The poll was in the aftermath of the GOP convention and before the Biden announcement.
What have OGH and I told you about hypothetical polls.
Generally they are accurate
Nope.
I’ve been pointing out for years the flaw with hypothetical polling, in 2019 I wrote ‘Hypothetical polls are a lot like Hawaiian pizzas, they should be avoided at all costs by right thinking people everywhere‘ from 2019 here’s why.
Nope, they were right Major would beat Kinnock in 1990 and Thatcher wouldn't and they were right Boris would beat Corbyn in 2019.
A muppet would have beaten Corbyn in 2019. Oh, hang on..................
May didn't in 2017, nor would Hunt have won the redwall in 2019 either
I didn't say 2017 and Jeremy Hunt would most likely have beaten Mr Thicky. The disaster that then followed for the Tories under that complete muppet Johnson that only the insanely stupid still admire would not have happened. Did Bozo give you a BJ once or something? There must be some reason for it?
He wouldn't, the redwall seats only went for Boris in 2019 to get Brexit done, they would not have voted for Remainer Hunt
I have a lot of time for your analysis. However although Johnson won in 2019, on the balance of probability, not least his behaviour, he would have been/ would be spanked in GE2024/5. He is also exactly what the Tories don't need to climb back to electoral relevance.
Instinctively you may be right that Trump will win, but I doubt it will be the shoo-in you suggest. I am surprised you keep using unsafe data when if you hang on for a couple of weeks or so you will have a clearer idea of how things might shake down.
The Conservatives would have won over 200 seats and got over 30% of the vote had Boris remained leader and Reform would not have got more than 10% like they did. Even if Starmer had still won
You cannot confirm that with any surity.
Johnson might have done better in the RedWall, but the Conservatives might have done even worse in their BlueWall. There was a visceral hatred of the Conservative Party and that disdain would have been focused more directly on Johnson had he returned after Truss.
Apart from Hunt's the Tories lost all the Remain seats they were going to lose in the Bluewall this month anyway, Johnson would probably have saved 100 Leave marginal seats though.
Johnson staying also would have meant no Truss Kwarteng budget and interest rates surge
"Johnson staying" would have split the Conservatives asunder. The nation's voters pictured Johnson partying like it's 1999 whilst the Queen mourned Phil the Greek alone in her chapel. The nation despised Johnson, and they still do.
No, correction left liberals and Remainers despised Johnson, most Leavers couldn't care less about his drinks in the No 10 garden.
What split the Tories asunder was the votes lost to Labour and Reform after he was removed
Keep believing that, and the Tories will be the third party in the next Parliament.
It is true. Tories and Reform combined were 38% on 4th July which would have been the first party in Parliament ahead of Labour on 33%, not even second let alone third with the LDs on just 12%.
It was Boris who united the Tory and BXP/Reform vote in 2019
You can’t just add Tory and Reform together and present that as what you’d get in an election if there was an alliance .
HYUFD can. And frequently does.
The polling evidence is most Tories would vote Reform over Labour and most Reform voters would vote Tory over Labour or the LDs.
2024 Tories are admittedly split about even whether they would vote Reform over LD or LD over Reform but there are far more Tory v Labour marginals than Tory v LD
But you were counting ALL Tory voters and ALL Labour voters when getting a hypothetical B. Johnson over the electoral hedge in a hypothetical electoral Derby.
*Did* you do maths O level at your posh grammar school?
The numbers I gave would certainly have been enough to get Johnson over 30% and 200 seats as I originally said.
I went to public school not grammar school
I went to grammar school and at least know when integrity matters unlike some Johnson supporters
Nonsense, you, school!
You know it when you see it and you know it's not right when you see that too.
Do any governing bodies of any sports hate them as much as cricket administrators hate cricket? FIFA is as dodgy as it comes but the people in charge do actually seem to have an affection for football. The people running cricket clearly believe it is a terrible game that needs to be saved from itself.
The poll was in the aftermath of the GOP convention and before the Biden announcement.
What have OGH and I told you about hypothetical polls.
Generally they are accurate
Nope.
I’ve been pointing out for years the flaw with hypothetical polling, in 2019 I wrote ‘Hypothetical polls are a lot like Hawaiian pizzas, they should be avoided at all costs by right thinking people everywhere‘ from 2019 here’s why.
Nope, they were right Major would beat Kinnock in 1990 and Thatcher wouldn't and they were right Boris would beat Corbyn in 2019.
A muppet would have beaten Corbyn in 2019. Oh, hang on..................
May didn't in 2017, nor would Hunt have won the redwall in 2019 either
I didn't say 2017 and Jeremy Hunt would most likely have beaten Mr Thicky. The disaster that then followed for the Tories under that complete muppet Johnson that only the insanely stupid still admire would not have happened. Did Bozo give you a BJ once or something? There must be some reason for it?
He wouldn't, the redwall seats only went for Boris in 2019 to get Brexit done, they would not have voted for Remainer Hunt
I have a lot of time for your analysis. However although Johnson won in 2019, on the balance of probability, not least his behaviour, he would have been/ would be spanked in GE2024/5. He is also exactly what the Tories don't need to climb back to electoral relevance.
Instinctively you may be right that Trump will win, but I doubt it will be the shoo-in you suggest. I am surprised you keep using unsafe data when if you hang on for a couple of weeks or so you will have a clearer idea of how things might shake down.
The Conservatives would have won over 200 seats and got over 30% of the vote had Boris remained leader and Reform would not have got more than 10% like they did. Even if Starmer had still won
You cannot confirm that with any surity.
Johnson might have done better in the RedWall, but the Conservatives might have done even worse in their BlueWall. There was a visceral hatred of the Conservative Party and that disdain would have been focused more directly on Johnson had he returned after Truss.
Apart from Hunt's the Tories lost all the Remain seats they were going to lose in the Bluewall this month anyway, Johnson would probably have saved 100 Leave marginal seats though.
Johnson staying also would have meant no Truss Kwarteng budget and interest rates surge
"Johnson staying" would have split the Conservatives asunder. The nation's voters pictured Johnson partying like it's 1999 whilst the Queen mourned Phil the Greek alone in her chapel. The nation despised Johnson, and they still do.
No, correction left liberals and Remainers despised Johnson, most Leavers couldn't care less about his drinks in the No 10 garden.
What split the Tories asunder was the votes lost to Labour and Reform after he was removed
Keep believing that, and the Tories will be the third party in the next Parliament.
It is true. Tories and Reform combined were 38% on 4th July which would have been the first party in Parliament ahead of Labour on 33%, not even second let alone third with the LDs on just 12%.
It was Boris who united the Tory and BXP/Reform vote in 2019
You can’t just add Tory and Reform together and present that as what you’d get in an election if there was an alliance .
HYUFD can. And frequently does.
The polling evidence is most Tories would vote Reform over Labour and most Reform voters would vote Tory over Labour or the LDs.
2024 Tories are admittedly split about even whether they would vote Reform over LD or LD over Reform but there are far more Tory v Labour marginals than Tory v LD
Not three weeks ago, it wasn't. Cf. West Dorset and Rotherham.
Yougov found in a post GE poll that 75% of 2024 Reform voters would vote Conservative over Labour. 70% of Reform voters would also vote Conservative over the LDs.
66% of 2024 Conservative voters would vote Reform over Labour. Albeit only 49% of 2024 Tory voters would vote Reform over LD.
The Tory voteshare declined by less than the national average in W Dorset and the Reform vote was well above average in Rotherham
So given that 51% of 2024 Tory voters prefer the LDs to Reform, and 34% prefer Labour to Reform, that suggests that should the Conservatives merge with Reform, you would be in danger of losing more than half of the pitiful 24% of vote share that the Conservatives managed in 2024.
No as most seats are Tory v Labour and the vast majority of 2024 Tory voters prefer Reform to Labour. In a merger the majority of the 14% who voted Reform would be added to the 24% Tory vote too.
Do any governing bodies of any sports hate them as much as cricket administrators hate cricket? FIFA is as dodgy as it comes but the people in charge do actually seem to have an affection for football. The people running cricket clearly believe it is a terrible game that needs to be saved from itself.
Do any governing bodies of any sports hate them as much as cricket administrators hate cricket? FIFA is as dodgy as it comes but the people in charge do actually seem to have an affection for football. The people running cricket clearly believe it is a terrible game that needs to be saved from itself.
The FIA and motorsport come close, but I think the cricketers take the prize.
HYUFD - if you were a US citizen, would you vote for Trump?
Harris will clearly win and win precisely because her opponent is about as poor as it gets.
Wildly, Kamala Harris, a person with limited support, gets to choose the future!
I would vote for Trump over Harris as I have made clear, or Trump over Sanders or AOC had they been the Dem candidates, I would have voted for Biden or Michelle O or Buttigieg over Trump though
It is absurdly idyllic. Enough rapids to make it exciting but then long calm stretches where the sun dapples on the cool green water and the kingfishers dip in dazzlement and jewel blue dragonflies alight on your paddle
And all the way down there are French families sitting in chairs in the water. Their teen daughters laughing and swimming with their boyfriends. Kids zip wire overhead and say Bonjour! Picnics on the pebbled river beaches. Flasks of cold wine and wheels of melting cheese and beers chilled in the backwaters
Like a Gallic Eden. Almost no foreign tourists
Almost no foreign tourists?
I've kayaked the Ardeche many times. It gets very busy this time of year.
How does the Verdon compare to the Ardeche area in general?
Edit: my mistake, I thought you were in Verdon area - I see gorges du tarn is further west (Cevennes?).
His party has five seats in the Commons. He can shout and whinge to his heart's content - he has five seats. He is an irrelevance and wer eit for not for people like you and the Daily Reform (sorry, Express) he would become an irrelevance.
Agree, but don't forget at the 2015 election the Lib-Dems went down to just 8 seats and now they are on 72 so you never know what the future holds...
That was when they were targeted by the Conservatives, their erstwhile Coalition partners. 2024 was their revenge. It remains to be seen what will happen to that ‘argument’ in 2029.
Half a million households cancelled their licence fee last year as the BBC struggled to connect with younger audiences drifting away to Netflix and YouTube.
The stark extent of the BBC’s challenges are set out in the corporation’s annual report, which shows the total number of British households paying the £169.50 licence fee fell to 23.9 million, suggesting a growing number of people feel able to go without BBC services.
When does Labour just add the TV tax to council tax?
It’s the most regressive tax of all, results in tens of thousands of mostly single mothers getting criminal convictions every year, and is going to end up going away anyway as the media landscape changes. There’s a huge opportunity for the new government to do the job properly and scrap the licence fee.
I love the BBC and want it to thrive so I agree. I think it's a good opportunity for a government which doesn't ideologically hate the Beeb to do a fair minded review of the future funding model.
Either the Sky or ITV or Netflix model with the transmission system element of the fee funded from general taxation.
Half a million households cancelled their licence fee last year as the BBC struggled to connect with younger audiences drifting away to Netflix and YouTube.
The stark extent of the BBC’s challenges are set out in the corporation’s annual report, which shows the total number of British households paying the £169.50 licence fee fell to 23.9 million, suggesting a growing number of people feel able to go without BBC services.
When does Labour just add the TV tax to council tax?
It’s the most regressive tax of all, results in tens of thousands of mostly single mothers getting criminal convictions every year, and is going to end up going away anyway as the media landscape changes. There’s a huge opportunity for the new government to do the job properly and scrap the licence fee.
There is, but I’m afraid that isn’t going to happen under Labour.
Indeed. It’s such a weird hill for them to die on given the demographics of those most affected, people who they would otherwise describe as some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
Perhaps the perfect example of the disconnect between the different classes of Labour voter?
Perhaps decriminalising non payment would be a step forward and would remove swathes of people from the monstrous SJP’s.
Half a million households cancelled their licence fee last year as the BBC struggled to connect with younger audiences drifting away to Netflix and YouTube.
The stark extent of the BBC’s challenges are set out in the corporation’s annual report, which shows the total number of British households paying the £169.50 licence fee fell to 23.9 million, suggesting a growing number of people feel able to go without BBC services.
When does Labour just add the TV tax to council tax?
It’s the most regressive tax of all, results in tens of thousands of mostly single mothers getting criminal convictions every year, and is going to end up going away anyway as the media landscape changes. There’s a huge opportunity for the new government to do the job properly and scrap the licence fee.
I love the BBC and want it to thrive so I agree. I think it's a good opportunity for a government which doesn't ideologically hate the Beeb to do a fair minded review of the future funding model.
A friend of mine, ahem, who has no TV licence, normally legitimately, has just learned the hard way after watching a bit of Wimbledon on iPlayer, that logins are now monitored and collars felt by Big Brother. Put my hands up and will binge on Olympics and then cancel.
HYUFD - if you were a US citizen, would you vote for Trump?
Harris will clearly win and win precisely because her opponent is about as poor as it gets.
Wildly, Kamala Harris, a person with limited support, gets to choose the future!
I would vote for Trump over Harris as I have made clear, or Trump over Sanders or AOC had they been the Dem candidates, I would have voted for Biden or Michelle O or Buttigieg over Trump though
Even after the events of January 2021?
I mean, I can understand that Harris is too ghastly and woke for your taste, and that you value party loyalty. Fine. But it's pretty clear that, on the face of it, Trump wanted to break the rules of democracy.
If Trump didn't cross the line, where exactly is the line?
HYUFD - if you were a US citizen, would you vote for Trump?
Harris will clearly win and win precisely because her opponent is about as poor as it gets.
Wildly, Kamala Harris, a person with limited support, gets to choose the future!
I would vote for Trump over Harris as I have made clear, or Trump over Sanders or AOC had they been the Dem candidates, I would have voted for Biden or Michelle O or Buttigieg over Trump though
Are you absolutely sure? I’ve never had you down as favouring dishonesty. Have you been spending too much time in one or two of Brentwood’s pubs?
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
HYUFD - if you were a US citizen, would you vote for Trump?
Harris will clearly win and win precisely because her opponent is about as poor as it gets.
Wildly, Kamala Harris, a person with limited support, gets to choose the future!
I would vote for Trump over Harris as I have made clear, or Trump over Sanders or AOC had they been the Dem candidates, I would have voted for Biden or Michelle O or Buttigieg over Trump though
Thanks H. I wasn't trying to bait you, nor was I fully aware of your views.
Half a million households cancelled their licence fee last year as the BBC struggled to connect with younger audiences drifting away to Netflix and YouTube.
The stark extent of the BBC’s challenges are set out in the corporation’s annual report, which shows the total number of British households paying the £169.50 licence fee fell to 23.9 million, suggesting a growing number of people feel able to go without BBC services.
When does Labour just add the TV tax to council tax?
Do any governing bodies of any sports hate them as much as cricket administrators hate cricket? FIFA is as dodgy as it comes but the people in charge do actually seem to have an affection for football. The people running cricket clearly believe it is a terrible game that needs to be saved from itself.
The FIA and motorsport come close, but I think the cricketers take the prize.
Half a million households cancelled their licence fee last year as the BBC struggled to connect with younger audiences drifting away to Netflix and YouTube.
The stark extent of the BBC’s challenges are set out in the corporation’s annual report, which shows the total number of British households paying the £169.50 licence fee fell to 23.9 million, suggesting a growing number of people feel able to go without BBC services.
When does Labour just add the TV tax to council tax?
If that happens, there'll be telly tax riots.
Depends how long they leave it. If they do it now, they'll probably get away with it as most people are still paying the TV tax.
His party has five seats in the Commons. He can shout and whinge to his heart's content - he has five seats. He is an irrelevance and wer eit for not for people like you and the Daily Reform (sorry, Express) he would become an irrelevance.
Agree, but don't forget at the 2015 election the Lib-Dems went down to just 8 seats and now they are on 72 so you never know what the future holds...
That was when they were targeted by the Conservatives, their erstwhile Coalition partners. 2024 was their revenge. It remains to be seen what will happen to that ‘argument’ in 2029.
The Lib Dems have had decades now to 'diversify their portfolio' and have actively chosen not to do so. Any 'targeting' by the Tories in 2015 was tit for tat at best. I actually think many of us would have been quite happy with a continuation of the Coalition. If only the LDs had been more creative with their own targets.
2024 was what it was and if the pendulum swings back and they get wiped out next time because they kept all their eggs firmly in the anti-Tory protest basket I'll not be displeased.
I'm really struggling to remember the last time the LDs actually won a Westminster seat from Labour? Was it as long ago as Sarah Teather?
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
Five years ago, Southwark Council declared a climate emergency and set 2030 as its target date to be carbon neutral. But now residents have accused the Council of wasting millions of pounds-worth of energy and leaving them to pick up the bill.
Dolly Thomas, who bought her leasehold property from the Labour council using Right to Buy, is now paying a £650 service charge every month to the authority – a bill bigger than her mortgage. The majority of the monthly charge goes towards heating and hot water costs.
Ms Thomas, 51, who works at neighbouring Lambeth Council, said: “It feels like I’m paying two mortgages. I’m so stressed. All I want to do now is move.
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
Five years ago, Southwark Council declared a climate emergency and set 2030 as its target date to be carbon neutral. But now residents have accused the Council of wasting millions of pounds-worth of energy and leaving them to pick up the bill.
Dolly Thomas, who bought her leasehold property from the Labour council using Right to Buy, is now paying a £650 service charge every month to the authority – a bill bigger than her mortgage. The majority of the monthly charge goes towards heating and hot water costs.
Ms Thomas, 51, who works at neighbouring Lambeth Council, said: “It feels like I’m paying two mortgages. I’m so stressed. All I want to do now is move.
Five years ago, Southwark Council declared a climate emergency and set 2030 as its target date to be carbon neutral. But now residents have accused the Council of wasting millions of pounds-worth of energy and leaving them to pick up the bill.
Dolly Thomas, who bought her leasehold property from the Labour council using Right to Buy, is now paying a £650 service charge every month to the authority – a bill bigger than her mortgage. The majority of the monthly charge goes towards heating and hot water costs.
Ms Thomas, 51, who works at neighbouring Lambeth Council, said: “It feels like I’m paying two mortgages. I’m so stressed. All I want to do now is move.
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
Which bit of the need for extra capacity on a rail link did the Times journalist fail to understand? The HS2 project wasn't ever about running empty seats up and down the country.
Five years ago, Southwark Council declared a climate emergency and set 2030 as its target date to be carbon neutral. But now residents have accused the Council of wasting millions of pounds-worth of energy and leaving them to pick up the bill.
Dolly Thomas, who bought her leasehold property from the Labour council using Right to Buy, is now paying a £650 service charge every month to the authority – a bill bigger than her mortgage. The majority of the monthly charge goes towards heating and hot water costs.
Ms Thomas, 51, who works at neighbouring Lambeth Council, said: “It feels like I’m paying two mortgages. I’m so stressed. All I want to do now is move.
Except she won’t be able to because anyone same is going to look at that outgoing and value the flat at roughly zero due to the outgoings.
I was looking at some leasehold flats in Manchester recently and the fees knocked £200,000 off the value of a 2 bed flat compared to others with saner costs 100 yards away..
No discussion of the fact the might Hundred is starting today....
Is it called that, because a hundred people care about the tournament?
Apparently the ECB want to change it to Twenty20 format while still calling it 'The Hundred'. Is the ECB a veritable hothouse for very stupid ideas?
Did the ECB people run the Tories GE campaign?
They were told when they started that Hundred was stupid because everybody else plays T20. It costs the ECB money to subsidise the cost of the Hundred, so they need to sell it to investors, who have said, well its needs to be T20 (especially the Indians who want T20 global league). Also, lots of the top players are not coming to the Hundred now because the likes of MLC pay better and errh play T20.
And that is before we got to the mess of franchises that have pissed of the counties and then how they spread about the top talent, so players famously Yaaarrrrrrrkkkshire aren't playing for the franchise that is based in that part of the world.
Pissing off the counties was the whole point of it, the ECB hates that it has to sustain 18 professional counties.
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
No discussion of the fact the might Hundred is starting today....
Is it called that, because a hundred people care about the tournament?
Apparently the ECB want to change it to Twenty20 format while still calling it 'The Hundred'. Is the ECB a veritable hothouse for very stupid ideas?
Did the ECB people run the Tories GE campaign?
They were told when they started that Hundred was stupid because everybody else plays T20. It costs the ECB money to subsidise the cost of the Hundred, so they need to sell it to investors, who have said, well its needs to be T20 (especially the Indians who want T20 global league). Also, lots of the top players are not coming to the Hundred now because the likes of MLC pay better and errh play T20.
And that is before we got to the mess of franchises that have pissed of the counties and then how they spread about the top talent, so players famously Yaaarrrrrrrkkkshire aren't playing for the franchise that is based in that part of the world.
Pissing off the counties was the whole point of it, the ECB hates that it has to sustain 18 professional counties.
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
well maybe.
but the turnout points to a lot of voters staying at home, and I suspect they are mostly on the right.
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
No discussion of the fact the might Hundred is starting today....
Is it called that, because a hundred people care about the tournament?
Apparently the ECB want to change it to Twenty20 format while still calling it 'The Hundred'. Is the ECB a veritable hothouse for very stupid ideas?
Did the ECB people run the Tories GE campaign?
They were told when they started that Hundred was stupid because everybody else plays T20. It costs the ECB money to subsidise the cost of the Hundred, so they need to sell it to investors, who have said, well its needs to be T20 (especially the Indians who want T20 global league). Also, lots of the top players are not coming to the Hundred now because the likes of MLC pay better and errh play T20.
And that is before we got to the mess of franchises that have pissed of the counties and then how they spread about the top talent, so players famously Yaaarrrrrrrkkkshire aren't playing for the franchise that is based in that part of the world.
Pissing off the counties was the whole point of it, the ECB hates that it has to sustain 18 professional counties.
The counties make English cricket though-
You know that and I know that.
The ECB does not know that. It sees the non-Test ground counties as a drain it would be better off without.
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
Five years ago, Southwark Council declared a climate emergency and set 2030 as its target date to be carbon neutral. But now residents have accused the Council of wasting millions of pounds-worth of energy and leaving them to pick up the bill.
Dolly Thomas, who bought her leasehold property from the Labour council using Right to Buy, is now paying a £650 service charge every month to the authority – a bill bigger than her mortgage. The majority of the monthly charge goes towards heating and hot water costs.
Ms Thomas, 51, who works at neighbouring Lambeth Council, said: “It feels like I’m paying two mortgages. I’m so stressed. All I want to do now is move.
No discussion of the fact the might Hundred is starting today....
Is it called that, because a hundred people care about the tournament?
Apparently the ECB want to change it to Twenty20 format while still calling it 'The Hundred'. Is the ECB a veritable hothouse for very stupid ideas?
Did the ECB people run the Tories GE campaign?
They were told when they started that Hundred was stupid because everybody else plays T20. It costs the ECB money to subsidise the cost of the Hundred, so they need to sell it to investors, who have said, well its needs to be T20 (especially the Indians who want T20 global league). Also, lots of the top players are not coming to the Hundred now because the likes of MLC pay better and errh play T20.
And that is before we got to the mess of franchises that have pissed of the counties and then how they spread about the top talent, so players famously Yaaarrrrrrrkkkshire aren't playing for the franchise that is based in that part of the world.
Pissing off the counties was the whole point of it, the ECB hates that it has to sustain 18 professional counties.
The counties make English cricket though-
You know that and I know that.
The ECB does not know that. It sees the non-Test ground counties as a drain it would be better off without.
County cricket is dead. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Many years ago I used to really look forwards to the short (and sometimes better and longer) summaries of County cricket in the national newspapers. That's all gone.
The poll was in the aftermath of the GOP convention and before the Biden announcement.
What have OGH and I told you about hypothetical polls.
Generally they are accurate
Nope.
I’ve been pointing out for years the flaw with hypothetical polling, in 2019 I wrote ‘Hypothetical polls are a lot like Hawaiian pizzas, they should be avoided at all costs by right thinking people everywhere‘ from 2019 here’s why.
Nope, they were right Major would beat Kinnock in 1990 and Thatcher wouldn't and they were right Boris would beat Corbyn in 2019.
A muppet would have beaten Corbyn in 2019. Oh, hang on..................
May didn't in 2017, nor would Hunt have won the redwall in 2019 either
I didn't say 2017 and Jeremy Hunt would most likely have beaten Mr Thicky. The disaster that then followed for the Tories under that complete muppet Johnson that only the insanely stupid still admire would not have happened. Did Bozo give you a BJ once or something? There must be some reason for it?
He wouldn't, the redwall seats only went for Boris in 2019 to get Brexit done, they would not have voted for Remainer Hunt
I have a lot of time for your analysis. However although Johnson won in 2019, on the balance of probability, not least his behaviour, he would have been/ would be spanked in GE2024/5. He is also exactly what the Tories don't need to climb back to electoral relevance.
Instinctively you may be right that Trump will win, but I doubt it will be the shoo-in you suggest. I am surprised you keep using unsafe data when if you hang on for a couple of weeks or so you will have a clearer idea of how things might shake down.
The Conservatives would have won over 200 seats and got over 30% of the vote had Boris remained leader and Reform would not have got more than 10% like they did. Even if Starmer had still won
You cannot confirm that with any surity.
Johnson might have done better in the RedWall, but the Conservatives might have done even worse in their BlueWall. There was a visceral hatred of the Conservative Party and that disdain would have been focused more directly on Johnson had he returned after Truss.
Apart from Hunt's the Tories lost all the Remain seats they were going to lose in the Bluewall this month anyway, Johnson would probably have saved 100 Leave marginal seats though.
Johnson staying also would have meant no Truss Kwarteng budget and interest rates surge
"Johnson staying" would have split the Conservatives asunder. The nation's voters pictured Johnson partying like it's 1999 whilst the Queen mourned Phil the Greek alone in her chapel. The nation despised Johnson, and they still do.
No, correction left liberals and Remainers despised Johnson, most Leavers couldn't care less about his drinks in the No 10 garden.
What split the Tories asunder was the votes lost to Labour and Reform after he was removed
Keep believing that, and the Tories will be the third party in the next Parliament.
It is true. Tories and Reform combined were 38% on 4th July which would have been the first party in Parliament ahead of Labour on 33%, not even second let alone third with the LDs on just 12%.
It was Boris who united the Tory and BXP/Reform vote in 2019
You can’t just add Tory and Reform together and present that as what you’d get in an election if there was an alliance .
HYUFD can. And frequently does.
The polling evidence is most Tories would vote Reform over Labour and most Reform voters would vote Tory over Labour or the LDs.
2024 Tories are admittedly split about even whether they would vote Reform over LD or LD over Reform but there are far more Tory v Labour marginals than Tory v LD
Not three weeks ago, it wasn't. Cf. West Dorset and Rotherham.
Yougov found in a post GE poll that 75% of 2024 Reform voters would vote Conservative over Labour. 70% of Reform voters would also vote Conservative over the LDs.
66% of 2024 Conservative voters would vote Reform over Labour. Albeit only 49% of 2024 Tory voters would vote Reform over LD.
The Tory voteshare declined by less than the national average in W Dorset and the Reform vote was well above average in Rotherham
So given that 51% of 2024 Tory voters prefer the LDs to Reform, and 34% prefer Labour to Reform, that suggests that should the Conservatives merge with Reform, you would be in danger of losing more than half of the pitiful 24% of vote share that the Conservatives managed in 2024.
No as most seats are Tory v Labour and the vast majority of 2024 Tory voters prefer Reform to Labour. In a merger the majority of the 14% who voted Reform would be added to the 24% Tory vote too.
Though a pact is more likely than a full merger
So, if you retain two thirds of that 24% (as 34% of the Tory voters prefer Labour to Reform), that's 16% to build upon. Add three quarters of that Reform 14% and you add 10% to make 26%. Yay, result, yes? Apart from the fact that those 8% that wandered off from the Tory share headed towards Labour. Meaning you're up 2 whilst donating 8 to Labour, for a net swing against of 3% That's in Labour-facing seats.
In Lib Dem facing seats, it's worse. a 5% swing against.
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
I simply do not understand how you can even quote 2019 Johnson win in any argument you try to make
He is thoroughly discredited and events have changed the whole political debate including the disaster that was Truss
You may want to live on past glories but the electorate has consigned them to history as they want a new chapter and different future
The poll was in the aftermath of the GOP convention and before the Biden announcement.
What have OGH and I told you about hypothetical polls.
Generally they are accurate
Nope.
I’ve been pointing out for years the flaw with hypothetical polling, in 2019 I wrote ‘Hypothetical polls are a lot like Hawaiian pizzas, they should be avoided at all costs by right thinking people everywhere‘ from 2019 here’s why.
Nope, they were right Major would beat Kinnock in 1990 and Thatcher wouldn't and they were right Boris would beat Corbyn in 2019.
A muppet would have beaten Corbyn in 2019. Oh, hang on..................
May didn't in 2017, nor would Hunt have won the redwall in 2019 either
I didn't say 2017 and Jeremy Hunt would most likely have beaten Mr Thicky. The disaster that then followed for the Tories under that complete muppet Johnson that only the insanely stupid still admire would not have happened. Did Bozo give you a BJ once or something? There must be some reason for it?
He wouldn't, the redwall seats only went for Boris in 2019 to get Brexit done, they would not have voted for Remainer Hunt
I have a lot of time for your analysis. However although Johnson won in 2019, on the balance of probability, not least his behaviour, he would have been/ would be spanked in GE2024/5. He is also exactly what the Tories don't need to climb back to electoral relevance.
Instinctively you may be right that Trump will win, but I doubt it will be the shoo-in you suggest. I am surprised you keep using unsafe data when if you hang on for a couple of weeks or so you will have a clearer idea of how things might shake down.
The Conservatives would have won over 200 seats and got over 30% of the vote had Boris remained leader and Reform would not have got more than 10% like they did. Even if Starmer had still won
You cannot confirm that with any surity.
Johnson might have done better in the RedWall, but the Conservatives might have done even worse in their BlueWall. There was a visceral hatred of the Conservative Party and that disdain would have been focused more directly on Johnson had he returned after Truss.
Apart from Hunt's the Tories lost all the Remain seats they were going to lose in the Bluewall this month anyway, Johnson would probably have saved 100 Leave marginal seats though.
Johnson staying also would have meant no Truss Kwarteng budget and interest rates surge
"Johnson staying" would have split the Conservatives asunder. The nation's voters pictured Johnson partying like it's 1999 whilst the Queen mourned Phil the Greek alone in her chapel. The nation despised Johnson, and they still do.
No, correction left liberals and Remainers despised Johnson, most Leavers couldn't care less about his drinks in the No 10 garden.
What split the Tories asunder was the votes lost to Labour and Reform after he was removed
Keep believing that, and the Tories will be the third party in the next Parliament.
It is true. Tories and Reform combined were 38% on 4th July which would have been the first party in Parliament ahead of Labour on 33%, not even second let alone third with the LDs on just 12%.
It was Boris who united the Tory and BXP/Reform vote in 2019
You can’t just add Tory and Reform together and present that as what you’d get in an election if there was an alliance .
HYUFD can. And frequently does.
The polling evidence is most Tories would vote Reform over Labour and most Reform voters would vote Tory over Labour or the LDs.
2024 Tories are admittedly split about even whether they would vote Reform over LD or LD over Reform but there are far more Tory v Labour marginals than Tory v LD
Not three weeks ago, it wasn't. Cf. West Dorset and Rotherham.
Yougov found in a post GE poll that 75% of 2024 Reform voters would vote Conservative over Labour. 70% of Reform voters would also vote Conservative over the LDs.
66% of 2024 Conservative voters would vote Reform over Labour. Albeit only 49% of 2024 Tory voters would vote Reform over LD.
The Tory voteshare declined by less than the national average in W Dorset and the Reform vote was well above average in Rotherham
So given that 51% of 2024 Tory voters prefer the LDs to Reform, and 34% prefer Labour to Reform, that suggests that should the Conservatives merge with Reform, you would be in danger of losing more than half of the pitiful 24% of vote share that the Conservatives managed in 2024.
No as most seats are Tory v Labour and the vast majority of 2024 Tory voters prefer Reform to Labour. In a merger the majority of the 14% who voted Reform would be added to the 24% Tory vote too.
Though a pact is more likely than a full merger
So, if you retain two thirds of that 24% (as 34% of the Tory voters prefer Labour to Reform), that's 16% to build upon. Add three quarters of that Reform 14% and you add 10% to make 26%. Yay, result, yes? Apart from the fact that those 8% that wandered off from the Tory share headed towards Labour. Meaning you're up 2 whilst donating 8 to Labour, for a net swing against of 3% That's in Labour-facing seats.
In Lib Dem facing seats, it's worse. a 5% swing against.
Are you sure that's wise, Captain?
I'm not sure it's legitimate to suggest that a 2024 Tory voter who prefers Lab/LD to Reform would necessarily switch away if there were an agreement with Reform (or, indeed, vice versa). After all, we're talking people who are so dyed-in-the-wool Tory that they even voted Tory in 2024!
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
It's petty I know, but part of me would rather like the government to go full-on Dame Shirley Porter on Rishi for this fiasco.
I wonder how much money the previous government wasted on stupid decisions?
Probably quite a lot. There are many things where hindsight says afterwards "that could reasonably have been done better and cheaper". Chunks of HS2 fall in that category. But Sunak's antics are more culpable here.
For a start, the flaws in his thinking were utterly obvious from about 18 seconds after he made the announcement. It didn't need hindsight to see what would go wrong.
Then, there was the short-circuiting of due process. The whole thing was dreamt up by him and some No 10 advisers to get him an applause line for his conference speech.
And while the current government aren't admitting it yet, something like HSBrumManc is likely to have to happen, for the reasons in the NAO report.
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
No discussion of the fact the might Hundred is starting today....
Is it called that, because a hundred people care about the tournament?
Apparently the ECB want to change it to Twenty20 format while still calling it 'The Hundred'. Is the ECB a veritable hothouse for very stupid ideas?
Did the ECB people run the Tories GE campaign?
They were told when they started that Hundred was stupid because everybody else plays T20. It costs the ECB money to subsidise the cost of the Hundred, so they need to sell it to investors, who have said, well its needs to be T20 (especially the Indians who want T20 global league). Also, lots of the top players are not coming to the Hundred now because the likes of MLC pay better and errh play T20.
And that is before we got to the mess of franchises that have pissed of the counties and then how they spread about the top talent, so players famously Yaaarrrrrrrkkkshire aren't playing for the franchise that is based in that part of the world.
Pissing off the counties was the whole point of it, the ECB hates that it has to sustain 18 professional counties.
The counties make English cricket though-
You know that and I know that.
The ECB does not know that. It sees the non-Test ground counties as a drain it would be better off without.
There are questions to ask wrt to the sale of the 100 franchises and the gift of a % of each franchise to the test grounds that host them, effectively yet another subsidy to the test ground counties. Q1 would be whether the new owner of Yorkshire knew this was on the cards.
Possibly the most entertaining parts of last year's T20 finals day were Glenn Maxwell saying how the overseas cricketers he knew enjoyed playing for a county in the blast much more than for a franchise in the Hundred and Alex Hartley(I think?) having a massive strop because Essex and Somerset put out Surrey and Hampshire and that the smaller counties shouldn't be there.
Please support your local smaller county and if you're in the home counties, Kent, Essex, Middlesex or Sussex rather than Surrey or Hampshire. It's only Essex and Somerset's success in the county championship that has stopped the ECB making it a 6 team div 1 of test ground counties.
No discussion of the fact the might Hundred is starting today....
Is it called that, because a hundred people care about the tournament?
Apparently the ECB want to change it to Twenty20 format while still calling it 'The Hundred'. Is the ECB a veritable hothouse for very stupid ideas?
Did the ECB people run the Tories GE campaign?
They were told when they started that Hundred was stupid because everybody else plays T20. It costs the ECB money to subsidise the cost of the Hundred, so they need to sell it to investors, who have said, well its needs to be T20 (especially the Indians who want T20 global league). Also, lots of the top players are not coming to the Hundred now because the likes of MLC pay better and errh play T20.
And that is before we got to the mess of franchises that have pissed of the counties and then how they spread about the top talent, so players famously Yaaarrrrrrrkkkshire aren't playing for the franchise that is based in that part of the world.
Pissing off the counties was the whole point of it, the ECB hates that it has to sustain 18 professional counties.
The counties make English cricket though-
You know that and I know that.
The ECB does not know that. It sees the non-Test ground counties as a drain it would be better off without.
County cricket is dead. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Many years ago I used to really look forwards to the short (and sometimes better and longer) summaries of County cricket in the national newspapers. That's all gone.
Actually the viewership on YouTube is still doing surprisingly well after the initial COVID boost. More people watch those and are currently tuned into the Hundred coverage.
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
I'm yanking your chain a little but you continue to persist with this delusion every Reform vote is a vote for the Conservatives when all the evidence shows that's not clearly the case.
Whether "ranks higher than" can be seriously equated to "would vote for" is another area where I would be cautious.
Case study - Amber Valley - where Nigel Mills's vote fell from 29,000 to just under 11,000. Reform got 12,000, the Labour vote went up 3,500 and turnout was down 3,000 so simply add the Reform votes and Mills retains.
Nowhere near as simple as that - the YouGov study "suggests" up to a third of Conservative voters "rank" Labour "higher" than Reform so add 4,000 (to be generous) Conservative voters to Labour and the rest to Reform and it looks a marginal at best.
You also can't "prove" the 12,000 Reform voters were all ex-Conservatives, it's entirely possible some were ex-Labour, we need more research. There's also the issue of whether a "pact" would deliver the totality of voters - the evidence is pretty strong Conservative voters won't vote Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate.
If we need any more evidence by the way, look at Rotherham.
In 2019, the combined Conservative/Brexit Party share was 50% or 21,800 votes. With no Conservative candidate, the Reform candidate got 11,181 votes so where did the other 10,000 votes go? Turnout was down 6,500 but even so why didn't more Conservatives vote Reform?
Five years ago, Southwark Council declared a climate emergency and set 2030 as its target date to be carbon neutral. But now residents have accused the Council of wasting millions of pounds-worth of energy and leaving them to pick up the bill.
Dolly Thomas, who bought her leasehold property from the Labour council using Right to Buy, is now paying a £650 service charge every month to the authority – a bill bigger than her mortgage. The majority of the monthly charge goes towards heating and hot water costs.
Ms Thomas, 51, who works at neighbouring Lambeth Council, said: “It feels like I’m paying two mortgages. I’m so stressed. All I want to do now is move.
If we need any more evidence by the way, look at Rotherham.
In 2019, the combined Conservative/Brexit Party share was 50% or 21,800 votes. With no Conservative candidate, the Reform candidate got 11,181 votes so where did the other 10,000 votes go? Turnout was down 6,500 but even so why didn't more Conservatives vote Reform?
Some went Labour as per the national swing but the Reform voteshare in 2024 was a mere 2% down on the 2019 Tory vote in Rotherham despite the big national Tory swing to Labour
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
It wasn’t explicitly mentioned IIRC, but it’s an inevitable outcome - the west coast mainline is already basically full at peak times IIRC. So if you want to avoid dangerous overcrowding / stopping very pissed off customers with tickets from getting on trains you have to do demand management somehow. That’s either by allocating limited ticket numbers or by price increases to drive demand down to the point it matches capacity.
The NAO report makes it completely, wildly obvious to everyone that we need to build HS2 out at least to Crewe regardless of whatever else happens, or else we will have simply flushed the entire expense of HS2 down the toilet.
(This isn’t sunk-cost fallacy - it would be sunk cost fallacy to say ”we must build HS2 to Edinburgh now or we will have wasted the London <-> Birmingham expense” - the cost of running out to Crewe from the current end of the HS2 line is a tiny fraction of the cost expended so far - we’ve already bought all the land! - and it unlocks huge capacity increases on the London <-> Birmingham route.)
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
Of course it didn't. At the time the leader of the Labour Party was a certain Jeremy C.
He is now, if I remember correctly, nothing to do with the Labour machine.
Looks like a change in facts. What was your argument exactly?
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
I simply do not understand how you can even quote 2019 Johnson win in any argument you try to make
He is thoroughly discredited and events have changed the whole political debate including the disaster that was Truss
You may want to live on past glories but the electorate has consigned them to history as they want a new chapter and different future
If Trump wins again Boris will certainly try for a comeback here too, he is certainly more charismatic than the current Tory leadership contenders
No discussion of the fact the might Hundred is starting today....
Is it called that, because a hundred people care about the tournament?
Apparently the ECB want to change it to Twenty20 format while still calling it 'The Hundred'. Is the ECB a veritable hothouse for very stupid ideas?
Did the ECB people run the Tories GE campaign?
They were told when they started that Hundred was stupid because everybody else plays T20. It costs the ECB money to subsidise the cost of the Hundred, so they need to sell it to investors, who have said, well its needs to be T20 (especially the Indians who want T20 global league). Also, lots of the top players are not coming to the Hundred now because the likes of MLC pay better and errh play T20.
And that is before we got to the mess of franchises that have pissed of the counties and then how they spread about the top talent, so players famously Yaaarrrrrrrkkkshire aren't playing for the franchise that is based in that part of the world.
Pissing off the counties was the whole point of it, the ECB hates that it has to sustain 18 professional counties.
The counties make English cricket though-
You know that and I know that.
The ECB does not know that. It sees the non-Test ground counties as a drain it would be better off without.
County cricket is dead. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Many years ago I used to really look forwards to the short (and sometimes better and longer) summaries of County cricket in the national newspapers. That's all gone.
Actually the viewership on YouTube is still doing surprisingly well after the initial COVID boost. More people watch those and are currently tuned into the Hundred coverage.
County cricket was once a really big thing. It's not now. I doubt there's a Middlesex supporter in the country.
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
I simply do not understand how you can even quote 2019 Johnson win in any argument you try to make
He is thoroughly discredited and events have changed the whole political debate including the disaster that was Truss
You may want to live on past glories but the electorate has consigned them to history as they want a new chapter and different future
If Trump wins again Boris will certainly try for a comeback here too, he is certainly more charismatic than the current Tory leadership contenders
Hey ho, the Tories can well afford to go down from a mammoth 121 seats to a merely massive 120.
Five years ago, Southwark Council declared a climate emergency and set 2030 as its target date to be carbon neutral. But now residents have accused the Council of wasting millions of pounds-worth of energy and leaving them to pick up the bill.
Dolly Thomas, who bought her leasehold property from the Labour council using Right to Buy, is now paying a £650 service charge every month to the authority – a bill bigger than her mortgage. The majority of the monthly charge goes towards heating and hot water costs.
Ms Thomas, 51, who works at neighbouring Lambeth Council, said: “It feels like I’m paying two mortgages. I’m so stressed. All I want to do now is move.
Except she won’t be able to because anyone same is going to look at that outgoing and value the flat at roughly zero due to the outgoings.
I was looking at some leasehold flats in Manchester recently and the fees knocked £200,000 off the value of a 2 bed flat compared to others with saner costs 100 yards away..
Yeah, she does say in the article no one is interested due to the service charge.
On a separate note it always amazes me the service charges some people end up paying on static caravans and why people buy them. I’ve seen as high as £11K a year.
The poll was in the aftermath of the GOP convention and before the Biden announcement.
What have OGH and I told you about hypothetical polls.
Generally they are accurate
Nope.
I’ve been pointing out for years the flaw with hypothetical polling, in 2019 I wrote ‘Hypothetical polls are a lot like Hawaiian pizzas, they should be avoided at all costs by right thinking people everywhere‘ from 2019 here’s why.
Nope, they were right Major would beat Kinnock in 1990 and Thatcher wouldn't and they were right Boris would beat Corbyn in 2019.
A muppet would have beaten Corbyn in 2019. Oh, hang on..................
May didn't in 2017, nor would Hunt have won the redwall in 2019 either
I didn't say 2017 and Jeremy Hunt would most likely have beaten Mr Thicky. The disaster that then followed for the Tories under that complete muppet Johnson that only the insanely stupid still admire would not have happened. Did Bozo give you a BJ once or something? There must be some reason for it?
He wouldn't, the redwall seats only went for Boris in 2019 to get Brexit done, they would not have voted for Remainer Hunt
I have a lot of time for your analysis. However although Johnson won in 2019, on the balance of probability, not least his behaviour, he would have been/ would be spanked in GE2024/5. He is also exactly what the Tories don't need to climb back to electoral relevance.
Instinctively you may be right that Trump will win, but I doubt it will be the shoo-in you suggest. I am surprised you keep using unsafe data when if you hang on for a couple of weeks or so you will have a clearer idea of how things might shake down.
The Conservatives would have won over 200 seats and got over 30% of the vote had Boris remained leader and Reform would not have got more than 10% like they did. Even if Starmer had still won
You cannot confirm that with any surity.
Johnson might have done better in the RedWall, but the Conservatives might have done even worse in their BlueWall. There was a visceral hatred of the Conservative Party and that disdain would have been focused more directly on Johnson had he returned after Truss.
Apart from Hunt's the Tories lost all the Remain seats they were going to lose in the Bluewall this month anyway, Johnson would probably have saved 100 Leave marginal seats though.
Johnson staying also would have meant no Truss Kwarteng budget and interest rates surge
"Johnson staying" would have split the Conservatives asunder. The nation's voters pictured Johnson partying like it's 1999 whilst the Queen mourned Phil the Greek alone in her chapel. The nation despised Johnson, and they still do.
No, correction left liberals and Remainers despised Johnson, most Leavers couldn't care less about his drinks in the No 10 garden.
What split the Tories asunder was the votes lost to Labour and Reform after he was removed
Keep believing that, and the Tories will be the third party in the next Parliament.
It is true. Tories and Reform combined were 38% on 4th July which would have been the first party in Parliament ahead of Labour on 33%, not even second let alone third with the LDs on just 12%.
It was Boris who united the Tory and BXP/Reform vote in 2019
You can’t just add Tory and Reform together and present that as what you’d get in an election if there was an alliance .
HYUFD can. And frequently does.
The polling evidence is most Tories would vote Reform over Labour and most Reform voters would vote Tory over Labour or the LDs.
2024 Tories are admittedly split about even whether they would vote Reform over LD or LD over Reform but there are far more Tory v Labour marginals than Tory v LD
Not three weeks ago, it wasn't. Cf. West Dorset and Rotherham.
Yougov found in a post GE poll that 75% of 2024 Reform voters would vote Conservative over Labour. 70% of Reform voters would also vote Conservative over the LDs.
66% of 2024 Conservative voters would vote Reform over Labour. Albeit only 49% of 2024 Tory voters would vote Reform over LD.
The Tory voteshare declined by less than the national average in W Dorset and the Reform vote was well above average in Rotherham
So given that 51% of 2024 Tory voters prefer the LDs to Reform, and 34% prefer Labour to Reform, that suggests that should the Conservatives merge with Reform, you would be in danger of losing more than half of the pitiful 24% of vote share that the Conservatives managed in 2024.
No as most seats are Tory v Labour and the vast majority of 2024 Tory voters prefer Reform to Labour. In a merger the majority of the 14% who voted Reform would be added to the 24% Tory vote too.
Though a pact is more likely than a full merger
So, if you retain two thirds of that 24% (as 34% of the Tory voters prefer Labour to Reform), that's 16% to build upon. Add three quarters of that Reform 14% and you add 10% to make 26%. Yay, result, yes? Apart from the fact that those 8% that wandered off from the Tory share headed towards Labour. Meaning you're up 2 whilst donating 8 to Labour, for a net swing against of 3% That's in Labour-facing seats.
In Lib Dem facing seats, it's worse. a 5% swing against.
Are you sure that's wise, Captain?
So even on a merger the combined Tory and Reform vote is more in Tory v Labour seats than the Tory vote was in 2024.
However I was suggesting more a pact, so Reform either stand down or put up paper candidates in Tory v Labour or LD marginals and the Tories either stand down or put up paper candidates in Reform v Labour marginals based on which party was in the top 2 on 4th July
The two other sites are also expected to be closed down by Labour. They are RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire which has yet to take any migrants two years after it was designated to take 1,700 and RAF Wethersfield in Essex which has fewer than 600 on it despite being commissioned for 1,500.
AP reporting that all 19 delegates from Delaware have said they are voting for Kamala Harris at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
Personally salute the great Blue Hen State AND the delegation Delaware Democrats are sending to Chicago next month.
Only those who have been in similar situation can really relate. Strong political supporters of your home state's favorite son in politics, someone you've been helping and voting for over the decades, and basking that he's finally made it all the way to the White House. And then . . .
Being from a small state - just one Representative in US House - makes it worse. In part because state pride is amplified in smaller states, in part because the percentage of folks who have actually encountered Joe Biden, or some other favorite in another state, in person is sizable. Maybe at a political event or government setting, but even more likely at the grocery store or post office.
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
I simply do not understand how you can even quote 2019 Johnson win in any argument you try to make
He is thoroughly discredited and events have changed the whole political debate including the disaster that was Truss
You may want to live on past glories but the electorate has consigned them to history as they want a new chapter and different future
If Trump wins again Boris will certainly try for a comeback here too, he is certainly more charismatic than the current Tory leadership contenders
Hey ho, the Tories can well afford to go down from a mammoth 121 seats to a merely massive 120.
Only Boris can really squeeze the 14% who voted for Farage short of a full on Tory and Reform pact
"Travellers could be told not to use rail after loss of HS2 link
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
Great news, as a frequent train user I do not want gypos anywhere near me.
Oh wait, not those travellers.
When Nigel Farage referred to "the politics of the subcontinent" at first thought he was talking about the Roma, who IIRC are thought to have originated in India before making it to Europe via Egypt thus "Gypsy".
Still not totally sure he wasn't. Doubt NF would object to adding few more allegedly objectionable Outlanders to his totals and bar charts.
Half a million households cancelled their licence fee last year as the BBC struggled to connect with younger audiences drifting away to Netflix and YouTube.
The stark extent of the BBC’s challenges are set out in the corporation’s annual report, which shows the total number of British households paying the £169.50 licence fee fell to 23.9 million, suggesting a growing number of people feel able to go without BBC services.
When does Labour just add the TV tax to council tax?
If that happens, there'll be telly tax riots.
Depends how long they leave it. If they do it now, they'll probably get away with it as most people are still paying the TV tax.
If they make it compulsory, I think there will be significant opposition to it. I genuinely don't watch anything that requires a TV licence so I don't have one. If they make it compulsory, I still wouldn't watch it so I'd be a tad upset!
It is absurdly idyllic. Enough rapids to make it exciting but then long calm stretches where the sun dapples on the cool green water and the kingfishers dip in dazzlement and jewel blue dragonflies alight on your paddle
And all the way down there are French families sitting in chairs in the water. Their teen daughters laughing and swimming with their boyfriends. Kids zip wire overhead and say Bonjour! Picnics on the pebbled river beaches. Flasks of cold wine and wheels of melting cheese and beers chilled in the backwaters
Like a Gallic Eden. Almost no foreign tourists
Almost no foreign tourists?
I've kayaked the Ardeche many times. It gets very busy this time of year.
How does the Verdon compare to the Ardeche area in general?
Edit: my mistake, I thought you were in Verdon area - I see gorges du tarn is further west (Cevennes?).
Yes I’m in l’Aveyron. Near Millau and near Lozere. A really empty and beautiful corner of France - it’s really far south so you get the cloudless skies and orange tiled villages - but sufficiently elevated that it’s not baking hot and nights are fresh
And it’s…. Just empty. Can’t be many corners of Europe as beautiful as this (in summer, I imagine winters are brutal) which aren’t swarmed with tourists
If Her Majesties Daily Telegraph is correct I will be taking early retirement before too long and moving from net contributor to net recipient, without a pdrticularly large diference in "Take Home" income (seeing as you dont pay NI or pension contributions on pension income).
No discussion of the fact the might Hundred is starting today....
Is it called that, because a hundred people care about the tournament?
Apparently the ECB want to change it to Twenty20 format while still calling it 'The Hundred'. Is the ECB a veritable hothouse for very stupid ideas?
Did the ECB people run the Tories GE campaign?
They were told when they started that Hundred was stupid because everybody else plays T20. It costs the ECB money to subsidise the cost of the Hundred, so they need to sell it to investors, who have said, well its needs to be T20 (especially the Indians who want T20 global league). Also, lots of the top players are not coming to the Hundred now because the likes of MLC pay better and errh play T20.
And that is before we got to the mess of franchises that have pissed of the counties and then how they spread about the top talent, so players famously Yaaarrrrrrrkkkshire aren't playing for the franchise that is based in that part of the world.
Pissing off the counties was the whole point of it, the ECB hates that it has to sustain 18 professional counties.
The counties make English cricket though-
You know that and I know that.
The ECB does not know that. It sees the non-Test ground counties as a drain it would be better off without.
County cricket is dead. It's daft to pretend otherwise. Many years ago I used to really look forwards to the short (and sometimes better and longer) summaries of County cricket in the national newspapers. That's all gone.
Actually the viewership on YouTube is still doing surprisingly well after the initial COVID boost. More people watch those and are currently tuned into the Hundred coverage.
County cricket was once a really big thing. It's not now. I doubt there's a Middlesex supporter in the country.
An old friend of mine is a longstanding member at MCCC. How else goes one get to sit in the pavilion at Lord’s, without having to sit through the decades-long waiting list?
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
If the tories merged with reform I suspect reform would lose voters
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
I simply do not understand how you can even quote 2019 Johnson win in any argument you try to make
He is thoroughly discredited and events have changed the whole political debate including the disaster that was Truss
You may want to live on past glories but the electorate has consigned them to history as they want a new chapter and different future
If Trump wins again Boris will certainly try for a comeback here too, he is certainly more charismatic than the current Tory leadership contenders
Hey ho, the Tories can well afford to go down from a mammoth 121 seats to a merely massive 120.
Only Boris can really squeeze the 14% who voted for Farage short of a full on Tory and Reform pact
I think by the time of the next election - probably in 2028 or 2029 - ideas like that are going to seem very quaint.
That's if people even remember who Reform UK used to be. After all, it's only 5 years ago that Chuka Umunna and Change UK were playing a pivotal role in British politics.
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
I simply do not understand how you can even quote 2019 Johnson win in any argument you try to make
He is thoroughly discredited and events have changed the whole political debate including the disaster that was Truss
You may want to live on past glories but the electorate has consigned them to history as they want a new chapter and different future
If Trump wins again Boris will certainly try for a comeback here too, he is certainly more charismatic than the current Tory leadership contenders
Hey ho, the Tories can well afford to go down from a mammoth 121 seats to a merely massive 120.
Only Boris can really squeeze the 14% who voted for Farage short of a full on Tory and Reform pact
I think by the time of the next election - probably in 2028 or 2029 - ideas like that are going to seem very quaint.
That's if people even remember who Reform UK used to be. After all, it's only 5 years ago that Chuka Umunna and Change UK were playing a pivotal role in British politics.
Except CUK didn't even get 1% let alone the 14% and 5 elected MPs ReformUK got this year
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
I simply do not understand how you can even quote 2019 Johnson win in any argument you try to make
He is thoroughly discredited and events have changed the whole political debate including the disaster that was Truss
You may want to live on past glories but the electorate has consigned them to history as they want a new chapter and different future
If Trump wins again Boris will certainly try for a comeback here too, he is certainly more charismatic than the current Tory leadership contenders
Hey ho, the Tories can well afford to go down from a mammoth 121 seats to a merely massive 120.
Only Boris can really squeeze the 14% who voted for Farage short of a full on Tory and Reform pact
I think by the time of the next election - probably in 2028 or 2029 - ideas like that are going to seem very quaint.
That's if people even remember who Reform UK used to be. After all, it's only 5 years ago that Chuka Umunna and Change UK were playing a pivotal role in British politics.
Except CUK didn't even get 1% let alone the 14% and 5 elected MPs ReformUK got this year
Honestly, it would have amazed me if you'd grasped the point.
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
I simply do not understand how you can even quote 2019 Johnson win in any argument you try to make
He is thoroughly discredited and events have changed the whole political debate including the disaster that was Truss
You may want to live on past glories but the electorate has consigned them to history as they want a new chapter and different future
If Trump wins again Boris will certainly try for a comeback here too, he is certainly more charismatic than the current Tory leadership contenders
Hey ho, the Tories can well afford to go down from a mammoth 121 seats to a merely massive 120.
Only Boris can really squeeze the 14% who voted for Farage short of a full on Tory and Reform pact
I think by the time of the next election - probably in 2028 or 2029 - ideas like that are going to seem very quaint.
That's if people even remember who Reform UK used to be. After all, it's only 5 years ago that Chuka Umunna and Change UK were playing a pivotal role in British politics.
Except CUK didn't even get 1% let alone the 14% and 5 elected MPs ReformUK got this year
Honestly, it would have amazed me if you'd grasped the point.
Clearly you didn't, CUK never elected a single MP or got anywhere near Reform's voteshare in the polls
The other part of this "all Reform voters are basically Conservatives" nonsense comes at the top of the thread quoted by @HYUFD
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
That is simply not true and a complete spin of the figures as you well know. Given well over 50% of constituencies had Tories and Labour first or second on 4th July and less than 20% had the Tories and LDs first or second that is a huge boost to the Tories in Conservative v Labour marginals where they retain their existing vote and add the vast majority of the Reform vote too.
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
At seat level, it probably works out even worse for a RefCon party. One of the big reasons the result on July 4 was was it was was how interchangable LibLab votes were. Johnson (or, to give him his full title, Disgraced Liar Johnson) or Farage would have turned that effect up beyond 11.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
It certainly isn't unless nearly 100% of LD and Green voters voted Labour in Labour v Con or Reform marginals and nearly 100% of Labour and Green voters voted LD in LD v Con marginals which wouldn't have happened even against a more Faragist Tory party.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
I simply do not understand how you can even quote 2019 Johnson win in any argument you try to make
He is thoroughly discredited and events have changed the whole political debate including the disaster that was Truss
You may want to live on past glories but the electorate has consigned them to history as they want a new chapter and different future
If Trump wins again Boris will certainly try for a comeback here too, he is certainly more charismatic than the current Tory leadership contenders
If Her Majesties Daily Telegraph is correct I will be taking early retirement before too long and moving from net contributor to net recipient, without a pdrticularly large diference in "Take Home" income (seeing as you dont pay NI or pension contributions on pension income).
you idiot only if your tpotal pensions are less than standard tax code, anything above that you are hammered , so unless you are part time in KFC you are deluded.
PS: Typical Labour donkeys, they will just f*ck the pensions more than that moron Brown did and end up with less money.
Half a million households cancelled their licence fee last year as the BBC struggled to connect with younger audiences drifting away to Netflix and YouTube.
The stark extent of the BBC’s challenges are set out in the corporation’s annual report, which shows the total number of British households paying the £169.50 licence fee fell to 23.9 million, suggesting a growing number of people feel able to go without BBC services.
When does Labour just add the TV tax to council tax?
It’s the most regressive tax of all, results in tens of thousands of mostly single mothers getting criminal convictions every year, and is going to end up going away anyway as the media landscape changes. There’s a huge opportunity for the new government to do the job properly and scrap the licence fee.
I'd suggest fuel duty nowadays is a more regressive tax.
If you can afford a nice, new electric vehicle you can avoid it altogether.
If you can't afford a nice, new electric vehicle but can afford a hybrid you pay some tax but much less.
If you can't afford a new vehicle and rely upon your old banger to go to your minimum wage work then you're paying a lot.
Half a million households cancelled their licence fee last year as the BBC struggled to connect with younger audiences drifting away to Netflix and YouTube.
The stark extent of the BBC’s challenges are set out in the corporation’s annual report, which shows the total number of British households paying the £169.50 licence fee fell to 23.9 million, suggesting a growing number of people feel able to go without BBC services.
When does Labour just add the TV tax to council tax?
It’s the most regressive tax of all, results in tens of thousands of mostly single mothers getting criminal convictions every year, and is going to end up going away anyway as the media landscape changes. There’s a huge opportunity for the new government to do the job properly and scrap the licence fee.
I'd suggest fuel duty nowadays is a more regressive tax.
If you can afford a nice, new electric vehicle you can avoid it altogether.
If you can't afford a nice, new electric vehicle but can afford a hybrid you pay some tax but much less.
If you can't afford a new vehicle and rely upon your old banger to go to your minimum wage work then you're paying a lot.
get a bike Bart, nothing wrong with 3litre v6 and waving as you pass plebs.
"What happened was completely out of character and does not reflect how I train my horses or coach my pupils"
Sounds bad - is the video circulating?
The more worrying aspect is that some absolute shitbag sat on the video for four years before deciding to pass it on just before the Olympics.
If the motivation was concern for animal welfare why not pass it on immediately to the authorities so she couldn’t be at risk of repeating over the next four years or maybe some fuck thought they would maximise a payout from a paper or had a personal feud. People are such arseholes.
That is not what happened. Wait till you get the story then comment on it.
Comments
You know it when you see it and you know it's not right when you see that too.
Though a pact is more likely than a full merger
You meant 'ruining.'
+5 is the American thing meaning 49 is 5 more than 44. The previous FAU poll has Trump 49 Biden 41 so a 3 point Dem improvement
https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/domestic/who_on_earth_is_the_hundred_for_we_try_to_identify_the_ecb's_mysterious_'new_audience'.html
I mean, I can understand that Harris is too ghastly and woke for your taste, and that you value party loyalty. Fine. But it's pretty clear that, on the face of it, Trump wanted to break the rules of democracy.
If Trump didn't cross the line, where exactly is the line?
Matthew Mott set to leave – and Eoin Morgan targeted to replace him
Australian head coach departing after England’s white-ball teams failed to defend their titles at T20 World Cup and 50-over tournament in India
https://www.thetimes.com/sport/cricket/article/matthew-mott-set-to-leave-and-eoin-morgan-targeted-to-replace-him-7n7ttwkkj
The proposed merger of the Conservatives and Reform UK might struggle to bring all both party's voters with it. 51% of 2024 Tories favour the Lib Dems over Reform, with 34% preferring Labour to Nigel Farage's party.
Even if you bring the Reform voters to the new party, you'll lose most of the existing Conservative voter base. Add half the Conservative 2024 vote to the LDs and that's 25% for the LDs - add a third to Labour and they are on 42% with the "new" Conservative/Reform Party on 18% - how that does end?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/around-600000-paris-olympics-tickets-still-available-including-100m-finals/ar-BB1qmtTP
2024 was what it was and if the pendulum swings back and they get wiped out next time because they kept all their eggs firmly in the anti-Tory protest basket I'll not be displeased.
I'm really struggling to remember the last time the LDs actually won a Westminster seat from Labour? Was it as long ago as Sarah Teather?
So your giving the LDs 25% is ridiculous as most voters do not live in seats where the LDs are even in the top 2 let alone hold the seat.
In actual fact on the Yougov figures a merged Conservative and Reform Party would be on significantly more than the 2024 national Tory voteshare in Tory v Labour marginal seats which is what the majority of seats were and Reform would also be well up on their 2024 voteshare in Reform v Labour marginals which is most of their target seats.
Though as I said a pact rather than a merger more likely so as virtually no seats have the LDs and Reform first and second there would be no real scenarios where Tory voters would need to vote LD over Reform anyway, though Tories could gain Reform voters who prefer them to the LDs
AND note that the pollster cited is Mainstream Resarch is Canadian firm based in Toronto.
Five years ago, Southwark Council declared a climate emergency and set 2030 as its target date to be carbon neutral. But now residents have accused the Council of wasting millions of pounds-worth of energy and leaving them to pick up the bill.
Dolly Thomas, who bought her leasehold property from the Labour council using Right to Buy, is now paying a £650 service charge every month to the authority – a bill bigger than her mortgage. The majority of the monthly charge goes towards heating and hot water costs.
Ms Thomas, 51, who works at neighbouring Lambeth Council, said: “It feels like I’m paying two mortgages. I’m so stressed. All I want to do now is move.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/bills/energy/labour-council-charging-us-three-times-average-energy-bill/
Scrapping the high-speed rail link north of Birmingham could lead to overcrowding on existing west coast main line, according to a National Audit Office report"
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/travellers-could-be-told-not-to-use-rail-after-loss-of-hs2-link-73fsx6cb2
I was looking at some leasehold flats in Manchester recently and the fees knocked £200,000 off the value of a 2 bed flat compared to others with saner costs 100 yards away..
Oh wait, not those travellers.
RefCon wouldn't have got 38 percent, whether it was a pact or a full-on merger. At least some centre-right types who voted for Sunak wouldn't have been able to stomach it. But even 38 percent is a landslide defeat when everyone else really really hates you.
but the turnout points to a lot of voters staying at home, and I suspect they are mostly on the right.
The ECB does not know that. It sees the non-Test ground counties as a drain it would be better off without.
It certainly didn't happen against the Johnson led Conservatives in 2019
And Reeves will waste even more.
And when the polls move he won’t admit being wrong.
However, tacking on a whopping surcharge does alter the equation. PLUS that kind of hit is a blow to anybody's budget . . . unless you own the bank.
Add three quarters of that Reform 14% and you add 10% to make 26%. Yay, result, yes?
Apart from the fact that those 8% that wandered off from the Tory share headed towards Labour. Meaning you're up 2 whilst donating 8 to Labour, for a net swing against of 3%
That's in Labour-facing seats.
In Lib Dem facing seats, it's worse. a 5% swing against.
Are you sure that's wise, Captain?
He is thoroughly discredited and events have changed the whole political debate including the disaster that was Truss
You may want to live on past glories but the electorate has consigned them to history as they want a new chapter and different future
For a start, the flaws in his thinking were utterly obvious from about 18 seconds after he made the announcement. It didn't need hindsight to see what would go wrong.
Then, there was the short-circuiting of due process. The whole thing was dreamt up by him and some No 10 advisers to get him an applause line for his conference speech.
And while the current government aren't admitting it yet, something like HSBrumManc is likely to have to happen, for the reasons in the NAO report.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/23/shorter-hs2-could-mean-higher-west-coast-rail-fares-watchdog-warns
Q1 would be whether the new owner of Yorkshire knew this was on the cards.
Possibly the most entertaining parts of last year's T20 finals day were Glenn Maxwell saying how the overseas cricketers he knew enjoyed playing for a county in the blast much more than for a franchise in the Hundred and Alex Hartley(I think?) having a massive strop because Essex and Somerset put out Surrey and Hampshire and that the smaller counties shouldn't be there.
Please support your local smaller county and if you're in the home counties, Kent, Essex, Middlesex or Sussex rather than Surrey or Hampshire. It's only Essex and Somerset's success in the county championship that has stopped the ECB making it a 6 team div 1 of test ground counties.
Whether "ranks higher than" can be seriously equated to "would vote for" is another area where I would be cautious.
Case study - Amber Valley - where Nigel Mills's vote fell from 29,000 to just under 11,000. Reform got 12,000, the Labour vote went up 3,500 and turnout was down 3,000 so simply add the Reform votes and Mills retains.
Nowhere near as simple as that - the YouGov study "suggests" up to a third of Conservative voters "rank" Labour "higher" than Reform so add 4,000 (to be generous) Conservative voters to Labour and the rest to Reform and it looks a marginal at best.
You also can't "prove" the 12,000 Reform voters were all ex-Conservatives, it's entirely possible some were ex-Labour, we need more research. There's also the issue of whether a "pact" would deliver the totality of voters - the evidence is pretty strong Conservative voters won't vote Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate.
In 2019, the combined Conservative/Brexit Party share was 50% or 21,800 votes. With no Conservative candidate, the Reform candidate got 11,181 votes so where did the other 10,000 votes go? Turnout was down 6,500 but even so why didn't more Conservatives vote Reform?
The NAO report makes it completely, wildly obvious to everyone that we need to build HS2 out at least to Crewe regardless of whatever else happens, or else we will have simply flushed the entire expense of HS2 down the toilet.
(This isn’t sunk-cost fallacy - it would be sunk cost fallacy to say ”we must build HS2 to Edinburgh now or we will have wasted the London <-> Birmingham expense” - the cost of running out to Crewe from the current end of the HS2 line is a tiny fraction of the cost expended so far - we’ve already bought all the land! - and it unlocks huge capacity increases on the London <-> Birmingham route.)
He is now, if I remember correctly, nothing to do with the Labour machine.
Looks like a change in facts. What was your argument exactly?
On a separate note it always amazes me the service charges some people end up paying on static caravans and why people buy them. I’ve seen as high as £11K a year.
NEW THREAD
However I was suggesting more a pact, so Reform either stand down or put up paper candidates in Tory v Labour or LD marginals and the Tories either stand down or put up paper candidates in Reform v Labour marginals based on which party was in the top 2 on 4th July
Personally salute the great Blue Hen State AND the delegation Delaware Democrats are sending to Chicago next month.
Only those who have been in similar situation can really relate. Strong political supporters of your home state's favorite son in politics, someone you've been helping and voting for over the decades, and basking that he's finally made it all the way to the White House. And then . . .
Being from a small state - just one Representative in US House - makes it worse. In part because state pride is amplified in smaller states, in part because the percentage of folks who have actually encountered Joe Biden, or some other favorite in another state, in person is sizable. Maybe at a political event or government setting, but even more likely at the grocery store or post office.
Or down at the Delaware Shore.
Still not totally sure he wasn't. Doubt NF would object to adding few more allegedly objectionable Outlanders to his totals and bar charts.
And it’s…. Just empty. Can’t be many corners of Europe as beautiful as this (in summer, I imagine winters are brutal) which aren’t swarmed with tourists
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/23/rachel-reeves-presented-plan-pension-tax-raid/
That's if people even remember who Reform UK used to be. After all, it's only 5 years ago that Chuka Umunna and Change UK were playing a pivotal role in British politics.
PS: Typical Labour donkeys, they will just f*ck the pensions more than that moron Brown did and end up with less money.
If you can afford a nice, new electric vehicle you can avoid it altogether.
If you can't afford a nice, new electric vehicle but can afford a hybrid you pay some tax but much less.
If you can't afford a new vehicle and rely upon your old banger to go to your minimum wage work then you're paying a lot.
It was Tory backbenches, rebellions and divisions that dated back to Maastricht that secured the referendum.
Farage was an oddball who is so toxic Vote Leave wanted nothing to do with him.