservatives are destroyed.
A few days ago someone posted the YouGov showing that the Tories / Sunak were still polling decently compared with the 2019 level with Indian voters.
Has got me wondering whether those seats with large affluent Indian populations - also where parents might send kids to private school more than in other parts of the country - might be value for betting on the Tories.
The private school itself is often in a different constituency to where the parents live so will need to take that into account but I’m sure someone in the know might help with the above?
More generally if there are any areas where it’s got a good proportion of BAME parents sending their kids to private school in the constituency, that might be more of a factor than is measured by polling.
It might but say the average school has 1,000 pupils and none are siblings (to make the arithmetic easier) and each pupil has two parents, and none of the sixth formers remembers their photo ID (again, to help the arithmetic) then we are only talking about 2,000 votes in an election where majorities of 20,000 are not thought safe.
And probably most parents who send their children to private schools vote Conservative already (pace Diane Abbott).
ETA but @Sunil_Prasannan's manor, Ilford North has at least one private school, and is not expected to declare until 5am (obviously the school does not teach fast counting) so your bet will give you maximum pleasure until Wes Streeting wins again.
You will recall we have been counting independent Leanne's posters, so that will help too.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
I don't see this being 1992. But I do think it possible we could end up with a far smaller Labour majority than has been predicted te last few weeks. Sadly it also means the Tory party will fail to slide down the plughole.
Sadly only in the sense you want Farage to be Leader of the Opposition which most on here don't
No, as I have made absolutely clear on many occasions, I don't want Farage anywhere near the Tory party, or power. I just don't want the Tory party to survive. It will send a powerful message to the other parties and politicians generally if the oldest party in British politics ends up in the sewer.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
The reality is that the Tory Party has been many different complexions over the years, so for once your usual sensible analysis doesn't stack up. If the Tory Party completely dies we will be a soft socialist state. Many people may like that. As someone who believes in enterprise and the ability of people to set up businesses and able to keep most of the money they generate without governments stealing it to splurge on featherbedding unions and the public sector I personally think that will be bad.
I have been quite bullish on the Lib Dems and Reform all election but I think even if the Tories come 3rd or even 4th in seats they are not dead forever.
Even if the Farage merger happens I think he might get bored quite quickly - it would likely be 5 years waiting as LOTO at best, does he really have the patience for that? He might be 65 by the time a chance at power comes along - definitely not too old for the job but it’s a long slog until then.
Meanwhile the Tory party still has significant presence in the Lords etc, still a part of public life. There would still be some natural clamouring for one.
Say that in 2026, the LOTO Ed Davey announces the Lib Dems are backing a return to the EU. He gains some 20 Labour MPs, dissatisfied with Starmer and seeking more prominence anyway, who defect - but he loses some who think that returning to the EU might be devastating to their chances of re election in their former Tory heartland seats. A space opens up again for a ‘New Conservative’ Party that begins to tempt some away from Farage’s merged party too.
The above might look a bit fanciful but it’s more an illustration of a potential scenario that shows the volatility that could come our way and that nothing is set in stone anymore. I think the next few years are far from certain and there are a lot of paths open. We’re likely about to go from an 80 seat Tory majority to a 200+ seat Labour one, so I’m not going to write off some kind of Conservative victory in 2029 by any means.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
I hope they would realise offering voters the moon on a stick is not acceptable either
Why wouldn't it be? It usually works.
Indeed. Half the population is of below average intelligence, and many people have little idea or interest in how policies are to be implemented.
Pippa Crerar on X even now saying Starmers 'i will be a part time PM' comments are cutting through. As unfair as that is given the context, and the full quote, its a really stupid thing to say in the run in. Of course it makes no overall difference but its the sort of thing that might tip a few seats and undecideds/Tory waverers/Labour distrusters It does suggest a bit of complacency had sunk in to me
Dave had his dvd nights, BJ was a poster boy for laziness.
It's the Jewish angle that I find interesting. On the one hand it wrong foots the critics for not knowing and respecting Jewish practices (I knew when the Sabbath starts because I used to instruct an orthodox barrister and if you wanted advice on a Friday in winter you made sure to ring early). OTOH I am not sure if I knew lady s was Jewish. That fact coming to prominence could do labour harm in Muslim heavy constituencies.
It won’t be a problem as tomorrow, Starmer will tell us he will be taking Friday mornings off as well, so that he can attend Friday prayers.
He could go the whole hog and do what LD controlled S Cambs DC have done and move to a four day week for the same pay. They claim it is a policy success. Most residents beg to differ.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
I hope they would realise offering voters the moon on a stick is not acceptable either
Why wouldn't it be? It usually works.
It has reduced the most successful political party in UK history to the brink of extinction.
Their insistent use of 'supermajority' - an obscure technical term that effectively means 'majority' in the British system - leaves me baffled. Sunak was PM of a government with a supermajority for almost 20 months and the world didn't end.
I get that it's supposed to sound vaguely scary, but won't most people tune it out as being jargon for political geeks? Honestly, it reminds me of nothing so much as one of the really bad Star Trek episodes, where everything hinges on some bit of technobabble.
48 hours to reverse the polarity of the Starmertron beam!
I think it’s suitably sneaky and smart using the phrase even though it doesn’t really mean anything. It will make people think of cheat modes in games, power plays in cricket, super-powers, special levels of power.
Anyone who isn’t a huge fan of Labour who also isn’t big into politics will be thinking “if the Tories under Boris did x with their majority just think what Labour might do with a supermajority”.
Any background fears about taxes, rejoining the EU, compulsory Pride week celebrating, having their homes sold to pay reparations to Jamaica, will all be closer to reality now that Labour could have a Supermajority. Like Trump being above the law, just don’t give people all the powers.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
I imagine most voters, if they hear about it, will be bemused by the idea that it's a story at all.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
I imagine most voters, if they hear about it, will be bemused by the idea that it's a story at all.
It's not on the BBC home page, nor is it on the Mail's home page (that I can see, it might be buried somewhere).
It seems to be a BIG STORY on PB, particularly with the increasingly desperate @Mexicanpete – but that is rather a different thing.
A few days ago someone posted the YouGov showing that the Tories / Sunak were still polling decently compared with the 2019 level with Indian voters.
Has got me wondering whether those seats with large affluent Indian populations - also where parents might send kids to private school more than in other parts of the country - might be value for betting on the Tories.
The private school itself is often in a different constituency to where the parents live so will need to take that into account but I’m sure someone in the know might help with the above?
More generally if there are any areas where it’s got a good proportion of BAME parents sending their kids to private school in the constituency, that might be more of a factor than is measured by polling.
Harrow East is the value bet. If Savanta is right, the Conservatives will hold it.
Interesting thanks, at the odds it looks good. Labour came decently close in 2017 though and I notice they have selected an Indian candidate this time who lives in the seat - think they’ll probably get over the line there.
This imbecile literally endorsed a convicted felon.
Speaker Mike Johnson on Fox News: "The president and VP are the only two offices in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people. No one who is elected to that office is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1807930573207302602
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
There's maybe 12 hours left to shape anything. Tomorrow is too late and Thurs 7am reporting closes down. So for anything to ' take' now you've got to get it out, noticed, reported and shared probably by the early evening news
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%) 1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%) 1.1 million are retired (11.5%) 1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%) 205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%) 2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
How many of the 2.8 million are on difficult to verify mental health conditions (numbers have exploded since backache got harder to claim on)?
And do the mental health conditions actually make it impossible to work for months or years (obviously some will) and will being stuck at home improve or worsen matters?
That is where the focus needs to be.
I agree. But even if half of those long term sick are capable of returning to work it is still not a huge dent in the Economically Inactive numbers. It helps but not much.
Individual cases will vary, but to comprehend the general phenomena as usual the quickest way is to follow the money.
This imbecile literally endorsed a convicted felon.
Speaker Mike Johnson on Fox News: "The president and VP are the only two offices in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people. No one who is elected to that office is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1807930573207302602
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
There's maybe 12 hours left to shape anything. Tomorrow is too late and Thurs 7am reporting closes down. So for anything to ' take' now you've got to get it out, noticed, reported and shared probably by the early evening news
There definitely needs to be something. To remind the electorate of the never ending soap opera they’ve been forced to witness since 2015.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
Could this in fact motivate the anti-Tory vote even more, I wonder?
We're all in the realm of suppositions at this point. Most normal people care much more about the football (or whatever) and just want this nonsense settled.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
Tories most seat is 230.
Two hundred and thirty. You could back your opinion with a ton and win £23,000 if you are right. Twenty three thousand pounds on a £100 bet! Now, I assume you have taken that bet and that you are not just posturing on here to garner attention. Right? Because if you haven't you must either be full of shit or utterly stupid. Which is it?
Relatedly - It’s amusing to me how many people on here often say “X has a >90% chance of happening” - but they’re not interested in taking up any bets of that nature!
“I can’t see the Tories falling below 150 seats in a million years” - well you can get some outstanding odds on them getting 150 or more!
Indeed. That's an unwelcome trend that has come to the fore on PB in recent years.
Mike would very often call posters out on it, asking them to back up their contrary views with evidence or at least some analysis – because, if they were right, there was big money to be won for all of us from low stakes. That seems to have gone out of the window. You now have daily posts from the likes of @Mexicanpete repeatedly calling a 1992 when such an outcome would be insanely profitable for all members.
Mike had a line: "Political gamblers back their opinions up with hard cash." Or words to that effect.
I write this as someone who is massively green on NOM etc– but it's emotional insurance, not something I can back up with any evidence or analysis.
The only rational conclusion is that the rampers do it merely for attention or to somehow destabilise the 'other side' not from any conviction and certainly not one backed up by hard cash. It's trollcasting, not tipping.
Off to hospital again for a consultation, and this is my photo quota for the day, about evolving parking and how "not invented here" syndrome in the Highways Authority still manages to semi-f*ck-it-up.
This is a new cycle hangar for 6 standard cycles, installed in a terraced area of Plymouth *, on the corner of Tokar Street, and Adair Road.
The normal consultation processes having been followed, a few people are cross because 'we weren't told' and 'it will cause lots of road accidents'. Quite how a non-moving inanimate object smaller than the twice-as-large vehicle that was there before will compel people to drive their vehicles into it is not explained.
But I note:
1 - It is positioned in the last space to the junction, not far from a window, and it may be that the extra movements caused by 6 cycles stored may be more interefering than doors slamming etc on one vehicle. 2 - This positioning makes it vulnerable. There are recessed parking bays * round the corner, where it could form a single less intrusive visual block with the protecting tree on the corner, or garden or blank walls several spaces in where it would be better protected and risk of intrusive noise designed out. 3 - Had the Council consulted with somewhere more experienced (eg Lambeth), they could have missed these maybe-unobvious-to-the-average-engineer mistakes. 4 - Baby steps in the right direction, but two forward and one back. Sweat the detail, guys; it makes a hell of a difference.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
Tories most seat is 230.
Two hundred and thirty. You could back your opinion with a ton and win £23,000 if you are right. Twenty three thousand pounds on a £100 bet! Now, I assume you have taken that bet and that you are not just posturing on here to garner attention. Right? Because if you haven't you must either be full of shit or utterly stupid. Which is it?
Relatedly - It’s amusing to me how many people on here often say “X has a >90% chance of happening” - but they’re not interested in taking up any bets of that nature!
“I can’t see the Tories falling below 150 seats in a million years” - well you can get some outstanding odds on them getting 150 or more!
Indeed. That's an unwelcome trend that has come to the fore on PB in recent years.
Mike would very often call posters out on it, asking them to back up their contrary views with evidence or at least some analysis – because, if they were right, there was big money to be won for all of us from low stakes. That seems to have gone out of the window. You now have daily posts from the likes of @Mexicanpete repeatedly calling a 1992 when such an outcome would be insanely profitable for all members.
Mike had a line: "Political gamblers back their opinions up with hard cash." Or words to that effect.
I write this as someone who is massively green on NOM etc– but it's emotional insurance, not something I can back up with any evidence or analysis.
The only rational conclusion is that the rampers do it merely for attention or to somehow destabilise the 'other side' not from any conviction and certainly not one backed up by hard cash. It's trollcasting, not tipping.
If I had to guess where value is, I'd lay the Tories in any range from 100-200 seats.
If this is a normal election, then they will probably not lose more than 160 seats all in one go.
If this really is an earthquake, then there's no limit to how far they'll stop falling and they could easily end up in double figures.
The middle seems to me the least likely landing ground.
Personally I still would not be at all surprised by NOM, or a Labour majority in comfortable double figures. I would be somewhat surprised by these massive landslides people keep talking about.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
There's maybe 12 hours left to shape anything. Tomorrow is too late and Thurs 7am reporting closes down. So for anything to ' take' now you've got to get it out, noticed, reported and shared probably by the early evening news
I had a look at the politics pages of the Telegraph, Express, Mail and GB News, and couldn't even find the Starmer 6pm story.
I'd have thought, if it really was cutting through as a negative issue, that it would be pretty visible on a couple of those sites.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
I imagine most voters, if they hear about it, will be bemused by the idea that it's a story at all.
I would for preference vote for a PM who is good at spotting to whom to delegate, never works in the evenings if he can help it, has loads of time to talk to the children, reads hard books not about politics, goes racing at obscure weekday meetings, sets aside proper time for the Ashes series etc, and, like Disraeli, reads Pride and Prejudice at least once a year.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
Tories most seat is 230.
Two hundred and thirty. You could back your opinion with a ton and win £23,000 if you are right. Twenty three thousand pounds on a £100 bet! Now, I assume you have taken that bet and that you are not just posturing on here to garner attention. Right? Because if you haven't you must either be full of shit or utterly stupid. Which is it?
Relatedly - It’s amusing to me how many people on here often say “X has a >90% chance of happening” - but they’re not interested in taking up any bets of that nature!
“I can’t see the Tories falling below 150 seats in a million years” - well you can get some outstanding odds on them getting 150 or more!
Indeed. That's an unwelcome trend that has come to the fore on PB in recent years.
Mike would very often call posters out on it, asking them to back up their contrary views with evidence or at least some analysis – because, if they were right, there was big money to be won for all of us from low stakes. That seems to have gone out of the window. You now have daily posts from the likes of @Mexicanpete repeatedly calling a 1992 when such an outcome would be insanely profitable for all members.
Mike had a line: "Political gamblers back their opinions up with hard cash." Or words to that effect.
I write this as someone who is massively green on NOM etc– but it's emotional insurance, not something I can back up with any evidence or analysis.
The only rational conclusion is that the rampers do it merely for attention or to somehow destabilise the 'other side' not from any conviction and certainly not one backed up by hard cash. It's trollcasting, not tipping.
If I had to guess where value is, I'd lay the Tories in any range from 100-200 seats.
If this is a normal election, then they will probably not lose more than 160 seats all in one go.
If this really is an earthquake, then there's no limit to how far they'll stop falling and they could easily end up in double figures.
The middle seems to me the least likely landing ground.
Personally I still would not be at all surprised by NOM, or a Labour majority in comfortable double figures. I would be somewhat surprised by these massive landslides people keep talking about.
I have bets open on Labour over 500 seats (at 16/1 now 18/1) and Tories 150-199 seats at 9/1.
Both are unlikely and clearly mutually exclusive but they were plausible value bets when I made them.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
I imagine most voters, if they hear about it, will be bemused by the idea that it's a story at all.
Yeah, seems like a weird one to me. "Man spends one evening a week with family". It's hardly Partygate.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
There's maybe 12 hours left to shape anything. Tomorrow is too late and Thurs 7am reporting closes down. So for anything to ' take' now you've got to get it out, noticed, reported and shared probably by the early evening news
I had a look at the politics pages of the Telegraph, Express, Mail and GB News, and couldn't even find the Starmer 6pm story.
I'd have thought, if it really was cutting through as a negative issue, that it would be pretty visible on a couple of those sites.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
I imagine most voters, if they hear about it, will be bemused by the idea that it's a story at all.
Yeah, seems like a weird one to me. "Man spends one evening a week with family". It's hardly Partygate.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
I imagine most voters, if they hear about it, will be bemused by the idea that it's a story at all.
I would for preference vote for a PM who is good at spotting to whom to delegate, never works in the evenings if he can help it, has loads of time to talk to the children, reads hard books not about politics, goes racing at obscure weekday meetings, sets aside proper time for the Ashes series etc, and, like Disraeli, reads Pride and Prejudice at least once a year.
So would I, but remember the people this needs to “convince” are the died in the wool Tories who were contemplating sitting it out or voting Reform on Thursday but really keen to find a last minute excuse to vote Conservative. Same with a supermajority nonsense.
Rowena Mason @rowenamason · 1h Rishi Sunak has twice spoken up just now about how important family is to him, saying it is the “most important thing” - despite his ministers going out this morning to criticise Keir Starmer for saying he would carve out Friday evenings for his children.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
Tories most seat is 230.
Two hundred and thirty. You could back your opinion with a ton and win £23,000 if you are right. Twenty three thousand pounds on a £100 bet! Now, I assume you have taken that bet and that you are not just posturing on here to garner attention. Right? Because if you haven't you must either be full of shit or utterly stupid. Which is it?
Relatedly - It’s amusing to me how many people on here often say “X has a >90% chance of happening” - but they’re not interested in taking up any bets of that nature!
“I can’t see the Tories falling below 150 seats in a million years” - well you can get some outstanding odds on them getting 150 or more!
Indeed. That's an unwelcome trend that has come to the fore on PB in recent years.
Mike would very often call posters out on it, asking them to back up their contrary views with evidence or at least some analysis – because, if they were right, there was big money to be won for all of us from low stakes. That seems to have gone out of the window. You now have daily posts from the likes of @Mexicanpete repeatedly calling a 1992 when such an outcome would be insanely profitable for all members.
Mike had a line: "Political gamblers back their opinions up with hard cash." Or words to that effect.
I write this as someone who is massively green on NOM etc– but it's emotional insurance, not something I can back up with any evidence or analysis.
The only rational conclusion is that the rampers do it merely for attention or to somehow destabilise the 'other side' not from any conviction and certainly not one backed up by hard cash. It's trollcasting, not tipping.
If I had to guess where value is, I'd lay the Tories in any range from 100-200 seats.
If this is a normal election, then they will probably not lose more than 160 seats all in one go.
If this really is an earthquake, then there's no limit to how far they'll stop falling and they could easily end up in double figures.
The middle seems to me the least likely landing ground.
Personally I still would not be at all surprised by NOM, or a Labour majority in comfortable double figures. I would be somewhat surprised by these massive landslides people keep talking about.
Serious predictions for Tory seats range roughly from 50-high 200s. A single article in the Economist this week suggested: 76, a 'central estimate' of 185, and 117.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
There's maybe 12 hours left to shape anything. Tomorrow is too late and Thurs 7am reporting closes down. So for anything to ' take' now you've got to get it out, noticed, reported and shared probably by the early evening news
I had a look at the politics pages of the Telegraph, Express, Mail and GB News, and couldn't even find the Starmer 6pm story.
I'd have thought, if it really was cutting through as a negative issue, that it would be pretty visible on a couple of those sites.
It's bloody bizarre when only a week or so back, Sunak complimented Starmer on managing his work/life balance.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
I imagine most voters, if they hear about it, will be bemused by the idea that it's a story at all.
Yeah, seems like a weird one to me. "Man spends one evening a week with family". It's hardly Partygate.
Don't forget, he also had a number of girlfriends before he met his wife!
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Just a few days now, and you can get back to telling us why you won't be voting Conservative the next time!
You really are rather sad and as a Lib Dem not really a great recruiting sergeant for your cause
Indeed BIg G. Rather proving that old adage that there’s nowt so illiberal as a Liberal. @IanB2 contributed to my decision not to vote LibDem in Newton Abbot. His repeated ‘mistruths’ about it annoyed me one too many times.
I am so glad you and your wife went up the Snowdon railway, although not so good about the weather conditions near the summit, nor the clothing some were wearing.
"Peter Hitchens @ClarkeMicah Polls are not always right. The election is on Thursday. You still have a mind and a will, if you want to use them .
Quote North Britannia, Vote Reform @NorthBritannia · 2h Replying to @ClarkeMicah and @Mary_Lawes Labour are polling at 40%, Tories less than 20%, we aren’t putting Labour in Peter Tory vote collapsed, they betrayed what England voted for, if Reform didn’t exist I wouldn’t vote, Tories ignored and rode roughshod over 2019 vote, now we must focus on real opposition party."
Rowena Mason @rowenamason · 1h Rishi Sunak has twice spoken up just now about how important family is to him, saying it is the “most important thing” - despite his ministers going out this morning to criticise Keir Starmer for saying he would carve out Friday evenings for his children.
Sunak is a desperate hypocrite plus a load of rude words.
You could characterise a successful politician as one who can tell two different audiences two different contradictory things, and have each audience trust in what they are told, and an unsuccessful politician is one who does the same, but have each audience believe more in the message they don't want to hear.
This imbecile literally endorsed a convicted felon.
Speaker Mike Johnson on Fox News: "The president and VP are the only two offices in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people. No one who is elected to that office is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1807930573207302602
He is not an imbecile. He is an a*se-kisser who hopes for largesse from King Donald I after his coronation.
What I am wondering is this: since all official Presidential acts are above the law now, what is stopping King Biden I from tossing the Justices and Trump into a dungeon without trial?
A few days ago someone posted the YouGov showing that the Tories / Sunak were still polling decently compared with the 2019 level with Indian voters.
Has got me wondering whether those seats with large affluent Indian populations - also where parents might send kids to private school more than in other parts of the country - might be value for betting on the Tories.
The private school itself is often in a different constituency to where the parents live so will need to take that into account but I’m sure someone in the know might help with the above?
More generally if there are any areas where it’s got a good proportion of BAME parents sending their kids to private school in the constituency, that might be more of a factor than is measured by polling.
Harrow East is the value bet. If Savanta is right, the Conservatives will hold it.
Which Savanta is this? The Savanta MRP I'm looking at has Lab winning it by 49.6% to 33.2%.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
There's maybe 12 hours left to shape anything. Tomorrow is too late and Thurs 7am reporting closes down. So for anything to ' take' now you've got to get it out, noticed, reported and shared probably by the early evening news
I had a look at the politics pages of the Telegraph, Express, Mail and GB News, and couldn't even find the Starmer 6pm story.
I'd have thought, if it really was cutting through as a negative issue, that it would be pretty visible on a couple of those sites.
It's bloody bizarre when only a week or so back, Sunak complimented Starmer on managing his work/life balance.
And bizarre that the Conservative minister for mental health has now waded in, criticising Starmer for not working a 20 hour day like she does. You can’t make it up.
These tories really do deserve to be booted into the long grass for a long long time
This imbecile literally endorsed a convicted felon.
Speaker Mike Johnson on Fox News: "The president and VP are the only two offices in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people. No one who is elected to that office is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1807930573207302602
He is not an imbecile. He is an a*se-kisser who hopes for largesse from King Donald I after his coronation.
What I am wondering is this: since all official Presidential acts are above the law now, what is stopping King Biden I from tossing the Justices and Trump into a dungeon without trial?
Apparently, the legality cannot be an issue...
Even better he could put six Supreme Judges in said dungeon for a week and then ask them to reconsider their decision.
This imbecile literally endorsed a convicted felon.
Speaker Mike Johnson on Fox News: "The president and VP are the only two offices in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people. No one who is elected to that office is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1807930573207302602
He is not an imbecile. He is an a*se-kisser who hopes for largesse from King Donald I after his coronation.
What I am wondering is this: since all official Presidential acts are above the law now, what is stopping King Biden I from tossing the Justices and Trump into a dungeon without trial?
Apparently, the legality cannot be an issue...
He's an imbecile.
What's stopping Biden ? He thinks it would be wrong.
A constitutional ruling enabling criminals applies to all, but is really only to the benefit of those who want to commit crimes.
Sunak in Banbury and Witney this morning. Conservative majorities of 17000 and 15000 respectively. Losing both would be not quite ELE but not far off.
But lose both of them they will. Unless they can somehow get the small reform votes in these seats back
Labour are probably going to take Banbury. Witney is more touch and go because Labour's parachuted-in candidate is running a spoiler operation much like certain other Oxfordshire constituencies.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Just a few days now, and you can get back to telling us why you won't be voting Conservative the next time!
You really are rather sad and as a Lib Dem not really a great recruiting sergeant for your cause
Indeed BIg G. Rather proving that old adage that there’s nowt so illiberal as a Liberal. @IanB2 contributed to my decision not to vote LibDem in Newton Abbot. His repeated ‘mistruths’ about it annoyed me one too many times.
I am so glad you and your wife went up the Snowdon railway, although not so good about the weather conditions near the summit, nor the clothing some were wearing.
That's a big sense of humour fail, there
No-one should expect to post on an internet discussion forum free of criticism or comeback. And most especially after a repeat offence.
Let's see what the final models suggest for Newton Abbot; the stuff posted earlier was all legitimate; what turns out to be accurate, no-one yet knows.
A few days ago someone posted the YouGov showing that the Tories / Sunak were still polling decently compared with the 2019 level with Indian voters.
Has got me wondering whether those seats with large affluent Indian populations - also where parents might send kids to private school more than in other parts of the country - might be value for betting on the Tories.
The private school itself is often in a different constituency to where the parents live so will need to take that into account but I’m sure someone in the know might help with the above?
More generally if there are any areas where it’s got a good proportion of BAME parents sending their kids to private school in the constituency, that might be more of a factor than is measured by polling.
Harrow East is the value bet. If Savanta is right, the Conservatives will hold it.
Which Savanta is this? The Savanta MRP I'm looking at has Lab winning it by 49.6% to 33.2%.
This imbecile literally endorsed a convicted felon.
Speaker Mike Johnson on Fox News: "The president and VP are the only two offices in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people. No one who is elected to that office is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1807930573207302602
He is not an imbecile. He is an a*se-kisser who hopes for largesse from King Donald I after his coronation.
What I am wondering is this: since all official Presidential acts are above the law now, what is stopping King Biden I from tossing the Justices and Trump into a dungeon without trial?
Apparently, the legality cannot be an issue...
Even better he could put six Supreme Judges in said dungeon for a week and then ask them to reconsider their decision.
Wasn't there a jury in England who were locked up by a judge on bread and water for a week after they refused to bring in a guilty verdict?
Edit- my mistake, he refused them bread and water. It was in the trial of William Penn as well.
Quite funny that Rishi Sunak's response to Starmer was that he had never finished work before 6pm.
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
I think Starmer's only hope to disrupt the swingback narrative in these last couple of days is probably to come out with an aggressive takedown of Sunak - linked perhaps to partygate, D-Day and various other issues - that gets on to the news headlines. He can't let this story fester and give the government a free pass.
I imagine most voters, if they hear about it, will be bemused by the idea that it's a story at all.
I would for preference vote for a PM who is good at spotting to whom to delegate, never works in the evenings if he can help it, has loads of time to talk to the children, reads hard books not about politics, goes racing at obscure weekday meetings, sets aside proper time for the Ashes series etc, and, like Disraeli, reads Pride and Prejudice at least once a year.
I must say that my first thought on reading Sunak's "I've never stopped work before 6" was "If only you had ..."
Before I remembered the partying in the afternoon, that is.
What I can't understand is why the Democrats seem so convinced that any candidate other than Joe Biden would lose to Donald Trump, and therefore have to stick with Biden.
Comments
I've been for a blood test this morning, in prep for an appointment at lunchtime.
It seems my hospital blood test clinic now allows online bookings of timeslots in addition to the supermarket queue ticket machine, and tells me that since they marked my test 'urgent' it will be done and results available in 4 or 5 minutes, as allowed on the day of the appointment.
That means I can now turn up 30 minutes early and still get the blood test done on time - NHS TQM. That saves, for example, 2 visits taking up places in the car park if I drive.
Still no secure cycle parking, though.
Can you imagine Starmer going on GMTV (is that a programme?) and saying “well Dermot, I feel nice and refreshed as when I finished at 6 on Friday I went off to Chequers with the fam and just relaxed for the weekend. We had a lovely bbq in the grounds there as we always do on a Friday evening, looked at a few documents on Saturday morning and then we had a family padel tournament. Now it’s back to work to increase your taxes.”
They might ponder that
I must hasten to add that in the article's case it wasn't really the staff's fault, they were nice people and they did at least try. But the disconnect between the bets available online and the bets available in shop/phoneline is now so great that there was nothing they could really do.
Has got me wondering whether those seats with large affluent Indian populations - also where parents might send kids to private school more than in other parts of the country - might be value for betting on the Tories.
The private school itself is often in a different constituency to where the parents live so will need to take that into account but I’m sure someone in the know might help with the above?
More generally if there are any areas where it’s got a good proportion of BAME parents sending their kids to private school in the constituency, that might be more of a factor than is measured by polling.
My judgement is possibly a bit poor this morning due to the terrible cold I am suffering. Why is it that young children are so delightful to spend time with, but also incubators of all the worst infections?
But of course, governing is different. By the time a new PM gets the hang of it, the hubris is already setting in.
Tories most seat 230-1.
I'm on (as a massive value loser). Assume you are?
Let us know.
The problem with polls that suggest no other current Dems would do much better than Biden is that many Americans don’t know much about those candidates .
If Biden would just see sense and stand down that would give time for someone else .
The Dems sadly are in denial .
There is reflexive support for the Conservative party in this country, built on a century of it being the "natural party of government", that means that regardless of how shit a Tory government might be, no matter how disillusioned people might become of it, many of them will always secretly be hoping for the excuse to come back home. Like returning to an unreliable, abusive or cheating lover.
Now the election is upon us all the bluster of the last few weeks and the supposed outrage at Sunak and his cabinet fades away. People and pundits reach around for something, anything, to justify a last minute swing back to the good old Tory fold. And here it is - weak sauce, but it'll do. Keir Starmer is a part timer who is too lazy to focus on the country. Unlike his illustrious predecessors like Boris Johnson or essay crisis Cameron. If it weren't that story it would be something else - tax, supermajority, even the fact that Labour "will be no better than the Tories" might be enough to get people voting for...the Tories.
This is just British electoral logic. It may not be enough to save the Tories from some form of defeat this time, but just watch those last few opinion polls.
I am always very courteous to all cyclists not least because my son, daughter in law and three grandchildren are cyclists, but also the 20mph issue in Wales is being resolved by the Welsh government and it should not be an issue going forward
I'd be more inclined to combine the 44 for 200-249 seats and the 130 for 250-299 seats.
Somewhat lower reward, but a far more robust bet imo.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.223763243
I get that it's supposed to sound vaguely scary, but won't most people tune it out as being jargon for political geeks? Honestly, it reminds me of nothing so much as one of the really bad Star Trek episodes, where everything hinges on some bit of technobabble.
48 hours to reverse the polarity of the Starmertron beam!
Maybe true if you count birthday parties in the afternoon as work, I suppose.
And probably most parents who send their children to private schools vote Conservative already (pace Diane Abbott).
ETA but @Sunil_Prasannan's manor, Ilford North has at least one private school, and is not expected to declare until 5am (obviously the school does not teach fast counting) so your bet will give you maximum pleasure until Wes Streeting wins again.
You will recall we have been counting independent Leanne's posters, so that will help too.
They handed out pillows with that graphic on to the press yesterday in Hitchin
https://x.com/dlandoncole/status/1808068350947242066
Even if the Farage merger happens I think he might get bored quite quickly - it would likely be 5 years waiting as LOTO at best, does he really have the patience for that? He might be 65 by the time a chance at power comes along - definitely not too old for the job but it’s a long slog until then.
Meanwhile the Tory party still has significant presence in the Lords etc, still a part of public life. There would still be some natural clamouring for one.
Say that in 2026, the LOTO Ed Davey announces the Lib Dems are backing a return to the EU. He gains some 20 Labour MPs, dissatisfied with Starmer and seeking more prominence anyway, who defect - but he loses some who think that returning to the EU might be devastating to their chances of re election in their former Tory heartland seats. A space opens up again for a ‘New Conservative’ Party that begins to tempt some away from Farage’s merged party too.
The above might look a bit fanciful but it’s more an illustration of a potential scenario that shows the volatility that could come our way and that nothing is set in stone anymore. I think the next few years are far from certain and there are a lot of paths open. We’re likely about to go from an 80 seat Tory majority to a 200+ seat Labour one, so I’m not going to write off some kind of Conservative victory in 2029 by any means.
Anyone who isn’t a huge fan of Labour who also isn’t big into politics will be thinking “if the Tories under Boris did x with their majority just think what Labour might do with a supermajority”.
Any background fears about taxes, rejoining the EU, compulsory Pride week celebrating, having their homes sold to pay reparations to Jamaica, will all be closer to reality now that Labour could have a Supermajority. Like Trump being above the law, just don’t give people all the powers.
It seems to be a BIG STORY on PB, particularly with the increasingly desperate @Mexicanpete – but that is rather a different thing.
Speaker Mike Johnson on Fox News: "The president and VP are the only two offices in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people. No one who is elected to that office is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1807930573207302602
So for anything to ' take' now you've got to get it out, noticed, reported and shared probably by the early evening news
🇬🇧 FINAL GENERAL ELECTION MEGA POLL!
Over the weekend, we asked 20,000 respondents across Britain how they will vote on 4 July. 🗳️
Where do things stand with just two days to go until polling day?
Follow us @redfieldwilton to see the results at 5pm... ⏰
On imbeciles.
We're all in the realm of suppositions at this point. Most normal people care much more about the football (or whatever) and just want this nonsense settled.
Mike would very often call posters out on it, asking them to back up their contrary views with evidence or at least some analysis – because, if they were right, there was big money to be won for all of us from low stakes. That seems to have gone out of the window. You now have daily posts from the likes of @Mexicanpete repeatedly calling a 1992 when such an outcome would be insanely profitable for all members.
Mike had a line: "Political gamblers back their opinions up with hard cash." Or words to that effect.
I write this as someone who is massively green on NOM etc– but it's emotional insurance, not something I can back up with any evidence or analysis.
The only rational conclusion is that the rampers do it merely for attention or to somehow destabilise the 'other side' not from any conviction and certainly not one backed up by hard cash. It's trollcasting, not tipping.
This is a new cycle hangar for 6 standard cycles, installed in a terraced area of Plymouth *, on the corner of Tokar Street, and Adair Road.
The normal consultation processes having been followed, a few people are cross because 'we weren't told' and 'it will cause lots of road accidents'. Quite how a non-moving inanimate object smaller than the twice-as-large vehicle that was there before will compel people to drive their vehicles into it is not explained.
But I note:
1 - It is positioned in the last space to the junction, not far from a window, and it may be that the extra movements caused by 6 cycles stored may be more interefering than doors slamming etc on one vehicle.
2 - This positioning makes it vulnerable. There are recessed parking bays * round the corner, where it could form a single less intrusive visual block with the protecting tree on the corner, or garden or blank walls several spaces in where it would be better protected and risk of intrusive noise designed out.
3 - Had the Council consulted with somewhere more experienced (eg Lambeth), they could have missed these maybe-unobvious-to-the-average-engineer mistakes.
4 - Baby steps in the right direction, but two forward and one back. Sweat the detail, guys; it makes a hell of a difference.
* https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7854145,-1.0595199,3a,84.4y,32.57h,72.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQfYlnv2jR_cIkXau8zEc3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu
If this is a normal election, then they will probably not lose more than 160 seats all in one go.
If this really is an earthquake, then there's no limit to how far they'll stop falling and they could easily end up in double figures.
The middle seems to me the least likely landing ground.
Personally I still would not be at all surprised by NOM, or a Labour majority in comfortable double figures. I would be somewhat surprised by these massive landslides people keep talking about.
I'd have thought, if it really was cutting through as a negative issue, that it would be pretty visible on a couple of those sites.
Both are unlikely and clearly mutually exclusive but they were plausible value bets when I made them.
@rowenamason
·
1h
Rishi Sunak has twice spoken up just now about how important family is to him, saying it is the “most important thing” - despite his ministers going out this morning to criticise Keir Starmer for saying he would carve out Friday evenings for his children.
https://x.com/rowenamason/status/1808071530368180367
===
Sunak is a desperate hypocrite plus a load of rude words.
People are finding this one tricky.
FWIW I say 70.
I am so glad you and your wife went up the Snowdon railway, although not so good about the weather conditions near the summit, nor the clothing some were wearing.
@ClarkeMicah
Polls are not always right. The election is on Thursday. You still have a mind and a will, if you want to use them .
Quote
North Britannia, Vote Reform
@NorthBritannia
·
2h
Replying to @ClarkeMicah and @Mary_Lawes
Labour are polling at 40%, Tories less than 20%, we aren’t putting Labour in Peter Tory vote collapsed, they betrayed what England voted for, if Reform didn’t exist I wouldn’t vote, Tories ignored and rode roughshod over 2019 vote, now we must focus on real opposition party."
https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1808065057235816572
What I am wondering is this: since all official Presidential acts are above the law now, what is stopping King Biden I from tossing the Justices and Trump into a dungeon without trial?
Apparently, the legality cannot be an issue...
These tories really do deserve to be booted into the long grass for a long long time
What's stopping Biden ?
He thinks it would be wrong.
A constitutional ruling enabling criminals applies to all, but is really only to the benefit of those who want to commit crimes.
No-one should expect to post on an internet discussion forum free of criticism or comeback. And most especially after a repeat offence.
Let's see what the final models suggest for Newton Abbot; the stuff posted earlier was all legitimate; what turns out to be accurate, no-one yet knows.
Don't take victory for granted. Vote Labour to make sure.
Edit- my mistake, he refused them bread and water. It was in the trial of William Penn as well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/articles/zd6cf4j
Before I remembered the partying in the afternoon, that is.