Sharp movement to Jenrick after yesterday’s vote – politicalbetting.com
The chart shows the betting movement over the last 48 hours. I think the value is with Cleverly and Mel Stride whose price I’d expect to move massively if he finishes ahead of Tom Tugendhat next week in the second round.
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
I have never been materially active in politics before, but this time I think civilization as we know it is on the line.
If we want to preserve freedom and a meritocracy in America, then Trump must win.
Musk is an idiot. It would help Trump more to just continue making Twitter an echo chamber for far-right conspiracy theories. Musk openly coming out for Trump just devalues Twitter as an information source. He probably thinks his personal public endorsement is worth something like the narcissistic egomaniac he is, but is it a net benefit to Trump? Doubtful.
Also 'civilization as we know it is on the line' is a better issue for Harris than Trump.
Interesting comments on the previous thread struggling to say something positive about Robert Jenrick.
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
I think there are broadly two different types of leadership contest. Those which are won by someone because of their positive merits - Cameron, Johnson - and those that are won by someone because they aren't someone else - Hague, IDS.
Jenrick may likely win because he isn't Badenoch, or Tugendhat, or Stride, or Cleverly.
On this basis of choosing a leader I'd probably go for Cleverly, as the least obviously objectionable, but the electorate in this case Matt have reasons to object to him too, that they don't have to Jenrick.
Interesting comments on the previous thread struggling to say something positive about Robert Jenrick.
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
I think that question could also be asked of his rivals.
Cleverly is at least amiable, and Stride can interview well, but both are at best lacklustre.
But it has to be one of the 5, and they are fishing in a much smaller pool of 120 possibilities.
Within that pool of five, any one of the others has something going for them. Yet Jenrick is in poll position.
He's got the best story for why the Conservatives lost (weak on boats). It may not be a true story, but it's a story and one that many on the right want to hear.
And walking away from government six months early gives him sone insulation from the great election fiasco.
That he's a hollow vessel who looks set to head the Conservatives to a very dark place without even realising what he's doing is a detail.
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
Sunak wasn't that bad. It was the Party that was shite.
It needs to go off and clean itself up a bit. Come back when it can genuinely say it is better than Labour.
Is Jenrick the guy to lead them through this? Go ahead. Surprise me.
Interesting comments on the previous thread struggling to say something positive about Robert Jenrick.
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
I think that question could also be asked of his rivals.
Cleverly is at least amiable, and Stride can interview well, but both are at best lacklustre.
But it has to be one of the 5, and they are fishing in a much smaller pool of 120 possibilities.
Within that pool of five, any one of the others has something going for them. Yet Jenrick is in poll position.
He's got the best story for why the Conservatives lost (weak on boats). It may not be a true story, but it's a story and one that many on the right want to hear.
And walking away from government six months early gives him sone insulation from the great election fiasco.
That he's a hollow vessel who looks set to head the Conservatives to a very dark place without even realising what he's doing is a detail.
That we're even describing traditional Toryism with strong control over our borders as 'a very dark place' is a problem. The new consensus isn't prepared to argue and make the case for its ideas any more (presumably because there isn't one), it prefers to smear its opponents as wicked and dangerous.
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
Sunak wasn't that bad. It was the Party that was shite.
It needs to go off and clean itself up a bit. Come back when it can genuinely say it is better than Labour.
Is Jenrick the guy to lead them through this? Go ahead. Surprise me.
Iain Martin has a column in The Times today on 'Project Phoenix', which is the report by Michael Forsyth (remember him?) on how the party can 'rise from the ashes'
It's basically all about navel gazing, party structure, procedural changes, candidate selection, and steadfastly refuses to contemplate any of the policy disasters of the last decade.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
Interesting comments on the previous thread struggling to say something positive about Robert Jenrick.
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
I think that question could also be asked of his rivals.
Cleverly is at least amiable, and Stride can interview well, but both are at best lacklustre.
But it has to be one of the 5, and they are fishing in a much smaller pool of 120 possibilities.
Within that pool of five, any one of the others has something going for them. Yet Jenrick is in poll position.
He's got the best story for why the Conservatives lost (weak on boats). It may not be a true story, but it's a story and one that many on the right want to hear.
And walking away from government six months early gives him sone insulation from the great election fiasco.
That he's a hollow vessel who looks set to head the Conservatives to a very dark place without even realising what he's doing is a detail.
That we're even describing traditional Toryism with strong control over our borders as 'a very dark place' is a problem. The new consensus isn't prepared to argue and make the case for its ideas any more (presumably because there isn't one), it prefers to smear its opponents as wicked and dangerous.
Maybe the very dark place in question is the back rows in the middle of the House of Commons, behind the Lib Dems.
Yes, but if you read the previous thread, the pro-Trumpers are in denial about this. Of *course* the 'stars' who have been spreading the hatred and discord had no idea they were (at best) working for Russian actors, and those actors had no influence on the 'stars' output, despite the millions of dollars spent.
It is impossible to support Trump and the American right, and to support Ukraine. The two are utterly incompatible viewpoints.
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
Sunak wasn't that bad. It was the Party that was shite.
It needs to go off and clean itself up a bit. Come back when it can genuinely say it is better than Labour.
Is Jenrick the guy to lead them through this? Go ahead. Surprise me.
I'm done with swallowing my doubts about someone, based on evidence right in front of my nose, and hoping they turn out differently and surprise me - as I did with May, Boris and Truss (even though I didn't vote for them).
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
It makes me wonder about the pro Putin shills in the UK.
One reassuring thing about the post-election Tory party is that none of the candidates, nor any of the grassroots, are remotely pro-Russian. In stark contrast to the situation across the Atlantic.
Yes, but if you read the previous thread, the pro-Trumpers are in denial about this. Of *course* the 'stars' who have been spreading the hatred and discord had no idea they were (at best) working for Russian actors, and those actors had no influence on the 'stars' output, despite the millions of dollars spent.
It is impossible to support Trump and the American right, and to support Ukraine. The two are utterly incompatible viewpoints.
He didn’t know he was working for a company that took $10 million USD in black bag payments from Russia guys. Horrible coincidence. We’ve all been there
Yes, but if you read the previous thread, the pro-Trumpers are in denial about this. Of *course* the 'stars' who have been spreading the hatred and discord had no idea they were (at best) working for Russian actors, and those actors had no influence on the 'stars' output, despite the millions of dollars spent.
It is impossible to support Trump and the American right, and to support Ukraine. The two are utterly incompatible viewpoints.
If someone believes America would be better run by a small elite of high (?) status males, they may well believe Ukraine would be better under Putin too. Not sure if the high refers to their status or what they have been smoking.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
Nate Silver now works for Polymarket, which in turn is part owned by Theil, so may not be as objective as he was historically.
Maybe but at least he explains what is going on in his model:
tldr:
- The model assumes a convention bounce that will fade. This means if Harris maintains her current polling lead she will soon be favorite again in the model. - Harris got a roughly 1% lower than 'expected' convention bounce - it's plausible to explain this by the timing of RFK dropping out and endorsing Trump.
Mr. B, I know the name Tim Pool but have never watched him. Does he give any reasoning for why Ukraine is the enemy of 'this' (US, presumably) country?
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
Sunak wasn't that bad. It was the Party that was shite.
It needs to go off and clean itself up a bit. Come back when it can genuinely say it is better than Labour.
Is Jenrick the guy to lead them through this? Go ahead. Surprise me.
I'm done with swallowing my doubts about someone, based on evidence right in front of my nose, and hoping they turn out differently and surprise me - as I did with May, Boris and Truss (even though I didn't vote for them).
Almost always it turns out to be instructive.
Integrity must come first.
Good idea, but be careful. A lot of people were attracted to Corbyn because of his “integrity”. It’s possible to confuse integrity for a theological, evangelical self belief.
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
Sunak wasn't that bad. It was the Party that was shite.
It needs to go off and clean itself up a bit. Come back when it can genuinely say it is better than Labour.
Is Jenrick the guy to lead them through this? Go ahead. Surprise me.
I'm done with swallowing my doubts about someone, based on evidence right in front of my nose, and hoping they turn out differently and surprise me - as I did with May, Boris and Truss (even though I didn't vote for them).
Almost always it turns out to be instructive.
Integrity must come first.
Good idea, but be careful. A lot of people were attracted to Corbyn because of his “integrity”. It’s possible to confuse integrity for a theological, evangelical self belief.
I think Casino means necessary, but not sufficient.
Mr. B, I know the name Tim Pool but have never watched him. Does he give any reasoning for why Ukraine is the enemy of 'this' (US, presumably) country?
Because that's what the money tells him to say. At best, that money was coming from his audience.
There's a noticeable trait in many people who try to make their fortunes out of social media - they become more extreme in whichever direction over time, and any morals or integrity they had goes flying out of the window. If an extreme view gets more clicks, then they'll become more extreme.
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
People aren't really thinking about Sunak. He was a do-nothing stop-gap-PM who didn't even back himself to improve things in the time available, calling an early election instead. Labour will be compared against the Tory record since 2010 which is not exactly glorious.
In fact, they're not really thinking about the Tories at all. I'd be amazed if the general public knew anything about the swings and roundabouts of this election.
When the time comes and Labour's decisions are no longer given the benefit of the doubt and people head to the ballot box, seeking to give Labour a bit of a "second term" kick [most will assume Labour will get a second term, after a whopping majority like that regardless of the nuance] they are perhaps more likely to vote LD as the traditional vehicle of protest, then they are to return to the Tory fold.
The Tories' best chance of recovery is if Labour do OK, and the two party hegemony holds up.
It’s possible there might be a US government shutdown as the GOP are up to their old tricks .
They’ve attached the SAVE Act to the Spending Bill . Essentially that act requires proof of citizenship to vote.
Its already illegal to try and vote if you’re not a US citizen . The Dems oppose the SAVE as it could disenfranchise some voters who are legal and more likely minorities .
Tomorrow there’s the latest jobs report which will influence whether the Fed cut interest rates by a quarter or half a percent .
So there are a few variables now which could cause some changes in the polling . Today we’re likely to hear whether RFK jnr remains on the NC ballot . The judge has to make a quick decision as mail in ballots are due to start going out tomorrow .
Mr. B, I know the name Tim Pool but have never watched him. Does he give any reasoning for why Ukraine is the enemy of 'this' (US, presumably) country?
They were funded by the Democrats to trigger the war, or something. Because reasons.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
Nate Silver now works for Polymarket, which in turn is part owned by Theil, so may not be as objective as he was historically.
Maybe but at least he explains what is going on in his model:
tldr:
- The model assumes a convention bounce that will fade. This means if Harris maintains her current polling lead she will soon be favorite again in the model. - Harris got a roughly 1% lower than 'expected' convention bounce - it's plausible to explain this by the timing of RFK dropping out and endorsing Trump.
Any number of assumptions about what happened after the convention are 'plausible'. Incorporating them on the fly into what's supposed to be a statistical model isn't at all plausible.
If I can try to remember back to what I felt about the last few Conservative PMs *before* they gained power:
Cameron: A good man, who was reversing the party's decline (after Howard's good work). I felt he would be a good PM.
May: I did not like aspects of her time as Home Secretary; then again, I can say that for virtually every HS. That role is somewhat of a poisoned chalice, and I viewed the fact she survived so long in that role as a positive sign of her abilities.
Johnson: Despite quite liking his character, I felt his time as MoL showed he would be a terrible PM. I was against him becoming PM from before he re-entered parliament.
Truss: She was barely on my radar before or during her PMship.
Sunak: He had an incredibly difficult task during Covid, and whatever he did could be criticised. But I could not see him being able to steady a ship that had already been sunk by his two predecessors.
The next one: I am Meh! about the lot. Not one I would want as PM; and I have no idea which might best be able to rebuild the party ready for their successor.
Mr. B, I know the name Tim Pool but have never watched him. Does he give any reasoning for why Ukraine is the enemy of 'this' (US, presumably) country?
Because that's what the money tells him to say. At best, that money was coming from his audience.
There's a noticeable trait in many people who try to make their fortunes out of social media - they become more extreme in whichever direction over time, and any morals or integrity they had goes flying out of the window. If an extreme view gets more clicks, then they'll become more extreme.
I think that’s true of Musk too, since he became a social media mogul. He’s visibly been on a journey.
You’re right it happens in every direction, even towards the centre. “Centrism” and liberalism on social media is much more assured and militant than it used to be. People follow the engagement.
If I can try to remember back to what I felt about the last few Conservative PMs *before* they gained power:
Cameron: A good man, who was reversing the party's decline (after Howard's good work). I felt he would be a good PM.
May: I did not like aspects of her time as Home Secretary; then again, I can say that for virtually every HS. That role is somewhat of a poisoned chalice, and I viewed the fact she survived so long in that role as a positive sign of her abilities.
Johnson: Despite quite liking his character, I felt his time as MoL showed he would be a terrible PM. I was against him becoming PM from before he re-entered parliament.
Truss: She was barely on my radar before or during her PMship.
Sunak: He had an incredibly difficult task during Covid, and whatever he did could be criticised. But I could not see him being able to steady a ship that had already been sunk by his two predecessors.
The next one: I am Meh! about the lot. Not one I would want as PM; and I have no idea which might best be able to rebuild the party ready for their successor.
I think it's an impossible task they have - their core vote base is dying off and they then need to attach 2 very political diverse and probably mutually exclusive voters (reform / Lib Dem voters) to have any chance of picking up seats.
Worse the membership is going to select a right wing leader who is likely to be completely toxic to one of those potential voter groups and who will have never been opposition before so will not know how different the job being Leader of the Opposition is.
"Why did the Grenfell Inquiry take so long to tell us what we know already? Ross Clark
Predictably enough, and not unreasonably, the 1700-page final report into the Grenfell disaster apportions the bulk of the blame with the companies who manufactured and sold the flammable cladding and insulation.
What has emerged from this inquiry is astonishing: you hardly need a degree in engineering to work out that it is not a good idea to wrap a tower block in combustible material. That manufacturers seem to have ‘deliberately concealed’ the risk that their products posed is something which is almost inevitably going to be picked over further in the courts. Why it has taken seven years to produce this report – thereby holding up possible criminal cases – is itself a scandal. As ever with our drawn-out public inquiries many of the guilty parties will no longer be around to face the music, at least not in the roles they held."
1 - AIUI (am I wrong?) it was started by a household appliance. I don't see that it has addressed for safety of such - but I have not read all 1700 pages.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
Nate Silver now works for Polymarket, which in turn is part owned by Theil, so may not be as objective as he was historically.
Maybe but at least he explains what is going on in his model:
tldr:
- The model assumes a convention bounce that will fade. This means if Harris maintains her current polling lead she will soon be favorite again in the model. - Harris got a roughly 1% lower than 'expected' convention bounce - it's plausible to explain this by the timing of RFK dropping out and endorsing Trump.
Any number of assumptions about what happened after the convention are 'plausible'. Incorporating them on the fly into what's supposed to be a statistical model isn't at all plausible.
All things being equal you’d assume the more partisan and less swingy the electorate becomes, the smaller the convention bounces.
Funny how Americans are hardening into ever more solid mutually hostile blocs, while the British electorate seems more volatile and non-partisan than ever. We are not the same.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
Nate Silver now works for Polymarket, which in turn is part owned by Theil, so may not be as objective as he was historically.
Maybe but at least he explains what is going on in his model:
tldr:
- The model assumes a convention bounce that will fade. This means if Harris maintains her current polling lead she will soon be favorite again in the model. - Harris got a roughly 1% lower than 'expected' convention bounce - it's plausible to explain this by the timing of RFK dropping out and endorsing Trump.
Any number of assumptions about what happened after the convention are 'plausible'. Incorporating them on the fly into what's supposed to be a statistical model isn't at all plausible.
Where on earth does he say he's incorporated it into his model? It's his guess as to why Harris's average lead was 4.7% before RFK dropped out and 3.5% after
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
People aren't really thinking about Sunak. He was a do-nothing stop-gap-PM who didn't even back himself to improve things in the time available, calling an early election instead. Labour will be compared against the Tory record since 2010 which is not exactly glorious.
In fact, they're not really thinking about the Tories at all. I'd be amazed if the general public knew anything about the swings and roundabouts of this election.
When the time comes and Labour's decisions are no longer given the benefit of the doubt and people head to the ballot box, seeking to give Labour a bit of a "second term" kick [most will assume Labour will get a second term, after a whopping majority like that regardless of the nuance] they are perhaps more likely to vote LD as the traditional vehicle of protest, then they are to return to the Tory fold.
The Tories' best chance of recovery is if Labour do OK, and the two party hegemony holds up.
I think the Tories need Reform to disappear, which given Farage's track record with political parties is not a hopeless expectation. If it doesn't they are somewhat stuck in the current situation favourable to Labour IMO. There aren't enough far right voters (for now and thank goodness) to form a majority over sensible voters, but an alliance, merger etc is problematic because Conservatives at the end of day are mostly sensible while Reform voters are not.
I think the Conservative problem is structural rather than purely political. Adjusting policy positions won't solve it for them.
One thing I have noticed, and this is purely based on anecdote, is many people who were previously very sure in themselves about voting to oust the Tories are now much less sure about their decision. If the next leader can harness this sentiment I think a win in 2029 isn't off the table.
People who are natural small c conservatives abandoned the party in July but even this small taste of their first Labour government since they were teenagers or in their early 20s has begun to make them see sense.
Yep, the best antidote to Labour is seeing Labour in office.
So many people I know are properly shitting it about this budget at the end of October.
Everybody knew there was going to be a reckoning - there should have been one immediately after the pandemic, a one off tax raid to try and recoup some of the millions thrown at the economy by Sunak when Chancellor (parts of which were defrauded by some).
We are still borrowing £80-£90 billion a year - the priority must be to get the public finances back somewhere near balance and that's going to need a mix of tax rises and spending cuts and that's what October will be about.
You don't like the answer but it involves cutting state employment by a substantial number and completely reworking the benefits system. There is no path to a balanced budget while 3m people sit in sickness benefits and 1/5 people are on the state payroll, the other 4 people simply don't pay enough tax to cover it all.
Or going the other way and boosting tax to French levels. The UK has a relatively low tax burden compared to many other rich countries.
(Not to say that it's a better solution. Just that it's not unusual to do it the other way round).
And tie the country into a permanent low growth trap. It's a terrible idea.
Aren't the UK and France scoring roughly the same on GDP growth? The only country doing really well is the US, with massive federal investment in infrastructure and climate mitigation.
EU forecast growth for 2024 is a stark dataset.
For 2024 15 EU countries are forecast to be above 2% growth. They are all Eastern European, except for Malta, Ireland and Luxembourg. The next down 3 are Spain, Greece and Portugal.
I have never been materially active in politics before, but this time I think civilization as we know it is on the line.
If we want to preserve freedom and a meritocracy in America, then Trump must win.
It's amazing how oblivious Musk is to how his politics / twitter antics harms the Tesla brand with much of its target audience (environmentally conscious consumers).
From a brand perspective I would now prefer literally any other US, European, Japanese or Korean brand to Tesla. So assuming there's two cars at the same price point and quality, Tesla loses.
And that's before you consider Chinese competitors for those choosing on price alone, and questions over build quality / length of cycle for new car models.
Appealing to 45% of Americans and 10% of Europeans is not the way to build a dominant brand that it was once predicted to be.
I have never been materially active in politics before, but this time I think civilization as we know it is on the line.
If we want to preserve freedom and a meritocracy in America, then Trump must win.
That’s the problem with meritocracy
It makes arsewipes like Musk, who happened to be in the right place at the right time and put all Daddy’s money on red, think they are uniquely talented and insightful
Interesting comments on the previous thread struggling to say something positive about Robert Jenrick.
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
I think that question could also be asked of his rivals.
Cleverly is at least amiable, and Stride can interview well, but both are at best lacklustre.
But it has to be one of the 5, and they are fishing in a much smaller pool of 120 possibilities.
Within that pool of five, any one of the others has something going for them. Yet Jenrick is in poll position.
He's got the best story for why the Conservatives lost (weak on boats). It may not be a true story, but it's a story and one that many on the right want to hear.
And walking away from government six months early gives him sone insulation from the great election fiasco.
That he's a hollow vessel who looks set to head the Conservatives to a very dark place without even realising what he's doing is a detail.
That we're even describing traditional Toryism with strong control over our borders as 'a very dark place' is a problem. The new consensus isn't prepared to argue and make the case for its ideas any more (presumably because there isn't one), it prefers to smear its opponents as wicked and dangerous.
It’s a question of tone. You can be traditionally Tory and have strong borders without othering.
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
People aren't really thinking about Sunak. He was a do-nothing stop-gap-PM who didn't even back himself to improve things in the time available, calling an early election instead. Labour will be compared against the Tory record since 2010 which is not exactly glorious.
In fact, they're not really thinking about the Tories at all. I'd be amazed if the general public knew anything about the swings and roundabouts of this election.
When the time comes and Labour's decisions are no longer given the benefit of the doubt and people head to the ballot box, seeking to give Labour a bit of a "second term" kick [most will assume Labour will get a second term, after a whopping majority like that regardless of the nuance] they are perhaps more likely to vote LD as the traditional vehicle of protest, then they are to return to the Tory fold.
The Tories' best chance of recovery is if Labour do OK, and the two party hegemony holds up.
I think the Tories need Reform to disappear, which given Farage's track record with political parties is not a hopeless expectation. If it doesn't they are somewhat stuck in the current situation favourable to Labour IMO. There aren't enough far right voters (for now and thank goodness) to form a majority over sensible voters, but an alliance, merger etc is problematic because Conservatives at the end of day are mostly sensible while Reform voters are not.
I think the Conservative problem is structural rather than purely political. Adjusting policy positions won't solve it for them.
Les Républicains have tried several times to claw back their position on the right by saying and proposing pretty gamey things, but each time they do that it just seems to help Le Pen on her journey to national treasure.
The polling on party support and Trump shows the gulf that exists between Tory and Reform voters.
That said I do think they need some charisma. Hence why Badenoch might be the best bet. Isam’s charisma theory makes sense in this sort of context.
I have never been materially active in politics before, but this time I think civilization as we know it is on the line.
If we want to preserve freedom and a meritocracy in America, then Trump must win.
It's amazing how oblivious Musk is to how his politics / twitter antics harms the Tesla brand with much of its target audience (environmentally conscious consumers).
From a brand perspective I would now prefer literally any other US, European, Japanese or Korean brand to Tesla. So assuming there's two cars at the same price point and quality, Tesla loses.
And that's before you consider Chinese competitors for those choosing on price alone, and questions over build quality / length of cycle for new car models.
Appealing to 45% of Americans and 10% of Europeans is not the way to build a dominant brand that it was once predicted to be.
I remember a few of the usual sages on here telling us how Musk was brilliantly taking Twitter towards profitability when it was entirely obvious his stewardship was going to alienate huge swathes of advertisers. It's not only that your ads might be placed next to the thoughts of racists and neo-Nazis but also that any association with X/Twitter is going to be toxic for your brand. I am surprised it is not spilling over into other areas of his empire. Much of the potential Tesla buying demographic, for example, is basically composed of people Musk has made very clear he holds in total contempt.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
Far better it from me to question the great Nate Silver but has it occurred to anyone that the lack of a convention bounce for Harris might just be because nobody is impressed by conventions anymore.
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
People aren't really thinking about Sunak. He was a do-nothing stop-gap-PM who didn't even back himself to improve things in the time available, calling an early election instead. Labour will be compared against the Tory record since 2010 which is not exactly glorious.
In fact, they're not really thinking about the Tories at all. I'd be amazed if the general public knew anything about the swings and roundabouts of this election.
When the time comes and Labour's decisions are no longer given the benefit of the doubt and people head to the ballot box, seeking to give Labour a bit of a "second term" kick [most will assume Labour will get a second term, after a whopping majority like that regardless of the nuance] they are perhaps more likely to vote LD as the traditional vehicle of protest, then they are to return to the Tory fold.
The Tories' best chance of recovery is if Labour do OK, and the two party hegemony holds up.
I think the Tories need Reform to disappear, which given Farage's track record with political parties is not a hopeless expectation. If it doesn't they are somewhat stuck in the current situation favourable to Labour IMO. There aren't enough far right voters (for now and thank goodness) to form a majority over sensible voters, but an alliance, merger etc is problematic because Conservatives at the end of day are mostly sensible while Reform voters are not.
I think the Conservative problem is structural rather than purely political. Adjusting policy positions won't solve it for them.
The Tories would be better off looking at the under-50s and developing a prospectus for them rather than chasing the votes of the Boomers who tend to back Reform.
"Why did the Grenfell Inquiry take so long to tell us what we know already? Ross Clark
Predictably enough, and not unreasonably, the 1700-page final report into the Grenfell disaster apportions the bulk of the blame with the companies who manufactured and sold the flammable cladding and insulation.
What has emerged from this inquiry is astonishing: you hardly need a degree in engineering to work out that it is not a good idea to wrap a tower block in combustible material. That manufacturers seem to have ‘deliberately concealed’ the risk that their products posed is something which is almost inevitably going to be picked over further in the courts. Why it has taken seven years to produce this report – thereby holding up possible criminal cases – is itself a scandal. As ever with our drawn-out public inquiries many of the guilty parties will no longer be around to face the music, at least not in the roles they held."
1 - AIUI (am I wrong?) it was started by a household appliance. I don't see that it has addressed for safety of such - but I have not read all 1700 pages.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
Nate Silver now works for Polymarket, which in turn is part owned by Theil, so may not be as objective as he was historically.
Maybe but at least he explains what is going on in his model:
tldr:
- The model assumes a convention bounce that will fade. This means if Harris maintains her current polling lead she will soon be favorite again in the model. - Harris got a roughly 1% lower than 'expected' convention bounce - it's plausible to explain this by the timing of RFK dropping out and endorsing Trump.
Any number of assumptions about what happened after the convention are 'plausible'. Incorporating them on the fly into what's supposed to be a statistical model isn't at all plausible.
Where on earth does he say he's incorporated it into his model? It's his guess as to why Harris's average lead was 4.7% before RFK dropped out and 3.5% after
I was incorrect in suggesting that he incorporated it on the fly. But it makes no sense to assume any figure at all for a convention bounce in a model. They are as variable and unpredictable as any given poll.
I have never been materially active in politics before, but this time I think civilization as we know it is on the line.
If we want to preserve freedom and a meritocracy in America, then Trump must win.
It's amazing how oblivious Musk is to how his politics / twitter antics harms the Tesla brand with much of its target audience (environmentally conscious consumers).
From a brand perspective I would now prefer literally any other US, European, Japanese or Korean brand to Tesla. So assuming there's two cars at the same price point and quality, Tesla loses.
And that's before you consider Chinese competitors for those choosing on price alone, and questions over build quality / length of cycle for new car models.
Appealing to 45% of Americans and 10% of Europeans is not the way to build a dominant brand that it was once predicted to be.
I remember a few of the usual sages on here telling us how Musk was brilliantly taking Twitter towards profitability when it was entirely obvious his stewardship was going to alienate huge swathes of advertisers. It's not only that your ads might be placed next to the thoughts of racists and neo-Nazis but also that any association with X/Twitter is going to be toxic for your brand. I am surprised it is not spilling over into other areas of his empire. Much of the potential Tesla buying demographic, for example, is basically composed of people Musk has made very clear he holds in total contempt.
There is zero chance I will buy a Tesla - and my next car will be an EV..
Interesting comments on the previous thread struggling to say something positive about Robert Jenrick.
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
He's intelligent, ambitious, has a bit of fire in his belly, is relatively cogent and seems to have some respect from some of his colleagues.
There are enough incidents in his past though to raise questions about his ethics and integrity that I'd struggle to get past.
He doesn't have any ethics or integrity, he's also cheap. £10k for an unlawful decision saving £50m tax, which should have finished his career, shows he's got no negotiation skills.
Interesting comments on the previous thread struggling to say something positive about Robert Jenrick.
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
I think that question could also be asked of his rivals.
Cleverly is at least amiable, and Stride can interview well, but both are at best lacklustre.
But it has to be one of the 5, and they are fishing in a much smaller pool of 120 possibilities.
Within that pool of five, any one of the others has something going for them. Yet Jenrick is in poll position.
He's got the best story for why the Conservatives lost (weak on boats). It may not be a true story, but it's a story and one that many on the right want to hear.
And walking away from government six months early gives him sone insulation from the great election fiasco.
That he's a hollow vessel who looks set to head the Conservatives to a very dark place without even realising what he's doing is a detail.
That we're even describing traditional Toryism with strong control over our borders as 'a very dark place' is a problem. The new consensus isn't prepared to argue and make the case for its ideas any more (presumably because there isn't one), it prefers to smear its opponents as wicked and dangerous.
It’s a question of tone. You can be traditionally Tory and have strong borders without othering.
Indeed; and of course the "traditional Tory" view was for open borders - until the build up to the Act of 1905, against which Winston Churchill spoke, the passing of which caused him to cross the floor. Much the same rhetoric surrounded it as today.
If I can try to remember back to what I felt about the last few Conservative PMs *before* they gained power:
Cameron: A good man, who was reversing the party's decline (after Howard's good work). I felt he would be a good PM.
May: I did not like aspects of her time as Home Secretary; then again, I can say that for virtually every HS. That role is somewhat of a poisoned chalice, and I viewed the fact she survived so long in that role as a positive sign of her abilities.
Johnson: Despite quite liking his character, I felt his time as MoL showed he would be a terrible PM. I was against him becoming PM from before he re-entered parliament.
Truss: She was barely on my radar before or during her PMship.
Sunak: He had an incredibly difficult task during Covid, and whatever he did could be criticised. But I could not see him being able to steady a ship that had already been sunk by his two predecessors.
The next one: I am Meh! about the lot. Not one I would want as PM; and I have no idea which might best be able to rebuild the party ready for their successor.
From a political point of view I think that Sunak's role during COVID was actually really easy. He got to chuck money at everyone which is always popular with none of the criticism that would usually be attached to a profligate Chancellor. We never got to see how he'd deal with the tough post COVID economic climate because he conveniently resigned.
Interesting comments on the previous thread struggling to say something positive about Robert Jenrick.
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
I think that question could also be asked of his rivals.
Cleverly is at least amiable, and Stride can interview well, but both are at best lacklustre.
But it has to be one of the 5, and they are fishing in a much smaller pool of 120 possibilities.
Within that pool of five, any one of the others has something going for them. Yet Jenrick is in poll position.
He's got the best story for why the Conservatives lost (weak on boats). It may not be a true story, but it's a story and one that many on the right want to hear.
And walking away from government six months early gives him sone insulation from the great election fiasco.
That he's a hollow vessel who looks set to head the Conservatives to a very dark place without even realising what he's doing is a detail.
That we're even describing traditional Toryism with strong control over our borders as 'a very dark place' is a problem. The new consensus isn't prepared to argue and make the case for its ideas any more (presumably because there isn't one), it prefers to smear its opponents as wicked and dangerous.
It’s a question of tone. You can be traditionally Tory and have strong borders without othering.
Indeed; and of course the "traditional Tory" view was for open borders - until the build up to the Act of 1905, against which Winston Churchill spoke, the passing of which caused him to cross the floor. Much the same rhetoric surrounded it as today.
I’m not sure that’s a fair comparable
Free trade / open borders makes great sense when you are top dog.
The goal is for passengers to be able to go to a nearby vertiport, or vertical take-off and landing location, and then fly 10-20 minutes in Archer’s Midnight aircraft to their destination of choice within the network—saving hours versus sitting in traffic.
Archer’s planned network includes vertiports at key locations such as Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Orange County, Santa Monica, Hollywood Burbank, Long Beach and Van Nuys. Archer’s goal is to begin its LA network operations by as early as 2026.
As part of its network planning, Archer is coordinating with the Los Angeles Rams to collaborate on potential exclusive vertiports at Woodland Hills and at Hollywood Park, the near 300-acre district centered around the 3.1 million square-foot SoFi Stadium. ..
..Midnight, Archer’s piloted, four-passenger electric aircraft, will play a crucial role in this network. Midnight is designed to offer passengers a sustainable, low-noise, and safe alternative to ground transportation: Travels at speeds up to 150 mph, turning hour-long ground commutes into minutes in the air Designed for back-to-back flights of 20-50 miles with minimal charge time in between 100x quieter than a helicopter at cruising altitudes Redundant systems across the aircraft allowing Archer to target similar levels of safety as commercial airliners Designed to carry a pilot, up to four passengers and carry-on luggage..
Anecdata: Year 5 school mums at drop off this morning complaining about the VAT on private school fees policy for the effect it will have on getting our respective state-educated children into their first choice school. General agreement that policy is done purely out of spite and that will mainly harm those in state schools. I'm slightly flabbergasted at the ease with which people in right-on suburban Manchester are now criticising Labour policy (and not just for not being left-wing enough). Also, one of the mums, who is an accountant, slightly peeved at all the work she suddenly has on her plate trying to liquidate people's assets before CGT is increased. ("what did they think the Labour Party would do?", she said, wearily).
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
People aren't really thinking about Sunak. He was a do-nothing stop-gap-PM who didn't even back himself to improve things in the time available, calling an early election instead. Labour will be compared against the Tory record since 2010 which is not exactly glorious.
In fact, they're not really thinking about the Tories at all. I'd be amazed if the general public knew anything about the swings and roundabouts of this election.
When the time comes and Labour's decisions are no longer given the benefit of the doubt and people head to the ballot box, seeking to give Labour a bit of a "second term" kick [most will assume Labour will get a second term, after a whopping majority like that regardless of the nuance] they are perhaps more likely to vote LD as the traditional vehicle of protest, then they are to return to the Tory fold.
The Tories' best chance of recovery is if Labour do OK, and the two party hegemony holds up.
I think the Tories need Reform to disappear, which given Farage's track record with political parties is not a hopeless expectation. If it doesn't they are somewhat stuck in the current situation favourable to Labour IMO. There aren't enough far right voters (for now and thank goodness) to form a majority over sensible voters, but an alliance, merger etc is problematic because Conservatives at the end of day are mostly sensible while Reform voters are not.
I think the Conservative problem is structural rather than purely political. Adjusting policy positions won't solve it for them.
I completely agree. Although I might call it "philosophical" rather than "structural" - they haven't done any thinking about what might be the right way forward in the long term; it's *all* micro-policy, talking points, wedges. The comment earlier about the "traditional Tory" approach to border control is a great example. It's the *current* knee jerk policy position, not part of a web of thinking about what it will mean to be a "successful" nation state in the next 100 years.
"Why did the Grenfell Inquiry take so long to tell us what we know already? Ross Clark
Predictably enough, and not unreasonably, the 1700-page final report into the Grenfell disaster apportions the bulk of the blame with the companies who manufactured and sold the flammable cladding and insulation.
What has emerged from this inquiry is astonishing: you hardly need a degree in engineering to work out that it is not a good idea to wrap a tower block in combustible material. That manufacturers seem to have ‘deliberately concealed’ the risk that their products posed is something which is almost inevitably going to be picked over further in the courts. Why it has taken seven years to produce this report – thereby holding up possible criminal cases – is itself a scandal. As ever with our drawn-out public inquiries many of the guilty parties will no longer be around to face the music, at least not in the roles they held."
1 - AIUI (am I wrong?) it was started by a household appliance. I don't see that it has addressed for safety of such - but I have not read all 1700 pages.
You're not wrong that it was started by a household appliance, you are considerably wrong in thinking that is a primary cause of a raging inferno in a tower block that was supposed to comply with building regs and be subdivided into small blocks with fireproof boundaries. There will always be small fires, dropped cigarette, shorting electrical appliance etc, they shouldn't result in a raging inferno. There's a very good Radio 4 podcast on Grenfell.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
Far better it from me to question the great Nate Silver but has it occurred to anyone that the lack of a convention bounce for Harris might just be because nobody is impressed by conventions anymore.
I wonder if it isn’t about the timing. She became the candidate quickly, and that saw a big polling boost for the Dems. Then the convention was not long after that, so it just felt like more of the same process, whereas usually there’s a big gap between candidacy secured and convention.
Interesting comments on the previous thread struggling to say something positive about Robert Jenrick.
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
I think that question could also be asked of his rivals.
Cleverly is at least amiable, and Stride can interview well, but both are at best lacklustre.
But it has to be one of the 5, and they are fishing in a much smaller pool of 120 possibilities.
Within that pool of five, any one of the others has something going for them. Yet Jenrick is in poll position.
He's got the best story for why the Conservatives lost (weak on boats). It may not be a true story, but it's a story and one that many on the right want to hear.
And walking away from government six months early gives him sone insulation from the great election fiasco.
That he's a hollow vessel who looks set to head the Conservatives to a very dark place without even realising what he's doing is a detail.
That we're even describing traditional Toryism with strong control over our borders as 'a very dark place' is a problem. The new consensus isn't prepared to argue and make the case for its ideas any more (presumably because there isn't one), it prefers to smear its opponents as wicked and dangerous.
It’s a question of tone. You can be traditionally Tory and have strong borders without othering.
Indeed; and of course the "traditional Tory" view was for open borders - until the build up to the Act of 1905, against which Winston Churchill spoke, the passing of which caused him to cross the floor. Much the same rhetoric surrounded it as today.
I’m not sure that’s a fair comparable
Free trade / open borders makes great sense when you are top dog.
Less clear when you are in the middle of the pack
That's precisely my point: "traditional" is no basis for coming up with a Conservative philosophy in 2024.
It is not impossible the final two could be Jenrick and Cleverly, who was only one vote behind Badenoch for second. Stride I think needed to beat Tugendhat in the first round to progress further, which he narrowly failed to do.
Plus of course it looks like Badenoch and Cleverly lent Stride a few votes to knock out Patel which will now go back
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
People aren't really thinking about Sunak. He was a do-nothing stop-gap-PM who didn't even back himself to improve things in the time available, calling an early election instead. Labour will be compared against the Tory record since 2010 which is not exactly glorious.
In fact, they're not really thinking about the Tories at all. I'd be amazed if the general public knew anything about the swings and roundabouts of this election.
When the time comes and Labour's decisions are no longer given the benefit of the doubt and people head to the ballot box, seeking to give Labour a bit of a "second term" kick [most will assume Labour will get a second term, after a whopping majority like that regardless of the nuance] they are perhaps more likely to vote LD as the traditional vehicle of protest, then they are to return to the Tory fold.
The Tories' best chance of recovery is if Labour do OK, and the two party hegemony holds up.
I think the Tories need Reform to disappear, which given Farage's track record with political parties is not a hopeless expectation. If it doesn't they are somewhat stuck in the current situation favourable to Labour IMO. There aren't enough far right voters (for now and thank goodness) to form a majority over sensible voters, but an alliance, merger etc is problematic because Conservatives at the end of day are mostly sensible while Reform voters are not.
I think the Conservative problem is structural rather than purely political. Adjusting policy positions won't solve it for them.
I completely agree. Although I might call it "philosophical" rather than "structural" - they haven't done any thinking about what might be the right way forward in the long term; it's *all* micro-policy, talking points, wedges. The comment earlier about the "traditional Tory" approach to border control is a great example. It's the *current* knee jerk policy position, not part of a web of thinking about what it will mean to be a "successful" nation state in the next 100 years.
You could quite fairly make much the same criticism of Labour, though.
Interesting comments on the previous thread struggling to say something positive about Robert Jenrick.
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
As Badenoch and Patel could appeal to ex Tory Reform voters, Tugendhat to ex Tory LD voters and Cleverly and Stride to ex Tory Labour voters. Yet only Jenrick potentially to all of them
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
People aren't really thinking about Sunak. He was a do-nothing stop-gap-PM who didn't even back himself to improve things in the time available, calling an early election instead. Labour will be compared against the Tory record since 2010 which is not exactly glorious.
In fact, they're not really thinking about the Tories at all. I'd be amazed if the general public knew anything about the swings and roundabouts of this election.
When the time comes and Labour's decisions are no longer given the benefit of the doubt and people head to the ballot box, seeking to give Labour a bit of a "second term" kick [most will assume Labour will get a second term, after a whopping majority like that regardless of the nuance] they are perhaps more likely to vote LD as the traditional vehicle of protest, then they are to return to the Tory fold.
The Tories' best chance of recovery is if Labour do OK, and the two party hegemony holds up.
I think the Tories need Reform to disappear, which given Farage's track record with political parties is not a hopeless expectation. If it doesn't they are somewhat stuck in the current situation favourable to Labour IMO. There aren't enough far right voters (for now and thank goodness) to form a majority over sensible voters, but an alliance, merger etc is problematic because Conservatives at the end of day are mostly sensible while Reform voters are not.
I think the Conservative problem is structural rather than purely political. Adjusting policy positions won't solve it for them.
I completely agree. Although I might call it "philosophical" rather than "structural" - they haven't done any thinking about what might be the right way forward in the long term; it's *all* micro-policy, talking points, wedges. The comment earlier about the "traditional Tory" approach to border control is a great example. It's the *current* knee jerk policy position, not part of a web of thinking about what it will mean to be a "successful" nation state in the next 100 years.
You could quite fairly make much the same criticism of Labour, though.
Labour are in power, so they need to do micro-policy detail. The Tories are in opposition. That’s a good time to get the big picture vision right.
They're all weak - but then Starmer is terrible and has an appallingly untalented cabinet. And they only have to beat the opposition, not the love child of Thatcher and Abe Lincoln
I'm not sure I care if Jenrick can build a good team and do the job.
He needs to not be solely obsessed with Rwanda/boats, though; that's important, and a big issue, but there will be huge opportunities to regain lots of DNV Tories and LD switchers on quasi-socialist economics.
I'd keep Hunt as Shadow Chancellor and go hard on Labour on tax & spend.
I think while in government the Rwanda policy only served to highlight how badly the government were failing on reducing those arrivals. Now that the Tories aren't in government they will need to work the boats angle hard to drive Labour voters to Reform and Reform voters back to the Tories. I think they also need an answer on winning back Lib Dem voters in the south of England but I'm not sure Jenrick would be well placed for it.
Are there really tonnes of Boris Johnson 'Get Brexit Done' 2019 fans who've gone over to the Lib Dems? It has never struck me as likely. Surely Lib Dem growth is mostly tactical Labour voters. And why go after them, when they represent a tiny number - Lib Dems underpolled Reform.
Because they hold 72 seats, most (but not all) of which had pretty low Reform totals. The Tories will inevitably win a lot of those back in due course. I don't see Reform displacing them as the main challengers in blue wall seats. But the Tories will certainly need to look competent for a bit first.
As to what they should do now. I think they should have a bit of fun. It's too early to start trying to elect a leader who looks like a PM in waiting. Have a go with Kemi Badenoch. She will entertain the base, give Labour some discomfort in PMQs, and keep the party in the headlines. I find her unappealing and antagonistic as a politician but that needn't matter yet, and I'm not the target audience.
What Conservatives can embrace now, which we've already seen on PB, is the joy of being in opposition. You can no longer be blamed for everything, that's someone else's problem. You can focus on policies and platforms that you really believe in, and you can really lay into the new government. It's a sort of release. It can be electorally disastrous - see both Corbyn and Swinson in 2019 - but quite cathartic. I would say they should lean into that for now. Do the whole triangulation and hugging of huskies later if they need to.
The Conservatives are likely to be called upon to govern very soon. I'm not saying this as some sort of Casino Royalesque bravado; I didn't even vote for them. SKS is genuinely a bit shit. He may also have fairly significant skeletons that may or may not have an impact on his already severely waning popularity.
But Labour have a Commons majority of 9,823. How on earth are they toppled outside war/plague/civil strife?
Curious maths and vote splitting got Labour where they are on a tiny % of the vote; similar forces could turn it the other way. FWIW I think next time will possibly depend on whether the nation veers in one of two ways, both possible:
To shore up the centre left mainstream, with Labour and LD being in fact unacknowledged allies (possible because English seats split up handily mostly either Con v Lab or Con v LD and not LD v Lab).
Or to look to a some form of Toryreform party (currently of course splitting votes) under the name Conservative, offering a really different, though thought out and costed (ie not Truss) alternative.
I want neither of these, but I'm a One Nation Tory.
It's a bit early to speculate, but I think it is certain the next election will be a cracker psephologically. It might even offer real alternatives policywise too.
A One Nation Tory who voted, um, Labour.
Yes. My guess is there were about 1-2 million of us. Maybe more. I have voted Tory for nearly 50 years. The Tory vote went from 14 m (2019) to just under 7 m (2024). And we were right.
No, you weren't. You made a fucking stupid decision and enabled a socialist.
I will never let you forget it.
Thanks. Lear puts it better:
I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
I don't mind floating voters deciding to vote Labour. I can understand centrists deciding differently.
But what really grates my goat is people who have the temerity to claim to be loyal lifelong Tories who, when the chips are down, actually voter Labour without a flicker.
No one owes a political party loyalty. Politicians certainly don't display any.
Why would people who claim to value economic competence have voted for the last Conservative govt? Highest tax take, failing public services and low productivity/growth. Austerity, fraud and a month and a half of Mark Littlewood's most vivid economic wet dream.
Because however bad Sunak was overall, Labour are going to be far worse.
People aren't really thinking about Sunak. He was a do-nothing stop-gap-PM who didn't even back himself to improve things in the time available, calling an early election instead. Labour will be compared against the Tory record since 2010 which is not exactly glorious.
In fact, they're not really thinking about the Tories at all. I'd be amazed if the general public knew anything about the swings and roundabouts of this election.
When the time comes and Labour's decisions are no longer given the benefit of the doubt and people head to the ballot box, seeking to give Labour a bit of a "second term" kick [most will assume Labour will get a second term, after a whopping majority like that regardless of the nuance] they are perhaps more likely to vote LD as the traditional vehicle of protest, then they are to return to the Tory fold.
The Tories' best chance of recovery is if Labour do OK, and the two party hegemony holds up.
I think the Tories need Reform to disappear, which given Farage's track record with political parties is not a hopeless expectation. If it doesn't they are somewhat stuck in the current situation favourable to Labour IMO. There aren't enough far right voters (for now and thank goodness) to form a majority over sensible voters, but an alliance, merger etc is problematic because Conservatives at the end of day are mostly sensible while Reform voters are not.
I think the Conservative problem is structural rather than purely political. Adjusting policy positions won't solve it for them.
Les Républicains have tried several times to claw back their position on the right by saying and proposing pretty gamey things, but each time they do that it just seems to help Le Pen on her journey to national treasure.
The polling on party support and Trump shows the gulf that exists between Tory and Reform voters.
That said I do think they need some charisma. Hence why Badenoch might be the best bet. Isam’s charisma theory makes sense in this sort of context.
I see the argument for Badenoch. I also see a counter arguement for Cleverly. The Conservatives had a bad 2024 but they will live on to fight another day. Choose someone who can hold the fort and doesn't upset anyone until the situation improves for them, which may be some time.
As Badenoch and Patel could appeal to ex Tory Reform voters, Tugendhat to ex Tory LD voters and Cleverly and Stride to ex Tory Labour voters. Yet only Jenrick potentially to all of them
Post-Left Watch @PostLeftWatch George Galloway, former RT host: "In 21 years, Putin has completely transformed Russia. Russia is a glorious success story. I know the enemies don't want to hear that, but that requires them not to look at the footage, freely available, of what development is like in Russia."
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
Nate Silver now works for Polymarket, which in turn is part owned by Theil, so may not be as objective as he was historically.
Maybe but at least he explains what is going on in his model:
tldr:
- The model assumes a convention bounce that will fade. This means if Harris maintains her current polling lead she will soon be favorite again in the model. - Harris got a roughly 1% lower than 'expected' convention bounce - it's plausible to explain this by the timing of RFK dropping out and endorsing Trump.
Any number of assumptions about what happened after the convention are 'plausible'. Incorporating them on the fly into what's supposed to be a statistical model isn't at all plausible.
Where on earth does he say he's incorporated it into his model? It's his guess as to why Harris's average lead was 4.7% before RFK dropped out and 3.5% after
I was incorrect in suggesting that he incorporated it on the fly. But it makes no sense to assume any figure at all for a convention bounce in a model. They are as variable and unpredictable as any given poll.
Ranges from Bill Clinton's 16% in 1992 (Carter was the only other nominee to crack double figures - both were fairly unknown) down to Kerry's minus 1% in 2004.
(The numbers aren't exactly comparable between different elections, and the sources for the figures changes.)
Comments
No good answer that I can see to the question, why is the Conservative Party likely to choose him as leader?
Copyright infringement costs companies billions and the money ends up with terrorists and criminals.
There are enough incidents in his past though to raise questions about his ethics and integrity that I'd struggle to get past.
I have never been materially active in politics before, but this time I think civilization as we know it is on the line.
If we want to preserve freedom and a meritocracy in America, then Trump must win.
Cleverly is at least amiable, and Stride can interview well, but both are at best lacklustre.
But it has to be one of the 5, and they are fishing in a much smaller pool of 120 possibilities.
https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/1831309657266135143
Disney's lawyers will have the content taken down for violating their copyright.
Also 'civilization as we know it is on the line' is a better issue for Harris than Trump.
Jenrick may likely win because he isn't Badenoch, or Tugendhat, or Stride, or Cleverly.
On this basis of choosing a leader I'd probably go for Cleverly, as the least obviously objectionable, but the electorate in this case Matt have reasons to object to him too, that they don't have to Jenrick.
And walking away from government six months early gives him sone insulation from the great election fiasco.
That he's a hollow vessel who looks set to head the Conservatives to a very dark place without even realising what he's doing is a detail.
And it took him long enough to just do those.
It needs to go off and clean itself up a bit. Come back when it can genuinely say it is better than Labour.
Is Jenrick the guy to lead them through this? Go ahead. Surprise me.
& https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5100829/russia-election-influencers-youtube
You suck at the political pundit thing.
Also not an ideal leader for the Tory party.
On the other hand...
Oh please, oh please!
It's basically all about navel gazing, party structure, procedural changes, candidate selection, and steadfastly refuses to contemplate any of the policy disasters of the last decade.
The comments are not universally supportive...
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
https://www.natesilver.net/p/theres-no-normal-in-this-election
A LOT.
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1831556200728498267
It is impossible to support Trump and the American right, and to support Ukraine. The two are utterly incompatible viewpoints.
CCHQ becomes a “ghost ship” as post election cash crunch hits. Big financial headache facing next Tory leader - with
@LOS_Fisher
https://x.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1831583817179476242
Almost always it turns out to be instructive.
Integrity must come first.
https://x.com/DrewPavlou/status/1831487558720831774
Tim Pool hysterically banging table shouting UKRAINE IS THE ENEMY OF THIS COUNTRY
He didn’t know he was working for a company that took $10 million USD in black bag payments from Russia guys. Horrible coincidence. We’ve all been there
tldr:
- The model assumes a convention bounce that will fade. This means if Harris maintains her current polling lead she will soon be favorite again in the model.
- Harris got a roughly 1% lower than 'expected' convention bounce - it's plausible to explain this by the timing of RFK dropping out and endorsing Trump.
Mr. B, I know the name Tim Pool but have never watched him. Does he give any reasoning for why Ukraine is the enemy of 'this' (US, presumably) country?
Nate Silver is worse than I am at statistics, and I'm an ignoramus.
FWIW, what evidence there is (and it's pretty patchy) suggests that both conventions didn't have any great effect at all in terms of 'bounce'.
And if you look at the historical record (which again represents not a lot of data) convention bounces range from double figures to zero.
Incorporating an adjustment, for what you guess a convention bounce might be, into what's supposed to be a statistical model, is just garbage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8z15wyz6o
https://x.com/tarapalmeri/status/1831481219265261870
There's a noticeable trait in many people who try to make their fortunes out of social media - they become more extreme in whichever direction over time, and any morals or integrity they had goes flying out of the window. If an extreme view gets more clicks, then they'll become more extreme.
In fact, they're not really thinking about the Tories at all. I'd be amazed if the general public knew anything about the swings and roundabouts of this election.
When the time comes and Labour's decisions are no longer given the benefit of the doubt and people head to the ballot box, seeking to give Labour a bit of a "second term" kick [most will assume Labour will get a second term, after a whopping majority like that regardless of the nuance] they are perhaps more likely to vote LD as the traditional vehicle of protest, then they are to return to the Tory fold.
The Tories' best chance of recovery is if Labour do OK, and the two party hegemony holds up.
They’ve attached the SAVE Act to the Spending Bill . Essentially that act requires proof of citizenship to vote.
Its already illegal to try and vote if you’re not a US citizen . The Dems oppose the SAVE as it could disenfranchise some voters who are legal and more likely minorities .
Tomorrow there’s the latest jobs report which will influence whether the Fed cut interest rates by a quarter or half a percent .
So there are a few variables now which could cause some changes in the polling . Today we’re likely to hear whether RFK jnr remains on the NC ballot . The judge has to make a quick decision as mail in ballots are due to start going out tomorrow .
Because reasons.
Cameron:
A good man, who was reversing the party's decline (after Howard's good work). I felt he would be a good PM.
May:
I did not like aspects of her time as Home Secretary; then again, I can say that for virtually every HS. That role is somewhat of a poisoned chalice, and I viewed the fact she survived so long in that role as a positive sign of her abilities.
Johnson:
Despite quite liking his character, I felt his time as MoL showed he would be a terrible PM. I was against him becoming PM from before he re-entered parliament.
Truss:
She was barely on my radar before or during her PMship.
Sunak:
He had an incredibly difficult task during Covid, and whatever he did could be criticised. But I could not see him being able to steady a ship that had already been sunk by his two predecessors.
The next one:
I am Meh! about the lot. Not one I would want as PM; and I have no idea which might best be able to rebuild the party ready for their successor.
You’re right it happens in every direction, even towards the centre. “Centrism” and liberalism on social media is much more assured and militant than it used to be. People follow the engagement.
Worse the membership is going to select a right wing leader who is likely to be completely toxic to one of those potential voter groups and who will have never been opposition before so will not know how different the job being Leader of the Opposition is.
FPT: A couple of points:
1 - AIUI (am I wrong?) it was started by a household appliance. I don't see that it has addressed for safety of such - but I have not read all 1700 pages.
2 - Quite a number of changes have already been made around regulation. A good piece on the Today programme 6:16am this morning. Link will expire quickly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm
Funny how Americans are hardening into ever more solid mutually hostile blocs, while the British electorate seems more volatile and non-partisan than ever. We are not the same.
I think the Conservative problem is structural rather than purely political. Adjusting policy positions won't solve it for them.
For 2024 15 EU countries are forecast to be above 2% growth. They are all Eastern European, except for Malta, Ireland and Luxembourg. The next down 3 are Spain, Greece and Portugal.
From a brand perspective I would now prefer literally any other US, European, Japanese or Korean brand to Tesla. So assuming there's two cars at the same price point and quality, Tesla loses.
And that's before you consider Chinese competitors for those choosing on price alone, and questions over build quality / length of cycle for new car models.
Appealing to 45% of Americans and 10% of Europeans is not the way to build a dominant brand that it was once predicted to be.
It makes arsewipes like Musk, who happened to be in the right place at the right time and put all Daddy’s money on red, think they are uniquely talented and insightful
The polling on party support and Trump shows the gulf that exists between Tory and Reform voters.
That said I do think they need some charisma. Hence why Badenoch might be the best bet. Isam’s charisma theory makes sense in this sort of context.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/articles/c14zydg3754o
Olympic pole vault champion Armand Duplantis beat 400m hurdler Karsten Warholm in a 100m exhibition race in Zurich.
Sweden's Duplantis clocked 10.37 seconds after leading out of the blocks and was able to stare down his friend as he crossed the line.
Norwegian Warholm finished in 10.47 seconds, with both athletes recording personal bests.
But it makes no sense to assume any figure at all for a convention bounce in a model. They are as variable and unpredictable as any given poll.
Free trade / open borders makes great sense when you are top dog.
Less clear when you are in the middle of the pack
https://news.archer.com/archer-aviation-unveils-planned-los-angeles-air-taxi-network-ahead-of-major-sporting-events
SANTA CLARA, CA, August 8, 2024 – Archer Aviation Inc. announced today plans to launch a Los Angeles air mobility network—seeking to change how Southern California residents and visitors commute, travel and spend their free time.
The goal is for passengers to be able to go to a nearby vertiport, or vertical take-off and landing location, and then fly 10-20 minutes in Archer’s Midnight aircraft to their destination of choice within the network—saving hours versus sitting in traffic.
Archer’s planned network includes vertiports at key locations such as Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Orange County, Santa Monica, Hollywood Burbank, Long Beach and Van Nuys. Archer’s goal is to begin its LA network operations by as early as 2026.
As part of its network planning, Archer is coordinating with the Los Angeles Rams to collaborate on potential exclusive vertiports at Woodland Hills and at Hollywood Park, the near 300-acre district centered around the 3.1 million square-foot SoFi Stadium. ..
..Midnight, Archer’s piloted, four-passenger electric aircraft, will play a crucial role in this network. Midnight is designed to offer passengers a sustainable, low-noise, and safe alternative to ground transportation:
Travels at speeds up to 150 mph, turning hour-long ground commutes into minutes in the air
Designed for back-to-back flights of 20-50 miles with minimal charge time in between
100x quieter than a helicopter at cruising altitudes
Redundant systems across the aircraft allowing Archer to target similar levels of safety as commercial airliners
Designed to carry a pilot, up to four passengers and carry-on luggage..
Also, one of the mums, who is an accountant, slightly peeved at all the work she suddenly has on her plate trying to liquidate people's assets before CGT is increased. ("what did they think the Labour Party would do?", she said, wearily).
There will always be small fires, dropped cigarette, shorting electrical appliance etc, they shouldn't result in a raging inferno.
There's a very good Radio 4 podcast on Grenfell.
Plus of course it looks like Badenoch and Cleverly lent Stride a few votes to knock out Patel which will now go back
Wait, is he serious?
Pastiche in an exemption since 2014, which should I think cover it.
If Jenrick is the answer, WTF was the question..?
Post-Left Watch
@PostLeftWatch
George Galloway, former RT host: "In 21 years, Putin has completely transformed Russia. Russia is a glorious success story. I know the enemies don't want to hear that, but that requires them not to look at the footage, freely available, of what development is like in Russia."
https://x.com/PostLeftWatch/status/1831504566699094315
Only a bounder wears a hat indoors unless you're a monarch or it involves some arcane sex game.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-documents-archive-guidebook/party-platforms-and-nominating-conventions/the
Ranges from Bill Clinton's 16% in 1992 (Carter was the only other nominee to crack double figures - both were fairly unknown) down to Kerry's minus 1% in 2004.
(The numbers aren't exactly comparable between different elections, and the sources for the figures changes.)