Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB GE2019 Analysis: Corbyn’s Satisfaction Ratings at elections

2456789

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,721
    Andy_JS said:

    melcf said:

    Thanks Andy,
    Why do you think it would cross 70%. Most people I speak to seem less enthusiastic about this election and think Boris is going to win anyway.

    It's been rising at every election since 2001 and I think that might be a trend of more voter engagement with politics. Also Brexit has energised the electorate on both sides. Turnout was 68.8% last time so it wouldn't have to increase much since 2017.
    I think low turnout. Not so much the weather as election fatigue and appearing a foregone conclusion. I expect low turnout to favour the Tories generally, but may work against them in Lab Leave seats
  • llefllef Posts: 301

    I thought I saw mentions of a Wales poll coming out. did we get one or is one expected?

    It is normally released in the afternoon - last one at 5pm i think.
  • moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think (and have thought throughout the campaign) that the Conservatives would get a majority of 100+. I still think that likely, and I think it is far from impossible that they beat Mrs Thatcher's 1983 majority of 144 seats.

    .

    The Johnson pitch reminds me a bit of Blair in 1997. Wrap yourself in the Union Jack, talk tough on crime, promise no tax rises combined with realistic fiscal sobriety and targeted spending increases, radiate optimism and a better future...

    I too am expecting a shellicking for Labour this week. The interesting bit will be what happens next. Blair ran in many ways one of the most competent of all post-war administrations in 97-01 but it all went wrong soon thereafter. If Boris wants to be remembered for anything other than Brexit, he's going to need to stay more focused than he's yet proven he's capable of (which I say even as a fairly firm supporter). And then there's Events.

    In Boris's favour, if he does win a landslide, never before will a new prime minister have taken the reins with such low public expectations. It may be the case that he's able to outperform these fairly comfortably and retain a +40% voting coalition with ease.
    Blair inherited a golden legacy, though. The UK was running a Government surplus, and had only a narrow trade deficit.

    During the Blair and Brown years the UK's foreign savings went negative.

    Johnson has a narrower window of opportunity.

    But he is bright and tough and determined. I wish him the best of luck, but I fear the next five years will be a struggle.
    All true. How transitory it will prove to be but BJ enters at at time of negative real gilt yields and a massive backlog of government capital projects (and housing shortage). He'll need to be bold but the further he can advance the planning of every new road/rail/hospital/bridge in the first 2-years the better, as the need for a counter recessionary fiscal splurge will be inevitable before the term is out.
    What a positive thread, good points from all sides. A very clever part of Cameron's work in 2010, 2011, perhaps Osborne's really was to fiddle the planning laws to get the building industry humming with no-one noticing.

    This was partly possible because of the complete lack of any preparation by the LDs ever to do anything other than shout down everyone else meant there was no competing LDs strategy to defeat.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    edited December 2019
    kle4 said:

    Without, even now, writing Corbyn off, DavidL makes a good point about how much better he seems when away from the Commons, away from day to day politics.

    Perhaps he is good at constituency work, but he really seems like he is in the wrong job - hes a man designed to lobby mps, not be an mp.

    A significant proportion of MPs seem like that - glorified social workers and charity lobbyists.
  • nunu2 said:

    felix said:

    Boris on Sunderland today :)

    Con Gain Sunderland Central
    He is in South Shields too but there will be no Tory victory there.
    (Sorry if we’ve done this already) There was some discussion on Twitter yesterday led by Chris Cook of Tortoise, I think, about how leader visits are dodging actual key marginals to avoid falling foul of constituency spending limits after the Thanet case. The thinking is that they turn up in a neighbouring seat in the same TV/radio coverage area, get all the candidates for the region in for a photo op, and assign the expense to the safe/no hope seat they appear in, rather than the one where an extra round of leafleting wouldn’t go amiss.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think (and have thought throughout the campaign) that the Conservatives would get a majority of 100+. I still think that likely, and I think it . That may not happen again.

    The Johnson pitch reminds me a bit of Blair in 1997. Wrap yourself in the Union Jack, talk tough on crime, promise no tax rises combined with realistic fiscal sobriety and targeted spending increases, radiate optimism and a better future...

    I too am expecting a shellicking er). And then there's Events.

    In Boris's favour, if he does win a landslide, never before will a new prime minister have taken the reins with such low public expectations. It may be the case that he's able to outperform these fairly comfortably and retain a +40% voting coalition with ease.
    Blair inherited a t.

    During the Blair and Brown years the UK's foreign savings went negative.

    Johnson has a narrower window of opportunity.

    But he is bright and tough and determined. I wish him the best of luck, but I fear the next five years will be a struggle.
    He may be bright, and affable, but I don’t see much evidence of being tough and determined. Like Trump he is actually emotionally fragile. He hasn’t demonstrated prime ministerial maturity in dealing with those who challenge him, whether the grandees within his own party or Channel 4.

    He uses bluster and humour to wriggle out of ever being pinned down, and is an unprincipled opportunist of the first order. He is also lazy. And in less than a couple of months’ time pretty much the only principal and objective that he has championed will be ticked off, leaving him without an agenda and a mandate for nothing.

    None of these skills lend themselves to resolving the challenges that lie ahead. Almost the only skill he has that might suit him for high office is picking good people and his willingness to trust them to get on with things. But it’s a huge ask to get British government to work that way, and letting your colleagues get on with things in politics carries risk as well as reward.

    He is already the most unpopular new PM in polling history, and after Survation May be about to become the lead popular election winner ever. I fear we are in for years of turmoil.
    I agree completely , especially about his fragility and laziness, except for the part about mandate, which is one of those words that doesnt seem to mean anything.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    Andy_JS said:

    kle4 said:

    melcf said:

    Thanks Andy,
    Why do you think it would cross 70%. Most people I speak to seem less enthusiastic about this election and think Boris is going to win anyway.

    I think you are right but despite the corbynista revival last time I never really felt that much enthusiasm yet turnout was good. So I'd expect similar, although Andy's 70% prediction looks too high.
    It was 68.8% last time. Not far off 70%.
    And bear in mind, this is a much fresher electoral register than one used in June. Worth a point, maybe two, on turnout as against the maximum possible. (For example, fewer dead people, fewer who have moved to live or work abroad).
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited December 2019
    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.
  • Pulpstar said:

    HaroldO said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50704546

    Sounds like Labour think there needs to be a committee meeting prior to anybody having a new phone line being put in. When they talk about “(local) democratic oversight of essential utilities” do they stop to think what most people actually think of their local council?

    Bloody hell. Labour keep pointing to European countries owning utilities etc but how many are run like that? They are usually arms length companies, not committee run at local level.
    Why did the IFS describe the Tory spending plans as "Not credible". It was preposterous to use the same language as for Labour looking at the bottom chart ?!?
    Because they are part of the pack of wolves - like BBC fact checking
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    Equally Tom Watson for leaving with a whimper rather than actually solving Labour's problems.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,721

    Brom said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jo Swinson on Today: we won't put Corbyn into Downing Street.

    The problem is unless Sturgeon rules it out it remains a possibility.
    I remain to be convinced by what JS means by “not putting Corbyn (or Johnson) in Downing Street. Firstly, such pre-election campaigns tend to dissolve like candy floss in a puddle. Secondly, what’s the alternative for a small party? You either (at least) acquiesce in the formation of a government or you go straight back to the polls - and in this case, presumably a no deal Brexit on Jan 31 as a result.

    I guess the reality is that we’re heading for a Boris win (though I don’t buy the larger predictions of his majority). If not, it’ll be a fascinating/troubled time. For starters, where does Boris go for extra votes if he’s short? DUP and bin his deal or LDs and have a referendum? Either of those and he’s toast. I’m not even sure he’d get any Lab leavers through the lobby so immediately after an election.
    I think Jo has been careful not to rule out coalition, just coalition with the current Lab or Con leaders. Under alternate leadership she may. It is hard to see that happen quickly, but if there was a change in leadership and policy then Confidence and Supply is not out of the question. Neither Lab nor Con has a very nimble mechanism to replace the leader though.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    kle4 said:

    Tom Newton Dunn

    Tory campaign chiefs to finally let Boris Johnson loose on high street walkabouts in a last 3 day bid to win over ‘red wall’ Labour heartlands #GE2019
    https://t.co/UzmMWLt2I7

    Current polling suggests their cautious approach so far has worked - why change that?
    Their internal polling may show things a lot closer. I think the MRP might reflect that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    The Grievers were too busy with clever procedures to think more than a step ahead if the polls are right. Too focused on ultimate victory and so may see ultimate defeat. The labour leavers left it far too late and so dont reap the benefits of pragmatism as things are too raw when an on schedule election would have been easier.

    The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.
  • If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    v) The British public, for believing Boris Johnson's impossible claims. As the film Chernobyl tells us, "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." Boris's debt will be paid in spades during his term in office.
  • Andy_JS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think (and have thought throughout the campaign) that the Conservatives would get a majority of 100+. I still think that likely, and I think it is far from impossible that they beat Mrs Thatcher's 1983 majority of 144 seats.

    But I also think much of this achievement will be because Jeremy Corbyn is Johnson's opponent.

    The question for Labour will be, after a schallacking at the polls, what next? They'll still have 150 or more MPs, and there must be some talent in there.

    The question the LibDems will have is, given how piss poor Corbyn is and how personally unpopular Johnson is, why didn't they do better? Sure, they'll increase their number of seats and their vote share (and one shouldn't forget how low they were laid in 2015). But they should have done better, and there's little doubt that Mrs Swinson is going to need to improve, if the LDs are to go much further.

    I suspect that the 2019-2024 parliament will not be without its challenges for Boris Johnson. Once Brexit is (symbolically) done in seven weeks or so, then the UK has to make some awkward choices: how to manage immigration in a post transition period; how much to diverge from the EU; is the price of a US FTA worth paying; how not to disappoint voters who were promised the fruits of the magic money tree.

    Johnson is lucky with his opponents this time. That may not happen again.

    I would be surprised if the Tory majority exceeds 1983, 1987 is realistic, but far from certain. 1983 does provide my greatest worry, the fact is the Tory party has never exceeded 43% of the vote since the month I was born, October 1959.

    If Labour really do that badly then so to a lesser extent will the LDs and SNP as they all all fish from the same pond.
    Didn't they get 46% in 1970 with Edward Heath?
    Did they - you could be right - shows how damaging the LDs are to the Tories.
  • kle4 said:

    Tom Newton Dunn

    Tory campaign chiefs to finally let Boris Johnson loose on high street walkabouts in a last 3 day bid to win over ‘red wall’ Labour heartlands #GE2019
    https://t.co/UzmMWLt2I7

    Current polling suggests their cautious approach so far has worked - why change that?
    Their internal polling may show things a lot closer. I think the MRP might reflect that.
    It’s the hope that really kills you, isn’t it?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    kle4 said:

    Tom Newton Dunn

    Tory campaign chiefs to finally let Boris Johnson loose on high street walkabouts in a last 3 day bid to win over ‘red wall’ Labour heartlands #GE2019
    https://t.co/UzmMWLt2I7

    Current polling suggests their cautious approach so far has worked - why change that?
    Their internal polling may show things a lot closer. I think the MRP might reflect that.
    Probably - polling suggests a largish majority, wouldnt be hard to show a nervous one.

    His personal scores are still not great though, is it the best move to make him front and centre in those seats?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    eek said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    Equally Tom Watson for leaving with a whimper rather than actually solving Labour's problems.
    I agree that Watson's behaviour remains a major, major puzzle.

    I still don't understand why he left when he did. He is still youngish for a politician, and he seemed to live for politicking.

    He was in a tough fight in West Bromwich, but he probably did have personal vote of 1k or 2k that would have seen him through. I really don't think he was in any danger of losing his seat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149
    And on the latest Survation poll Labour may well get even fewer seats than Foot did in 1983
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    Foxy said:

    Brom said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jo Swinson on Today: we won't put Corbyn into Downing Street.

    The problem is unless Sturgeon rules it out it remains a possibility.
    I remain to be convinced by what JS means by “not putting Corbyn (or Johnson) in Downing Street. Firstly, such pre-election campaigns tend to dissolve like candy floss in a puddle. Secondly, what’s the alternative for a small party? You either (at least) acquiesce in the formation of a government or you go straight back to the polls - and in this case, presumably a no deal Brexit on Jan 31 as a result.

    I guess the reality is that we’re heading for a Boris win (though I don’t buy the larger predictions of his majority). If not, it’ll be a fascinating/troubled time. For starters, where does Boris go for extra votes if he’s short? DUP and bin his deal or LDs and have a referendum? Either of those and he’s toast. I’m not even sure he’d get any Lab leavers through the lobby so immediately after an election.
    I think Jo has been careful not to rule out coalition, just coalition with the current Lab or Con leaders. Under alternate leadership she may. It is hard to see that happen quickly, but if there was a change in leadership and policy then Confidence and Supply is not out of the question. Neither Lab nor Con has a very nimble mechanism to replace the leader though.
    Be a bit rich of Swinson to demand that the leaders of other parties stand down when it is she who has seen the most precipitous decline in the polls when put forward to the voters. Physician, heal thyself.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729
    Would be interesting if the Tories won a big majority but Boris lost his seat!
  • humbugger said:

    Good morning all. The Survation poll caps a good weekend of polls for the Tories with solid leads and perhaps surprisingly the trend towards them.

    It's not over yet though and the Tories need to ensure there is no complacency and they get every vote out on the day. Extraordinary to see Boris going into the Labour heartlands in the last few days of the campaign. It's almost unbelievable.

    But it must be the right thing to do. Does Corbyn want to have these seats in the news ? He does not. Boris needs to do North Wales as well !
  • DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting analysis. Does seem to support the theory that during election time the broadcast rules mean that Corbyn gets a fairer hearing and is able to put his points across better.

    That may be a part of it but surely a far bigger part is that Corbyn is truly pathetic in the House of Commons and looks much better when he doesn't need to go near the place. He is relatively unusual in modern (possibly because he isn't) politicians in that he seems to actively like campaigning and meeting people. He comes across as a lot more normal when he does.
    The broadcasting rules are grossly unfair to the parties of the right. Each of the so called debates have consisted of the pack of wolves trying to bring down the Tory stag. And as Heseltine observed in 1997, they always must. Brave of Boris to refuse entirely to co-operate. The point is, and perhaps Andrew Neil sees it that in future elections Tories will need precedents for refusing to co-operate at all.

    If there is a large majority then the rules will be able to be put on a statutory footing which makes the shitty stunts we have seen from the hard left at C4 consigned to history. If a party refuses to take part, then it should have the right to the same amount of air time. If the party puts someone up then either they take part or the event does not proceed.
    Think what your opponents might do with those rules!
    The old Representation of the People Act requirements had a similar veto in constituency reports. The effect was that no candidate ever appeared on local radio or TV for the duration of the campaign. The law was changed to stop that happening.

    Presumably under your plan, the Tories could have put up Stanley Johnson as attempted in the C4 debate? And presumably you’d be happy with Corbyn dodging such scrutiny in favour of someone electable like Kier Starmer. And of course, Corbyn and Sturgeon wouldn’t have been pasted by Brillo, as Johnson would have vetoed that series too.

    The last people who should be deciding who gets invited on political debates are politicians.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    edited December 2019
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. kle4, hubris?

    Edited extra bit: no overall majority out to 4 on Ladbrokes. Bit tempted, but I do already have bets that include that possibility.
  • Very perceptive piece from John Harriss today. The Tories will win because they offer an end to Brexit and because Labour is widely disliked and devoid of credibility. But then what? The Tories have no real offer, they present no solutions, just English nationalism and what Harriss terms Johnson's "meandering opportunism". At some point the right in this country is going to have to start thinking about the deep-seated problems and challenges the UK faces internally and as part of a rapidly-changing wider world. When is that going to happen and who is going to do it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/wins-tories-future-boris-johnson-victory-conservatism
  • kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kle4 said:

    melcf said:

    Thanks Andy,
    Why do you think it would cross 70%. Most people I speak to seem less enthusiastic about this election and think Boris is going to win anyway.

    I think you are right but despite the corbynista revival last time I never really felt that much enthusiasm yet turnout was good. So I'd expect similar, although Andy's 70% prediction looks too high.
    It was 68.8% last time. Not far off 70%.
    Indeed, its not a preposterous prediction. I'm just expecting similar slightly below not similar above.
    As long as turnout is up on the 66.4% of my spread buy bet then I am happy
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    kle4 said:

    Tom Newton Dunn

    Tory campaign chiefs to finally let Boris Johnson loose on high street walkabouts in a last 3 day bid to win over ‘red wall’ Labour heartlands #GE2019
    https://t.co/UzmMWLt2I7

    Current polling suggests their cautious approach so far has worked - why change that?
    Their internal polling may show things a lot closer. I think the MRP might reflect that.
    It will show they can take risks.....
  • If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    v) The British public, for believing Boris Johnson's impossible claims. As the film Chernobyl tells us, "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." Boris's debt will be paid in spades during his term in office.
    It all comes back to Corbyn.

    Without him at the helm, the remainer faction would have got their act together earlier and more decisively. A VONC would have happened and a govt of all the colours (except blue) to push through a second referendum.

    In which case we’d be discussing now how it was the Leavers (specifically the ultras in the ERG) who were tactically inept and blew their hand.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149

    IanB2 said:


    We don’t, really, though, do we? The system forces us towards the same two parties, and even if the LibDems might have happened to break through and win the most votes, every model suggests they would still be in third place in terms of seats. The system is designed to supress the representation of ideas and parties with geographically dispersed support.

    Why do we want that?

    We want a system in which geographically concentrated minorities (e.g., Welsh speakers, or NI Catholics) are protected.

    Just as in the US Presidential elections, it is perfectly reasonable to have a system in which the rights of small states or small groups are protected.

    It is a feature, not a bug.

    It is perfectly possible for centrist parties to win power under FPTP (e.g. Canada), The UK Liberals are just incompetent.

    In fact, our Liberal friend Justin has lost his taste for PR -- after all, he would have lost power in the last Canadian election, if he had actually implemented it.
    Yes, Trudeau lost the popular vote but won most seats in November's Canadian election
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507

    I thought I saw mentions of a Wales poll coming out. did we get one or is one expected?

    Think the last one came out 5pm?
    thanks mark
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507
    llef said:

    I thought I saw mentions of a Wales poll coming out. did we get one or is one expected?

    It is normally released in the afternoon - last one at 5pm i think.
    cheers
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    Boris's debt will be paid in spades during his term in office.

    I disagree with this. None of the shit is going to stick to Boris. As soon as the government runs into sea state 7+ one or all of Javid/Raab/Patel will be blamed tossed over the taffrail.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729
    eek said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    Equally Tom Watson for leaving with a whimper rather than actually solving Labour's problems.

    There are any number of senior Labour figures who have decided not to stand over the last 10 yrs.. It must hard being in a Party where you know the Leaders aim is to take control and keep control of the party, rather than win.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149
    moonshine said:

    Tories using Facebook to wipe out Lib Dems
    (a round-up of all parties' digital campaigns)
    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/conservatives-lib-dems-facebook-general-election

    Targeting: The Conservatives are also actively targeting 13 of the 22 seats the Lib Dems are trying to take, but not advertising in the remaining nine: Eddisbury, Harrogate & Knaresborough, North East Somerset, Richmond Park, St Ives, Totnes & South Devon, Wantage, Wokingham and York Outer.

    So Zac has been hung out to dry. Why no resources for Redwood's seat in Wokingham? Easy hold or already gone?
    Yougov MRP has Redwood with a clear lead
  • kle4 said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    The Grievers were too busy with clever procedures to think more than a step ahead if the polls are right. Too focused on ultimate victory and so may see ultimate defeat. The labour leavers left it far too late and so dont reap the benefits of pragmatism as things are too raw when an on schedule election would have been easier.

    The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Foxy said:

    Brom said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jo Swinson on Today: we won't put Corbyn into Downing Street.

    The problem is unless Sturgeon rules it out it remains a possibility.
    I remain to be convinced by what JS means by “not putting Corbyn (or Johnson) in Downing Street. Firstly, such pre-election campaigns tend to dissolve like candy floss in a puddle. Secondly, what’s the alternative for a small party? You either (at least) acquiesce in the formation of a government or you go straight back to the polls - and in this case, presumably a no deal Brexit on Jan 31 as a result.

    I guess the reality is that we’re heading for a Boris win (though I don’t buy the larger predictions of his majority). If not, it’ll be a fascinating/troubled time. For starters, where does Boris go for extra votes if he’s short? DUP and bin his deal or LDs and have a referendum? Either of those and he’s toast. I’m not even sure he’d get any Lab leavers through the lobby so immediately after an election.
    I think Jo has been careful not to rule out coalition, just coalition with the current Lab or Con leaders. Under alternate leadership she may. It is hard to see that happen quickly, but if there was a change in leadership and policy then Confidence and Supply is not out of the question. Neither Lab nor Con has a very nimble mechanism to replace the leader though.
    Be a bit rich of Swinson to demand that the leaders of other parties stand down when it is she who has seen the most precipitous decline in the polls when put forward to the voters. Physician, heal thyself.
    No-one is going to listen to Swinson.

    In fact, the LibDems lecturing Labour to change their leader if Swinson has gone backwards is the very definition of "hubris".
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    eek said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    Equally Tom Watson for leaving with a whimper rather than actually solving Labour's problems.
    Or indeed the Labour moderates for failing to join TIG en masse and bring about a realignment of the centre-left in time to offer a realistic alternative this week.
  • Foxy said:

    Brom said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jo Swinson on Today: we won't put Corbyn into Downing Street.

    The problem is unless Sturgeon rules it out it remains a possibility.
    I remain to be convinced by what JS means by “not putting Corbyn (or Johnson) in Downing Street. Firstly, such pre-election campaigns tend to dissolve like candy floss in a puddle. Secondly, what’s the alternative for a small party? You either (at least) acquiesce in the formation of a government or you go straight back to the polls - and in this case, presumably a no deal Brexit on Jan 31 as a result.

    I guess the reality is that we’re heading for a Boris win (though I don’t buy the larger predictions of his majority). If not, it’ll be a fascinating/troubled time. For starters, where does Boris go for extra votes if he’s short? DUP and bin his deal or LDs and have a referendum? Either of those and he’s toast. I’m not even sure he’d get any Lab leavers through the lobby so immediately after an election.
    I think Jo has been careful not to rule out coalition, just coalition with the current Lab or Con leaders. Under alternate leadership she may. It is hard to see that happen quickly, but if there was a change in leadership and policy then Confidence and Supply is not out of the question. Neither Lab nor Con has a very nimble mechanism to replace the leader though.
    Be a bit rich of Swinson to demand that the leaders of other parties stand down when it is she who has seen the most precipitous decline in the polls when put forward to the voters. Physician, heal thyself.
    The bigger issue will be finding a major party leader who, having won most seats, accepts that they’ve fallen short of winning the election and having the good grace to step aside for the longer-term benefit of their party/country. If it didn’t cross Theresa May’s mind in 2017, I can’t see Boz or Jez having that epiphany.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think (and have thought throughout the campaign) that the Conservatives would get a majority of 100+. I still think that likely, and I think it . That may not happen again.

    The Johnson pitch reminds me a bit of Blair in 1997. Wrap yourself in the Union Jack, talk tough on crime, promise no tax rises combined with realistic fiscal sobriety and targeted spending increases, radiate optimism and a better future...

    I too am expecting a shellicking er). And then there's Events.

    In Boris's favour, if he does win a landslide, never before will a new prime minister have taken the reins with such low public expectations. It may be the case that he's able to outperform these fairly comfortably and retain a +40% voting coalition with ease.
    Blair inherited a t.

    During the Blair and Brown years the UK's foreign savings went negative.

    Johnson has a narrower window of opportunity.

    But he is bright and tough and determined. I wish him the best of luck, but I fear the next five years will be a struggle.
    He may be bright, and affable, but I don’t see much evidence of being tough and determined. Like Trump he is actually emotionally fragile. He hasn’t demonstrated prime ministerial maturity in dealing with those who challenge him, whether the grandees within his own party or Channel 4.

    He uses bluster and humour to wriggle out of ever being pinned down, and is an unprincipled opportunist of the first order. He is also lazy. And in less than a couple of months’ time pretty much the only principal and objective that he has championed will be ticked off, leaving him without an agenda and a mandate for nothing.

    None of these skills lend themselves to resolving the challenges that lie ahead. Almost the only skill he has that might suit him for high office is picking good people and his willingness to trust them to get on with things. But it’s a huge ask to get British government to work that way, and letting your colleagues get on with things in politics carries risk as well as reward.

    He is already the most unpopular new PM in polling history, and after Survation May be about to become the lead popular election winner ever. I fear we are in for years of turmoil.
    I agree completely , especially about his fragility and laziness, except for the part about mandate, which is one of those words that doesnt seem to mean anything.
    It means putting forward a set of ideas and plans before an election, and so having the credibility and political capital to implement them afterwards.

    Just too bad that Mrs May gave that sort of thing a bad name, at least among politicians.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HaroldO said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50704546

    Sounds like Labour think there needs to be a committee meeting prior to anybody having a new phone line being put in. When they talk about “(local) democratic oversight of essential utilities” do they stop to think what most people actually think of their local council?

    Bloody hell. Labour keep pointing to European countries owning utilities etc but how many are run like that? They are usually arms length companies, not committee run at local level.
    Why did the IFS describe the Tory spending plans as "Not credible". It was preposterous to use the same language as for Labour looking at the bottom chart ?!?
    The IFS were criticised by some economists for over reach with their criticism of Lab. They are a micro economic think tank and were making big macro calls on Lab's manifesto.

    Perhaps spooked by that, since then they have been an equal opportunity criticiser.
    I thought their criticism of the Tories was IF we had a No Deal Brexit - and how their plans didn't cope with a hit to GDP. So a contingent criticism (not that the press want to be arsed with such subtleties...).
  • HYUFD said:

    moonshine said:

    Tories using Facebook to wipe out Lib Dems
    (a round-up of all parties' digital campaigns)
    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/conservatives-lib-dems-facebook-general-election

    Targeting: The Conservatives are also actively targeting 13 of the 22 seats the Lib Dems are trying to take, but not advertising in the remaining nine: Eddisbury, Harrogate & Knaresborough, North East Somerset, Richmond Park, St Ives, Totnes & South Devon, Wantage, Wokingham and York Outer.

    So Zac has been hung out to dry. Why no resources for Redwood's seat in Wokingham? Easy hold or already gone?
    Yougov MRP has Redwood with a clear lead
    Lees up against Redmond, is the idiots choice of idiot. Didn't he plan how he would be PM by now?
  • kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting analysis. Does seem to support the theory that during election time the broadcast rules mean that Corbyn gets a fairer hearing and is able to put his points across better.

    That may be a part of it but surely a far bigger part is that Corbyn is truly pathetic in the House of Commons and looks much better when he doesn't need to go near the place. He is relatively unusual in modern (possibly because he isn't) politicians in that he seems to actively like campaigning and meeting people. He comes across as a lot more normal when he does.
    The broadcasting rules are grossly unfair to the parties of the right. Each of the so called debates have consisted of the pack of wolves trying to bring down the Tory stag. And as Heseltine observed in 1997, they always must. Brave of Boris to refuse entirely to co-operate. The point is, and perhaps Andrew Neil sees it that in future elections Tories will need precedents for refusing to co-operate at all.

    If there is a large majority then the rules will be able to be put on a statutory footing which makes the shitty stunts we have seen from the hard left at C4 consigned to history. If a party refuses to take part, then it should have the right to the same amount of air time. If the party puts someone up then either they take part or the event does not proceed.
    I thought ch.4's stunt was ruled ok in part because the Tory view did get airtime on the network.
    Did it ? From a block of ice ?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729

    kle4 said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    The Grievers were too busy with clever procedures to think more than a step ahead if the polls are right. Too focused on ultimate victory and so may see ultimate defeat. The labour leavers left it far too late and so dont reap the benefits of pragmatism as things are too raw when an on schedule election would have been easier.

    The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

    Don't delude yourself that its a good think that Boris gets a big majority, if the Tories get a Maggie style 144 it might take 3 GE's to get back to parity or win.
    Its a disaster for Labour and will they have the people to properly scrutinise what is going on?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149
    Andy_JS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think (and have thought throughout the campaign) that the Conservatives would get a majority of 100+. I still think that likely, and I think it is far from impossible that they beat Mrs Thatcher's 1983 majority of 144 seats.

    But I also think much of this achievement will be because Jeremy Corbyn is Johnson's opponent.

    The question for Labour will be, after a schallacking at the polls, what next? They'll still have 150 or more MPs, and there must be some talent in there.

    The question the LibDems will have is, given how piss poor Corbyn is and how personally unpopular Johnson is, why didn't they do better? Sure, they'll increase their number of seats and their vote share (and one shouldn't forget how low they were laid in 2015). But they should have done better, and there's little doubt that Mrs Swinson is going to need to improve, if the LDs are to go much further.

    I suspect that the 2019-2024 parliament will not be without its challenges for Boris Johnson. Once Brexit is (symbolically) done in seven weeks or so, then the UK has to make some awkward choices: how to manage immigration in a post transition period; how much to diverge from the EU; is the price of a US FTA worth paying; how not to disappoint voters who were promised the fruits of the magic money tree.

    Johnson is lucky with his opponents this time. That may not happen again.

    I would be surprised if the Tory majority exceeds 1983, 1987 is realistic, but far from certain. 1983 does provide my greatest worry, the fact is the Tory party has never exceeded 43% of the vote since the month I was born, October 1959.

    If Labour really do that badly then so to a lesser extent will the LDs and SNP as they all all fish from the same pond.
    Didn't they get 46% in 1970 with Edward Heath?
    Yes but Wilson got 43% then, Opinium had the Tories on 46% and Labour on 31% by contrast, Survation the Tories on 45% and Labour on 31%
  • Foxy said:

    Brom said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jo Swinson on Today: we won't put Corbyn into Downing Street.

    The problem is unless Sturgeon rules it out it remains a possibility.
    I remain to be convinced by what JS means by “not putting Corbyn (or Johnson) in Downing Street. Firstly, such pre-election campaigns tend to dissolve like candy floss in a puddle. Secondly, what’s the alternative for a small party? You either (at least) acquiesce in the formation of a government or you go straight back to the polls - and in this case, presumably a no deal Brexit on Jan 31 as a result.

    I guess the reality is that we’re heading for a Boris win (though I don’t buy the larger predictions of his majority). If not, it’ll be a fascinating/troubled time. For starters, where does Boris go for extra votes if he’s short? DUP and bin his deal or LDs and have a referendum? Either of those and he’s toast. I’m not even sure he’d get any Lab leavers through the lobby so immediately after an election.
    I think Jo has been careful not to rule out coalition, just coalition with the current Lab or Con leaders. Under alternate leadership she may. It is hard to see that happen quickly, but if there was a change in leadership and policy then Confidence and Supply is not out of the question. Neither Lab nor Con has a very nimble mechanism to replace the leader though.
    Be a bit rich of Swinson to demand that the leaders of other parties stand down when it is she who has seen the most precipitous decline in the polls when put forward to the voters. Physician, heal thyself.
    The bigger issue will be finding a major party leader who, having won most seats, accepts that they’ve fallen short of winning the election and having the good grace to step aside for the longer-term benefit of their party/country. If it didn’t cross Theresa May’s mind in 2017, I can’t see Boz or Jez having that epiphany.
    There seems to be a constant campaign against Swinson for doing nothing more than express a reasonable position. Why should she be forced to support either Corbyn or Johnson who are both universally hated?

    I am one of those Tory Remainers who along with my son wondering where to vote. In the end we will split Lib Dem / Green as just cant stand the attitude of the present Tories. Wonder how many others like me, who are going to decide this week what to do?






  • IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think (and have thought throughout the campaign) that the Conservatives would get a majority of 100+. I still think that likely, and I think it . That may not happen again.

    The Johnson pitch reminds me a bit of Blair in 1997. Wrap yourself in the Union Jack, talk tough on crime, promise no tax rises combined with realistic fiscal sobriety and targeted spending increases, radiate optimism and a better future...

    I capable of (which I say even as a fairly firm supporter). And then there's Events.

    In Boris's favour, if he does win a landslide, never before will a new prime minister have taken the reins with such low public expectations. It may be the case that he's able to outperform these fairly comfortably and retain a +40% voting coalition with ease.
    Blair inherited a golden legacy, though. The UK was running a Government surplus, and had only a narrow trade deficit.

    During the Blair and Brown years the UK's foreign savings went negative.

    Johnson has a narrower window of opportunity.

    But he is bright and tough and determined. I wish him the best of luck, but I fear the next five years will be a struggle.
    He may be bright, and affable, but I don’t see much evidence of being tough and determined. Like Trump he is actually emotionally fragile. He hasn’t demonstrated prime ministerial maturity in dealing with those who challenge him, whether the grandees within his own party or Channel 4.

    He uses bluster and humour to wriggle out of ever being pinned down, and is an unprincipled opportunist of the first order. He is also lazy. And in less than a couple of months’ time pretty much the only principal and objective that he has championed will be ticked off, leaving him without an agenda and a mandate for nothing. Apart from being not Corbyn.

    None of these skills lend themselves to resolving the challenges that lie ahead. Almost the only skill he has that might suit him for high office is picking good people and his willingness to trust them to get on with things. But it’s a huge ask to get British government to work that way, and letting your colleagues get on with things in politics carries risk as well as reward.

    He is already the most unpopular new PM in polling history, and after Survation may be about to become the least popular election winner ever. I fear we are in for years of turmoil.

    If Johnson was bright he would not have fought the election campaign he has. He did not have to lie to beat Corbyn and in lying he has created any number of hostages to fortune.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172



    Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

    And, if red wall seats are falling, that too is a good thing. Irrespective, it is important that seats change hands (as the Scots well understand).

    You are taken for granted if you always return the same party for fifty years. Even if the Tories offer nothing in power to the voters of Rother Valley, Labour will be forced to re-think their offer.

    I hope South Wales is looking and learning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    Dura_Ace said:

    Boris's debt will be paid in spades during his term in office.

    I disagree with this. None of the shit is going to stick to Boris. As soon as the government runs into sea state 7+ one or all of Javid/Raab/Patel will be blamed tossed over the taffrail.
    No one can slip the shit forever
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    Foxy said:

    Brom said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jo Swinson on Today: we won't put Corbyn into Downing Street.

    The problem is unless Sturgeon rules it out it remains a possibility.
    I remain to be convinced by what JS means by “not putting Corbyn (or Johnson) in Downing Street. Firstly, such pre-election campaigns tend to dissolve like candy floss in a puddle. Secondly, what’s the alternative for a small party? You either (at least) acquiesce in the formation of a government or you go straight back to the polls - and in this case, presumably a no deal Brexit on Jan 31 as a result.

    I guess the reality is that we’re heading for a Boris win (though I don’t buy the larger predictions of his majority). If not, it’ll be a fascinating/troubled time. For starters, where does Boris go for extra votes if he’s short? DUP and bin his deal or LDs and have a referendum? Either of those and he’s toast. I’m not even sure he’d get any Lab leavers through the lobby so immediately after an election.
    I think Jo has been careful not to rule out coalition, just coalition with the current Lab or Con leaders. Under alternate leadership she may. It is hard to see that happen quickly, but if there was a change in leadership and policy then Confidence and Supply is not out of the question. Neither Lab nor Con has a very nimble mechanism to replace the leader though.
    Be a bit rich of Swinson to demand that the leaders of other parties stand down when it is she who has seen the most precipitous decline in the polls when put forward to the voters. Physician, heal thyself.
    She could still emerge from this election as the only party leader with a greater share of the vote than last time!


  • Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

    And, if red wall seats are falling, that too is a good thing. Irrespective, it is important that seats change hands (as the Scots well understand).

    You are taken for granted if you always return the same party for fifty years. Even if the Tories offer nothing in power to the voters of Rother Valley, Labour will be forced to re-think their offer.

    I hope South Wales is looking and learning.

    That is a very good point.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    kle4 said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    The Grievers were too busy with clever procedures to think more than a step ahead if the polls are right. Too focused on ultimate victory and so may see ultimate defeat. The labour leavers left it far too late and so dont reap the benefits of pragmatism as things are too raw when an on schedule election would have been easier.

    The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

    If the majority is big enough then Boris will pivot to BINO and betray the ERG. Scorpion, frog, river, etc.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Squareroot your two posts reveal the problem. What you want (destruction of Corbyn) is what you see (landslide).

    Yes, one poll shows a 14% lead. It may be the correct outcome. Equally, it may not.

    And, for the record, Johnson is loathed too. I would like to see him beaten (destroyed is far too emotive and violent a word to use) and for the Conservative party to be returned to the sensible centre right ground. It will happen, eventually.

    This election remains on a knife-edge, like it or not.

    Bloody big knife!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think (and have thought throughout the campaign) that the Conservatives would get a majority of 100+. I still think that likely, and I think it . That may not happen again.

    The Johnson pitch reminds me a bit of Blair in 1997. Wrap yourself in the Union Jack, talk tough on crime, promise no tax rises combined with realistic fiscal sobriety and targeted spending increases, radiate optimism and a better future...

    I capable of (which I say even as a fairly firm supporter). And then there's Events.

    In Boris's favour, if he does win a landslide, never before will a new prime minister have taken the reins with such low public expectations. It may be the case that he's able to outperform these fairly comfortably and retain a +40% voting coalition with ease.
    Blair inherited a golden legacy, though. The UK was running a Government surplus, and had only a narrow trade deficit.

    During the Blair and Brown years the UK's foreign savings went negative.

    Johnson has a narrower window of opportunity.

    But he is bright and tough and determined. I wish him the best of luck, but I fear the next five years will be a struggle.
    He may be bright, and affable, but I don’t see much evidence of being tough and determined. Like Trump he is actually emotionally fragile. He hasn’t demonstrated prime ministerial maturity in dealing with those who challenge him, whether the grandees within his own party or Channel 4.

    He uses bluster and humour to wriggle out of ever being pinned down, and is an unprincipled opportunist of the first order. He is also lazy. And in less than a couple of months’ time pretty much the only principal and objective that he has championed will be ticked off, leaving him without an agenda and a mandate for nothing. Apart from being not Corbyn.

    None of these skills lend themselves to resolving the challenges that lie ahead. Almost the only skill he has that might suit him for high office is picking good people and his willingness to trust them to get on with things. But it’s a huge ask to get British government to work that way, and letting your colleagues get on with things in politics carries risk as well as reward.

    He is already the most unpopular new PM in polling history, and after Survation may be about to become the least popular election winner ever. I fear we are in for years of turmoil.

    If Johnson was bright he would not have fought the election campaign he has. He did not have to lie to beat Corbyn and in lying he has created any number of hostages to fortune.

    He is bright, but in tactics not strategy.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    Equally Tom Watson for leaving with a whimper rather than actually solving Labour's problems.
    Or indeed the Labour moderates for failing to join TIG en masse and bring about a realignment of the centre-left in time to offer a realistic alternative this week.
    That is the biggest "What if?" of 2019. If Watson had taken 80 MPs to the TIGs, the political landscape would changed out of all recognition. I suspect a significantly larger number of Tories would have gone then too. And if the LibDems had rolled up into it.....this election would be extraordinary.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think (and have thought throughout the campaign) that the Conservatives would get a majority of 100+. I still think that likely, and I think it . That may not happen again.

    The Johnson pitch reminds me a bit of Blair in 1997. Wrap yourself in the Union Jack, talk tough on crime, promise no tax rises combined with realistic fiscal sobriety and targeted spending increases, radiate optimism and a better future...

    I too am expecting a shellicking er). And then there's Events.

    In Boris's favour, if he does win a landslide, never before will a new prime minister have taken the reins with such low public expectations. It may be the case that he's able to outperform these fairly comfortably and retain a +40% voting coalition with ease.
    Blair inherited a t.

    During the Blair and Brown years the UK's foreign savings went negative.

    Johnson has a narrower window of opportunity.

    But he is bright and tough and determined. I wish him the best of luck, but I fear the next five years will be a struggle.
    He may be bright, and affable, but I don’t see much evidence of being tough and determined. Like Trump he is actually emotionally fragile. He hasn’t demonstrated prime ministerial maturity in dealing with those who challenge him, whether the grandees within his own party or Channel 4.

    He uses bluster and humour to wriggle out of ever being pinned down, and is an unprincipled opportunist of the first order. He is also lazy. And in less than a couple of months’ time pretty much the only principal and objective that he has championed will be ticked off, leaving him without an agenda and a mandate for nothing.

    None of these skills lend themselves to resolving the challenges that lie ahead. Almost the only skill he has that might suit him for high office is picking good people and his willingness to trust them to get on with things. But it’s a huge ask to get British government to work that way, and letting your colleagues get on with things in politics carries risk as ars of turmoil.
    I agree completely , especially about his fragility and laziness, except for the part about mandate, which is one of those words that doesnt seem to mean anything.
    It means putting forward a set of ideas and plans before an election, and so having the credibility and political capital to implement them afterwards.

    Just too bad that Mrs May gave that sort of thing a bad name, at least among politicians.
    You say it means that. Usually it is used such that people are said not to have it even if they did that.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think (and have thought throughout the campaign) that the Conservatives would get a majority of 100+. I still think that likely, and I think it . That may not happen again.

    The Johnson pitch reminds me a bit of Blair in 1997. Wrap yourself in the Union Jack, talk tough on crime, promise no tax rises combined with realistic fiscal sobriety and targeted spending increases, radiate optimism and a better future...

    I capable of (which I say even as a fairly firm supporter). And then there's Events.

    In Boris's favour, if he does win a landslide, never before will a new prime minister have taken the reins with such low public expectations. It may be the case that he's able to outperform these fairly comfortably and retain a +40% voting coalition with ease.
    Blair inherited a golden legacy, though. The UK was running a Government surplus, and had only a narrow trade deficit.

    During the Blair and Brown years the UK's foreign savings went negative.

    Johnson has a narrower window of opportunity.

    But he is bright and tough and determined. I wish him the best of luck, but I fear the next five years will be a struggle.
    He may be bright, and affable, but I don’t see much evidence of being tough and determined. Like Trump he is actually emotionally fragile. He hasn’t demonstrated prime ministerial maturity in dealing with those who challenge him, whether the grandees within his own party or Channel 4.

    He uses bluster and humour to wriggle out of ever being pinned down, and is an unprincipled opportunist of the first order. He is also lazy. And in less than a couple of months’ time pretty much the only principal and objective that he has championed will be ticked off, leaving him without an agenda and a mandate for nothing. Apart from being not Corbyn.

    None of these skills lend themselves to resolving the challenges that lie ahead. Almost the only skill he has that might suit him for high office is picking good people and his willingness to trust them to get on with things. But it’s a huge ask to get British government to work that way, and letting your colleagues get on with things in politics carries risk as well as reward.

    He is already the most unpopular new PM in polling history, and after Survation may be about to become the least popular election winner ever. I fear we are in for years of turmoil.

    If Johnson was bright he would not have fought the election campaign he has. He did not have to lie to beat Corbyn and in lying he has created any number of hostages to fortune.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    Foxy said:

    Brom said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jo Swinson on Today: we won't put Corbyn into Downing Street.

    The problem is unless Sturgeon rules it out it remains a possibility.
    I remain to be convinced by what JS means by “not putting Corbyn (or Johnson) in Downing Street. Firstly, such pre-election campaigns tend to dissolve like candy floss in a puddle. Secondly, what’s the alternative for a small party? You either (at least) acquiesce in the formation of a government or you go straight back to the polls - and in this case, presumably a no deal Brexit on Jan 31 as a result.

    I guess the reality is that we’re heading for a Boris win (though I don’t buy the larger predictions of his majority). If not, it’ll be a fascinating/troubled time. For starters, where does Boris go for extra votes if he’s short? DUP and bin his deal or LDs and have a referendum? Either of those and he’s toast. I’m not even sure he’d get any Lab leavers through the lobby so immediately after an election.
    I think Jo has been careful not to rule out coalition, just coalition with the current Lab or Con leaders. Under alternate leadership she may. It is hard to see that happen quickly, but if there was a change in leadership and policy then Confidence and Supply is not out of the question. Neither Lab nor Con has a very nimble mechanism to replace the leader though.
    Be a bit rich of Swinson to demand that the leaders of other parties stand down when it is she who has seen the most precipitous decline in the polls when put forward to the voters. Physician, heal thyself.
    The bigger issue will be finding a major party leader who, having won most seats, accepts that they’ve fallen short of winning the election and having the good grace to step aside for the longer-term benefit of their party/country. If it didn’t cross Theresa May’s mind in 2017, I can’t see Boz or Jez having that epiphany.
    It crossed a lot of Tory MPs' minds, which is what matters. The problem was that they had Bozo as the alternative, and back then they saw his character more clearly.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,721

    Foxy said:

    Brom said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jo Swinson on Today: we won't put Corbyn into Downing Street.

    The problem is unless Sturgeon rules it out it remains a possibility.
    I remain to be convinced by what JS means by “not putting Corbyn (or Johnson) in Downing Street. Firstly, such pre-election campaigns tend to dissolve like candy floss in a puddle. Secondly, what’s the alternative for a small party? You either (at least) acquiesce in the formation of a government or you go straight back to the polls - and in this case, presumably a no deal Brexit on Jan 31 as a result.

    I guess the reality is that we’re heading for a Boris win (though I don’t buy the larger predictions of his majority). If not, it’ll be a fascinating/troubled time. For starters, where does Boris go for extra votes if he’s short? DUP and bin his deal or LDs and have a referendum? Either of those and he’s toast. I’m not even sure he’d get any Lab leavers through the lobby so immediately after an election.
    I think Jo has been careful not to rule out coalition, just coalition with the current Lab or Con leaders. Under alternate leadership she may. It is hard to see that happen quickly, but if there was a change in leadership and policy then Confidence and Supply is not out of the question. Neither Lab nor Con has a very nimble mechanism to replace the leader though.
    Be a bit rich of Swinson to demand that the leaders of other parties stand down when it is she who has seen the most precipitous decline in the polls when put forward to the voters. Physician, heal thyself.
    No-one is going to listen to Swinson.

    In fact, the LibDems lecturing Labour to change their leader if Swinson has gone backwards is the very definition of "hubris".
    If LDs are holding the balance of seats then it is unlikely that they have gone backwards. I think her position on a NOC parliament is the right one.

    It is worth noting that while all leaders are unpopular, she is the one with the lowest disapproval rating.
  • eek said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    Equally Tom Watson for leaving with a whimper rather than actually solving Labour's problems.
    Knowledge of the settlement in the damages case might have contribued to his decision.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,038
    I've just seen the Survation poll.

    Oh well, roll on the leadership election.
  • kle4 said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    The Grievers were too busy with clever procedures to think more than a step ahead if the polls are right. Too focused on ultimate victory and so may see ultimate defeat. The labour leavers left it far too late and so dont reap the benefits of pragmatism as things are too raw when an on schedule election would have been easier.

    The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

    Don't delude yourself that its a good think that Boris gets a big majority, if the Tories get a Maggie style 144 it might take 3 GE's to get back to parity or win.
    Its a disaster for Labour and will they have the people to properly scrutinise what is going on?

    Labour deserves its disaster. They will have to find the people necessary. There will be a few of them left standing, I suspect - but Labour members will almost inevitably retreat deeper into their confort zone and choose someone else incapable of taking the Tories on.

    I don't want a large Tory majority, but it will put three years of blaming others for their own failings to bed (though obviously they will still try).

  • In the unlikely event Farage tells his troops to stand down this week in all but a few seats, who gains most?

    Do most move to Boris or return to Labour?
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,503

    kle4 said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    The Grievers were too busy with clever procedures to think more than a step ahead if the polls are right. Too focused on ultimate victory and so may see ultimate defeat. The labour leavers left it far too late and so dont reap the benefits of pragmatism as things are too raw when an on schedule election would have been easier.

    The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

    Don't delude yourself that its a good think that Boris gets a big majority, if the Tories get a Maggie style 144 it might take 3 GE's to get back to parity or win.
    Its a disaster for Labour and will they have the people to properly scrutinise what is going on?

    Labour deserves its disaster. They will have to find the people necessary. There will be a few of them left standing, I suspect - but Labour members will almost inevitably retreat deeper into their confort zone and choose someone else incapable of taking the Tories on.

    I don't want a large Tory majority, but it will put three years of blaming others for their own failings to bed (though obviously they will still try).

    The EHCR report next year may solve that anyway.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    shellicking
    Of all the typos in the world, this is now one of my favourite.

    Revenge by labrador.

    I'm not sure I know enough about labradors to get this but happy to have amused you on a Monday!

    You meant “shellacking”

    Labs have very big tongues and are not afraid to use them
  • Mr. Wiggs, not sure I agree. If Corbyn hadn't been Labour leader, Remain might well have won (of course, you can say that about several factors).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149
    edited December 2019
    Tories heading for their biggest voteshare since Heath and their biggest majority since Thatcher with Survation https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1203940311703195648?s=20
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,721

    In the unlikely event Farage tells his troops to stand down this week in all but a few seats, who gains most?

    Do most move to Boris or return to Labour?

    Too late. The BXP has effectively disbanded itself already. I don't think it would make any difference now.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    Foxy said:

    Brom said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jo Swinson on Today: we won't put Corbyn into Downing Street.

    The problem is unless Sturgeon rules it out it remains a possibility.
    I remain to be convinced by what JS means by “not putting Corbyn (or Johnson) in Downing Street. Firstly, such pre-election campaigns tend to dissolve like candy floss in a puddle. Secondly, what’s the alternative for a small party? You either (at least) acquiesce in the formation of a government or you go straight back to the polls - and in this case, presumably a no deal Brexit on Jan 31 as a result.

    I guess the reality is that we’re heading for a Boris win (though I don’t buy the larger predictions of his majority). If not, it’ll be a fascinating/troubled time. For starters, where does Boris go for extra votes if he’s short? DUP and bin his deal or LDs and have a referendum? Either of those and he’s toast. I’m not even sure he’d get any Lab leavers through the lobby so immediately after an election.
    I think Jo has been careful not to rule out coalition, just coalition with the current Lab or Con leaders. Under alternate leadership she may. It is hard to see that happen quickly, but if there was a change in leadership and policy then Confidence and Supply is not out of the question. Neither Lab nor Con has a very nimble mechanism to replace the leader though.
    Be a bit rich of Swinson to demand that the leaders of other parties stand down when it is she who has seen the most precipitous decline in the polls when put forward to the voters. Physician, heal thyself.
    No-one is going to listen to Swinson.

    In fact, the LibDems lecturing Labour to change their leader if Swinson has gone backwards is the very definition of "hubris".
    Swinson has to hold her own seat first!
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751

    Very perceptive piece from John Harriss today. The Tories will win because they offer an end to Brexit and because Labour is widely disliked and devoid of credibility. But then what? The Tories have no real offer, they present no solutions, just English nationalism and what Harriss terms Johnson's "meandering opportunism". At some point the right in this country is going to have to start thinking about the deep-seated problems and challenges the UK faces internally and as part of a rapidly-changing wider world. When is that going to happen and who is going to do it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/wins-tories-future-boris-johnson-victory-conservatism

    Every time I click on the guaradian and see partisan rubbish from Owen Jones and the like, I wonder why I bothered clicking at all. And then I read something from John Harris. Is he as perceptive as he is because he's not at core a political journo, but a music journalist?

    He's bang on right that if Boris wins, it will be due to a blank slate platform. I have my hopes about what he'll do if he wins a majority, based upon years of his opinion pieces and unscripted utterances. Buccaneering internationalist champion of aspiration Boris the Builder. But I might be wrong because he hasn't really spelled it out.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,231

    If Johnson was bright he would not have fought the election campaign he has. He did not have to lie to beat Corbyn and in lying he has created any number of hostages to fortune.

    As he did in the Tory leadership contest when again he did not need to. But perhaps he does need to. Perhaps the need is not functional but psychological. It could be that lying has become such an integral part of his personality that he is uncomfortable to the point of mental anguish with telling the truth. Thus even where the truth does him no harm he lies. There is no doubt a medical name for this condition.
  • Foxy said:

    Brom said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jo Swinson on Today: we won't put Corbyn into Downing Street.

    The problem is unless Sturgeon rules it out it remains a possibility.
    I remain to be convinced by what JS means by “not putting Corbyn (or Johnson) in Downing Street. Firstly, such pre-election campaigns tend to dissolve like candy floss in a puddle. Secondly, what’s the alternative for a small party? You either (at least) acquiesce in the formation of a government or you go straight back to the polls - and in this case, presumably a no deal Brexit on Jan 31 as a result.

    I think Jo has been careful not to rule out coalition, just coalition with the current Lab or Con leaders. Under alternate leadership she may. It is hard to see that happen quickly, but if there was a change in leadership and policy then Confidence and Supply is not out of the question. Neither Lab nor Con has a very nimble mechanism to replace the leader though.
    Be a bit rich of Swinson to demand that the leaders of other parties stand down when it is she who has seen the most precipitous decline in the polls when put forward to the voters. Physician, heal thyself.
    The bigger issue will be finding a major party leader who, having won most seats, accepts that they’ve fallen short of winning the election and having the good grace to step aside for the longer-term benefit of their party/country. If it didn’t cross Theresa May’s mind in 2017, I can’t see Boz or Jez having that epiphany.
    There seems to be a constant campaign against Swinson for doing nothing more than express a reasonable position. Why should she be forced to support either Corbyn or Johnson who are both universally hated?

    I am one of those Tory Remainers who along with my son wondering where to vote. In the end we will split Lib Dem / Green as just cant stand the attitude of the present Tories. Wonder how many others like me, who are going to decide this week what to do?


    I don’t disagree, except that maybe JS has over-reached both with this and the Revoke-if-we-win pledge.

    “The more LibDems you elect, the greater influence we’ll exert” would have meant the same in practice and - while less noticeable - would have put off fewer who find it ridiculous.

    But. I do find the sniping against her from Lab types that she’s basically a Tory a bit tiresome.
  • Very perceptive piece from John Harriss today. The Tories will win because they offer an end to Brexit and because Labour is widely disliked and devoid of credibility. But then what? The Tories have no real offer, they present no solutions, just English nationalism and what Harriss terms Johnson's "meandering opportunism". At some point the right in this country is going to have to start thinking about the deep-seated problems and challenges the UK faces internally and as part of a rapidly-changing wider world. When is that going to happen and who is going to do it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/wins-tories-future-boris-johnson-victory-conservatism

    My only hope is that once Brexit is 'done' in terms of leaving and relagated to a series of trade deals and talks, which are important but hardly sexy, that both labour and tories will be more focused on domestic issues.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    Very perceptive piece from John Harriss today. The Tories will win because they offer an end to Brexit and because Labour is widely disliked and devoid of credibility. But then what? The Tories have no real offer, they present no solutions, just English nationalism and what Harriss terms Johnson's "meandering opportunism". At some point the right in this country is going to have to start thinking about the deep-seated problems and challenges the UK faces internally and as part of a rapidly-changing wider world. When is that going to happen and who is going to do it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/wins-tories-future-boris-johnson-victory-conservatism

    The right will go down the Trumpian path.

    More state aid for farmers, more tariffs, "buy British", unfunded tax cuts etc
  • Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    The Grievers were too busy with clever procedures to think more than a step ahead if the polls are right. Too focused on ultimate victory and so may see ultimate defeat. The labour leavers left it far too late and so dont reap the benefits of pragmatism as things are too raw when an on schedule election would have been easier.

    The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

    If the majority is big enough then Boris will pivot to BINO and betray the ERG. Scorpion, frog, river, etc.
    That would be **all of the lolz**
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Andy_JS said:

    Swinson: another election may be needed in the event of a hung parliament.

    That’s one way to motivate people to vote Tory. Why is a Lib Dem saying it? One of their core policies is electoral reform, preferable PR. That would lead to hung parliaments and the need for coalitions as a matter of course. She should surely be welcoming the chance to show how well they can work.
    We already have coalitions. They are just dishonest and deceptive. The labour party is a coalition. The conservative party is a coalition. The snp is a coalition.
    Actually that’s the one real argument for FPTP I think. We know going in what the coalitions are and which ever gets the most vote wins (most of the time). In PR we have more control over who is elected but less (or at least no more than currently) over who actually ends up in government as that is decided post election by the party leaders.
    I disagree. Under PR voters can determine the strength of each ‘fraction’. Under FPTP it is simply a tiny amount of weirdo party members.
    But they have their fights and compromises before the election (usually) rather than after it.

    How many LibDem voters in 2010 would have voted for the Coalition Agreement?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    Equally Tom Watson for leaving with a whimper rather than actually solving Labour's problems.
    Or indeed the Labour moderates for failing to join TIG en masse and bring about a realignment of the centre-left in time to offer a realistic alternative this week.
    That is the biggest "What if?" of 2019. If Watson had taken 80 MPs to the TIGs, the political landscape would changed out of all recognition. I suspect a significantly larger number of Tories would have gone then too. And if the LibDems had rolled up into it.....this election would be extraordinary.
    Indeed. Having lived through politics in the early 80s, the biggest difference this time was that it was a handful of individual politicians who didn't feel they needed to set out a platform or raise a standard, and didn't bring large numbers of councillors, members and ordinary voters along with them (indeed the absence of any 'TIG' councillors is remarkable, given how relatively more common it is for councillors to change party labels).

    A larger breakaway done on the basis of a set of agreed principles could and probably would have created a 1980s style surge of support.

    The answer as to why this didn't happen lies in the 1980s too, of course.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    Would be interesting if the Tories won a big majority but Boris lost his seat!

    If enough people keep saying this, it will be manifested.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    Charles said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Swinson: another election may be needed in the event of a hung parliament.

    That’s one way to motivate people to vote Tory. Why is a Lib Dem saying it? One of their core policies is electoral reform, preferable PR. That would lead to hung parliaments and the need for coalitions as a matter of course. She should surely be welcoming the chance to show how well they can work.
    We already have coalitions. They are just dishonest and deceptive. The labour party is a coalition. The conservative party is a coalition. The snp is a coalition.
    Actually that’s the one real argument for FPTP I think. We know going in what the coalitions are and which ever gets the most vote wins (most of the time). In PR we have more control over who is elected but less (or at least no more than currently) over who actually ends up in government as that is decided post election by the party leaders.
    I disagree. Under PR voters can determine the strength of each ‘fraction’. Under FPTP it is simply a tiny amount of weirdo party members.
    But they have their fights and compromises before the election (usually) rather than after it.

    How many LibDem voters in 2010 would have voted for the Coalition Agreement?
    Because we voters all remember being offered and voting for war in Iraq, the introduction of tuition fees in the first place, the poll tax...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,721
    kinabalu said:

    If Johnson was bright he would not have fought the election campaign he has. He did not have to lie to beat Corbyn and in lying he has created any number of hostages to fortune.

    As he did in the Tory leadership contest when again he did not need to. But perhaps he does need to. Perhaps the need is not functional but psychological. It could be that lying has become such an integral part of his personality that he is uncomfortable to the point of mental anguish with telling the truth. Thus even where the truth does him no harm he lies. There is no doubt a medical name for this condition.
    Sociopath is the word that you are looking for.
  • nunu2 said:

    Would be interesting if the Tories won a big majority but Boris lost his seat!

    If enough people keep saying this, it will be manifested.
    It will be barely interesting for a few weeks. Presumably what happens is (a) he remains PM and (b) a Tory MP with a massive majority is promoted to the Lords and Boris stands in the by-election
  • nunu2 said:

    Very perceptive piece from John Harriss today. The Tories will win because they offer an end to Brexit and because Labour is widely disliked and devoid of credibility. But then what? The Tories have no real offer, they present no solutions, just English nationalism and what Harriss terms Johnson's "meandering opportunism". At some point the right in this country is going to have to start thinking about the deep-seated problems and challenges the UK faces internally and as part of a rapidly-changing wider world. When is that going to happen and who is going to do it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/wins-tories-future-boris-johnson-victory-conservatism

    The right will go down the Trumpian path.

    More state aid for farmers, more tariffs, "buy British", unfunded tax cuts etc
    Read the Conservative manifesto; read @Cyclefree's header. Boris has pledged and will have a mandate for a massive power grab for Number 10 and restriction of scrutiny by the courts and by parliament itself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149
    edited December 2019
    Boris starts a marathon final tour of Labour Leave seats in Humberside and the North East at a fish market in Grimsby first thing this morning, which will culminate in Sunderland.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50706932

    The tour resembles Trump's whirlwind tour of rustbelt Democratic states like Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania in the final days of the 2016 election that led him to victory
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    A couple of questions re poll weighting:

    1. If a poll of 1000 people is conducted and only 40% (ignoring DKs) of the respondents say they voted Leave in 2016 do the pollsters multiply their VI numbers by 52/40 and the the Remain voters by 52/60 when constructing the final VI results?

    2. What if, in addition to the above, in the same poll, 50% say they voted Conservative in 2017? Do they multiply the results from the self-confessed Leave-Conservative voting subsection from that sample by 52/40 then by 43.5/50?

    Genuine questions - hope they make sense.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    llef said:

    I thought I saw mentions of a Wales poll coming out. did we get one or is one expected?

    It is normally released in the afternoon - last one at 5pm i think.
    Can you repost?
  • A couple of questions re poll weighting:

    1. If a poll of 1000 people is conducted and only 40% (ignoring DKs) of the respondents say they voted Leave in 2016 do the pollsters multiply their VI numbers by 52/40 and the the Remain voters by 52/60 when constructing the final VI results?

    2. What if, in addition to the above, in the same poll, 50% say they voted Conservative in 2017? Do they multiply the results from the self-confessed Leave-Conservative voting subsection from that sample by 52/40 then by 43.5/50?

    Genuine questions - hope they make sense.

    It depends who is the pollster. There was some discussion of this on the podcast on last night's thread.
  • Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    If Johnson was bright he would not have fought the election campaign he has. He did not have to lie to beat Corbyn and in lying he has created any number of hostages to fortune.

    As he did in the Tory leadership contest when again he did not need to. But perhaps he does need to. Perhaps the need is not functional but psychological. It could be that lying has become such an integral part of his personality that he is uncomfortable to the point of mental anguish with telling the truth. Thus even where the truth does him no harm he lies. There is no doubt a medical name for this condition.
    Sociopath is the word that you are looking for.
    He had an incredibly unstable childhood. A talented but damaged person, not to rely on.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited December 2019


    I don’t disagree, except that maybe JS has over-reached both with this and the Revoke-if-we-win pledge.

    “The more LibDems you elect, the greater influence we’ll exert” would have meant the same in practice and - while less noticeable - would have put off fewer who find it ridiculous.

    But. I do find the sniping against her from Lab types that she’s basically a Tory a bit tiresome.

    I think being the Leader of the LibDems is the most difficult job in UK politics.

    Swinson was always too young and too immature for the job. She should have got it when she was in her fifties, not in her thirties.

    Drunk Charlie was the best Leader of the LibDems in our lifetime. The LibDems knifed him.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    The Grievers were too busy with clever procedures to think more than a step ahead if the polls are right. Too focused on ultimate victory and so may see ultimate defeat. The labour leavers left it far too late and so dont reap the benefits of pragmatism as things are too raw when an on schedule election would have been easier.

    The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

    If the majority is big enough then Boris will pivot to BINO and betray the ERG. Scorpion, frog, river, etc.
    Given there were circa 80 in the ERG that would need a majority of >160.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,721
    Duty calls. I see we are on Opel 4 (the new euphemism for black alert) still. That will probably be to the new year at least. I cannot see that doing much for staff retention.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695

    A couple of questions re poll weighting:

    1. If a poll of 1000 people is conducted and only 40% (ignoring DKs) of the respondents say they voted Leave in 2016 do the pollsters multiply their VI numbers by 52/40 and the the Remain voters by 52/60 when constructing the final VI results?

    2. What if, in addition to the above, in the same poll, 50% say they voted Conservative in 2017? Do they multiply the results from the self-confessed Leave-Conservative voting subsection from that sample by 52/40 then by 43.5/50?

    Genuine questions - hope they make sense.

    It depends who is the pollster. There was some discussion of this on the podcast on last night's thread.
    Ah right thanks - I will listen to it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited December 2019

    A couple of questions re poll weighting:

    1. If a poll of 1000 people is conducted and only 40% (ignoring DKs) of the respondents say they voted Leave in 2016 do the pollsters multiply their VI numbers by 52/40 and the the Remain voters by 52/60 when constructing the final VI results?

    2. What if, in addition to the above, in the same poll, 50% say they voted Conservative in 2017? Do they multiply the results from the self-confessed Leave-Conservative voting subsection from that sample by 52/40 then by 43.5/50?

    Genuine questions - hope they make sense.

    Some do. Given the number of different factors to weight to, including a lot of demographic data, the maths is more complicated than you describe, but you have the principle. And you need to allow for non-voters and new voters etc. as well.

    Some think it's all too difficult (listen to Pedley on the last PB podcast) and don't do it at all

    Some like YouGov have a record of how people (said they) voted, gathered the day after the previous vote, and weight to that.

  • nunu2 said:

    Very perceptive piece from John Harriss today. The Tories will win because they offer an end to Brexit and because Labour is widely disliked and devoid of credibility. But then what? The Tories have no real offer, they present no solutions, just English nationalism and what Harriss terms Johnson's "meandering opportunism". At some point the right in this country is going to have to start thinking about the deep-seated problems and challenges the UK faces internally and as part of a rapidly-changing wider world. When is that going to happen and who is going to do it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/wins-tories-future-boris-johnson-victory-conservatism

    The right will go down the Trumpian path.

    More state aid for farmers, more tariffs, "buy British", unfunded tax cuts etc

    That is not sustainable in the US. let alone the UK!

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    The Grievers were too busy with clever procedures to think more than a step ahead if the polls are right. Too focused on ultimate victory and so may see ultimate defeat. The labour leavers left it far too late and so dont reap the benefits of pragmatism as things are too raw when an on schedule election would have been easier.

    The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

    If the majority is big enough then Boris will pivot to BINO and betray the ERG. Scorpion, frog, river, etc.
    Given there were circa 80 in the ERG that would need a majority of >160.
    That assumes all the Opposition sides with the ERG in any vote on BINO.
  • HYUFD said:

    Boris starts a marathon final tour of Labour Leave seats in Humberside and the North East at a fish market in Grimsby first thing this morning, which will culminate in Sunderland.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50706932

    The tour resembles Trump's whirlwind tour of rustbelt Democratic states like Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania in the final days of the 2016 election that led him to victory

    Why refer to the obnoxious Trump. Boris is not Trump and we do not need any comparison with him. See this

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1203726647532363779?s=08
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    nunu2 said:

    Very perceptive piece from John Harriss today. The Tories will win because they offer an end to Brexit and because Labour is widely disliked and devoid of credibility. But then what? The Tories have no real offer, they present no solutions, just English nationalism and what Harriss terms Johnson's "meandering opportunism". At some point the right in this country is going to have to start thinking about the deep-seated problems and challenges the UK faces internally and as part of a rapidly-changing wider world. When is that going to happen and who is going to do it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/wins-tories-future-boris-johnson-victory-conservatism

    The right will go down the Trumpian path.

    More state aid for farmers, more tariffs, "buy British", unfunded tax cuts etc

    That is not sustainable in the US. let alone the UK!

    Its been sustaining the Republicans for quite some time now
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round.

    Corby, obviously, cops a lot of blame -- but also

    (i) The LibDems who really did precipitate the election. There is talk of Tory "hubris", but that word seems easier to hang round the necks of the LibDems. I always thought they might end up playing the role of the SNP in the 1979 election.

    (ii) The DUP who really are as thick as every one says they are, The DUP were in -- electorally speaking -- the kind of sweet spot that comes once a century for a small party.

    (iiI) The Remainers (Grieve, Balls, Cooper, Benn) who misjudged strategy massively. They will now have a Parliament in which Leave is a majority and consequently a much harder Brexit. All this stuff about "Johnson hanging in the wind" and "broken his word over do or die". I think that caused a visceral reaction in the country, who saw MPs playing stupid games.

    (iv) The Labour Leavers who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.

    The Grievers were too busy with clever procedures to think more than a step ahead if the polls are right. Too focused on ultimate victory and so may see ultimate defeat. The labour leavers left it far too late and so dont reap the benefits of pragmatism as things are too raw when an on schedule election would have been easier.

    The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but history is history. What matters is the future. With a big parliamentary majority the Tories will own absolutely everything that happens from here on in. There will be no-one else to blame and nowhere to hide. That is undoubtedly a very good thing.

    If the majority is big enough then Boris will pivot to BINO and betray the ERG. Scorpion, frog, river, etc.
    Given there were circa 80 in the ERG that would need a majority of >160.
    That assumes all the Opposition sides with the ERG in any vote on BINO.
    It also assumes they are allowed to vote on it.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    About the weather on election day.
    It's rain rain rain and strong winds, but no snow.

    I do think there is a possibility that the election could be skewed by what appears to be the first winter storm on election day in modern times.

    If that is the case then turnout will be down, perhaps a lot, and if it falls predominantly among old pensioners then the Conservatives would have a very big problem even if the polls give them a double digit lead.

    If pensioner turnout is 15% lower than what the polls suggest, but younger cohorts are unaffected, then the Conservative lead would be cut by 6 points to the edge of Hung Parliament.
  • llefllef Posts: 301
    Foxy said:

    Duty calls. I see we are on Opel 4 (the new euphemism for black alert) still. That will probably be to the new year at least. I cannot see that doing much for staff retention.

    Serious question - how could your hospital avoid an Opel 4 situation this time next year? What does your hospital need? Would more money suffice, or do you need more staff which you can't currently source even if you had the money to pay them?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868


    I don’t disagree, except that maybe JS has over-reached both with this and the Revoke-if-we-win pledge.

    “The more LibDems you elect, the greater influence we’ll exert” would have meant the same in practice and - while less noticeable - would have put off fewer who find it ridiculous.

    But. I do find the sniping against her from Lab types that she’s basically a Tory a bit tiresome.

    I think being the Leader of the LibDems is the most difficult job in UK politics.

    Swinson was always too young and too immature for the job. She should have got it when she was in her fifties, not in her thirties.

    Drunk Charlie was the best Leader of the LibDems in our lifetime. The LibDems knifed him.
    They had no choice. The stories of the dodging and apologising they had to do when he was drunk behind the scenes are legion.
This discussion has been closed.