***** Betting Post ***** This is an excellent thread for political bettors, like me, in terms of its sheer relevancy, even if the YouGov poll to which it refers dates back five months. The sure fire means of measuring each of the next potential Labour Party leaders popularity amongst its own membership is by reference to each candidate's net rating, i.e. (Would make a Good Leader ) minus (Would make a Poor Leader). This produces the following:
Surprisingly, this shows Starmer on 56% as being more than FOUR TIMES more popular then as the much fancied Long Bailey. Furthermore, if one discounts both McDonnell and Thornberry which I do, Starmer becomes the overwhelming favourite to win the Party leadership. As recently as 10 days ago, I backed him with Ladbrokes at odds of 18/1 to be the next Prime Minister.
Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.
At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.
Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...
Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exagerrates to absurdity the flaws?
The first film in a trilogy establishes the characters and the conflict The second film clarifies them, discards what doesn't work and focusses things for resolution in the third The third film resolves the conflict and concludes the character arcs
The Last Jedi's problem is that it ignored the themes established in the first film, lost itself in side quests, and killed off, trivialised or misunderstood crucial characters. The third film (RoS) was almost entirely damage control, fixing TLJ's fuckups.
These decisions lost hundreds of millions of dollars, failed to penetrate crucial markets and may actually have killed the franchise.
***** Betting Post ***** This is an excellent thread for political bettors, like me, in terms of its sheer relevancy, even if the YouGov poll to which it refers dates back five months. The sure fire means of measuring each of the next potential Labour Party leaders popularity amongst its own membership is by reference to each candidate's net rating, i.e. (Would make a Good Leader ) minus (Would make a Poor Leader). This produces the following:
Surprisingly, this shows Starmer on 56% as being more than FOUR TIMES more popular then as the much fancied Long Bailey. Furthermore, if one discounts both McDonnell and Thornberry which I do, Starmer becomes the overwhelming favourite to win the Party leadership. As recently as 10 days ago, I backed him with Ladbrokes at odds of 18/1 to be the next Prime Minister.
As ever, DYOR.
Er, Momentum? They will vote for the one that has been anointed even if their net rating is low.
These people don't want to win over the electorate.
Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.
At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.
Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...
Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exagerrates to absurdity the flaws?
The first film in a trilogy establishes the characters and the conflict The second film clarifies them, discards what doesn't work and focusses things for resolution in the third The third film resolves the conflict and concludes the character arcs
The Last Jedi's problem is that it ignored the themes established in the first film, lost itself in side quests, and killed off, trivialised or misunderstood crucial characters. The third film (RoS) was almost entirely damage control, fixing TLJ's fuckups.
These decisions lost hundreds of millions of dollars, failed to penetrate crucial markets and may actually have killed the franchise.
Wasn't TLJ the highest grossing film of all time?
Didn't JJ Abrahams kill the Star Trek Franchise with that dreadful incoherent Mrs of a second film?
Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.
At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.
Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...
Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exagerrates to absurdity the flaws?
The first film in a trilogy establishes the characters and the conflict The second film clarifies them, discards what doesn't work and focusses things for resolution in the third The third film resolves the conflict and concludes the character arcs
The Last Jedi's problem is that it ignored the themes established in the first film, lost itself in side quests, and killed off, trivialised or misunderstood crucial characters. The third film (RoS) was almost entirely damage control, fixing TLJ's fuckups.
These decisions lost hundreds of millions of dollars, failed to penetrate crucial markets and may actually have killed the franchise.
HIV is a chronic condition that can be easily controlled with a widely available drug regime
It is no worse than diabetes (and arguably it is a lower risk having someone who is HIV positive as President vs having a diabetic)
I knew that the newest drug regimes were a massive improvement on the early treatments - it is (excellent) news to me that they are that good.
Basically it has moved from “this is a sentence of death” to “this is going to be a pain in the butt for the rest of your life” (no pun intended)
I knew that it had moved to the later category - but I had thought it was more in the cancer-in-remission category, rather than less-than-diabetes. Awesome news .
***** Betting Post ***** This is an excellent thread for political bettors, like me, in terms of its sheer relevancy, even if the YouGov poll to which it refers dates back five months. The sure fire means of measuring each of the next potential Labour Party leaders popularity amongst its own membership is by reference to each candidate's net rating, i.e. (Would make a Good Leader ) minus (Would make a Poor Leader). This produces the following:
Surprisingly, this shows Starmer on 56% as being more than FOUR TIMES more popular then as the much fancied Long Bailey. Furthermore, if one discounts both McDonnell and Thornberry which I do, Starmer becomes the overwhelming favourite to win the Party leadership. As recently as 10 days ago, I backed him with Ladbrokes at odds of 18/1 to be the next Prime Minister.
As ever, DYOR.
How accurate were You Gov at the GE?. OGH says Labour rules might be used to stop Starmer.
DYOR is the right answer, Its like sticking a tail on a donkey. All of them are losers with serious questions over their capability.
Some useful questions for bettors that could be answered pretty easily with the constituencies data: What do Labour's 310th-330th seats look like (effective single-party government)? What do the Conservatives' 305th-325th seats look like (no Conservative single-party government)? Does the remaining Parliamentary Labour Party look much more, or less, loyal to a Corbyn-type candidate after the election?
Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.
At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.
Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...
Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exagerrates to absurdity the flaws?
The first film in a trilogy establishes the characters and the conflict The second film clarifies them, discards what doesn't work and focusses things for resolution in the third The third film resolves the conflict and concludes the character arcs
The Last Jedi's problem is that it ignored the themes established in the first film, lost itself in side quests, and killed off, trivialised or misunderstood crucial characters. The third film (RoS) was almost entirely damage control, fixing TLJ's fuckups.
These decisions lost hundreds of millions of dollars, failed to penetrate crucial markets and may actually have killed the franchise.
Wasn't TLJ the highest grossing film of all time?
Didn't JJ Abrahams kill the Star Trek Franchise with that dreadful incoherent Mrs of a second film?
Some useful questions for bettors that could be answered pretty easily with the constituencies data: What do Labour's 310th-330th seats look like (effective single-party government)? What do the Conservatives' 305th-325th seats look like (no Conservative single-party government)? Does the remaining Parliamentary Labour Party look much more, or less, loyal to a Corbyn-type candidate after the election?
Labour's 305th - 330th seats (excluding any gains off the SNP) start with Morley and Outwood (Con majority 11,267) and go up to Aylesbury (majority 17,373)
Tories seats lost for the no Conservative single-party Govt. are Wycombe to Altrincham range
Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.
At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.
Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...
Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exagerrates to absurdity the flaws?
The first film in a trilogy establishes the characters and the conflict The second film clarifies them, discards what doesn't work and focusses things for resolution in the third The third film resolves the conflict and concludes the character arcs
The Last Jedi's problem is that it ignored the themes established in the first film, lost itself in side quests, and killed off, trivialised or misunderstood crucial characters. The third film (RoS) was almost entirely damage control, fixing TLJ's fuckups.
These decisions lost hundreds of millions of dollars, failed to penetrate crucial markets and may actually have killed the franchise.
Wasn't TLJ the highest grossing film of all time?
Didn't JJ Abrahams kill the Star Trek Franchise with that dreadful incoherent Mrs of a second film?
It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:
Current incumbent - no need to elaborate. Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure. David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said) Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said) Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.
So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.
In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.
Wasn’t there that case of a police critic, who was on some supervisory committee, who was pursued by the police who used pictures of some private - if pretty esoteric - sexual activity to prosecute him. He was acquitted but ended up making a new life elsewhere? Wasn’t Starmer the DPP who authorised the prosecution?
As well as of the journalists in Operation Elveden?
Yes - he was on the COLP police authority and was very critical of them. Embarrassingly I’ve forgotten his name despite being a fellow Warden of St Dunstan for many years.
He ended up innocent, bankrupted and broken by the DPP
I cannot for the life find his name. I seem to recall that Starmer was the DPP who authorised the prosecution.
Bit of gossip..... I heard of a comment from a senior member of May's Cabinet, who said they have never underestimated anyone more badly than they underestimated Boris.
Bit of gossip..... I heard of a comment from a senior member of May's Cabinet, who said they have never underestimated anyone more badly than they underestimated Boris.
Some useful questions for bettors that could be answered pretty easily with the constituencies data: What do Labour's 310th-330th seats look like (effective single-party government)? What do the Conservatives' 305th-325th seats look like (no Conservative single-party government)? Does the remaining Parliamentary Labour Party look much more, or less, loyal to a Corbyn-type candidate after the election?
Labour's 305th - 330th seats (excluding any gains off the SNP) start with Morley and Outwood (Con majority 11,267) and go up to Aylesbury (majority 17,373)
Tories seats lost for the no Conservative single-party Govt. are Wycombe to Altrincham range
Aylesbury? Wycombe?! No wonder anyone employable already checked out.
Some useful questions for bettors that could be answered pretty easily with the constituencies data: What do Labour's 310th-330th seats look like (effective single-party government)? What do the Conservatives' 305th-325th seats look like (no Conservative single-party government)? Does the remaining Parliamentary Labour Party look much more, or less, loyal to a Corbyn-type candidate after the election?
Assuming that Labour remain dead in Scotland (or marginal recovery)
Lab Seat No. (Vote majority/swing to win - last held)
305: Monmouth (10,000/10% - 2001)
310: Welwyn Hatfield (11,000/10.5% - 2001 - Grant Shapps)
314: Bournemouth West (10,150/11% - Never)
320: Thurrock (11,000/12% - 2005)
325: Somerset North East (14,700/13% - 2005)
330: Banbury (16,800/13.4% - Never)
360: Isle of Wight (23,700/16% - Never)
There's some ridiculously tough seats in there. Winning IoW, Banbury, and Thurrock at the same time will require one hell of a coalition.
Bit of gossip..... I heard of a comment from a senior member of May's Cabinet, who said they have never underestimated anyone more badly than they underestimated Boris.
A bit early for estimates of over-achievement or underachievement. All he has achieved so far is electoral ; the end of this year will show how much he can achieve politically.
Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.
At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.
Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...
Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exagerrates to absurdity the flaws?
The first film in a trilogy establishes the characters and the conflict The second film clarifies them, discards what doesn't work and focusses things for resolution in the third The third film resolves the conflict and concludes the character arcs
The Last Jedi's problem is that it ignored the themes established in the first film, lost itself in side quests, and killed off, trivialised or misunderstood crucial characters. The third film (RoS) was almost entirely damage control, fixing TLJ's fuckups.
These decisions lost hundreds of millions of dollars, failed to penetrate crucial markets and may actually have killed the franchise.
Wasn't TLJ the highest grossing film of all time?
Didn't JJ Abrahams kill the Star Trek Franchise with that dreadful incoherent Mrs of a second film?
The highest grossing film of all time is now Avengers Endgame
Some useful questions for bettors that could be answered pretty easily with the constituencies data: What do Labour's 310th-330th seats look like (effective single-party government)? What do the Conservatives' 305th-325th seats look like (no Conservative single-party government)? Does the remaining Parliamentary Labour Party look much more, or less, loyal to a Corbyn-type candidate after the election?
Labour's 305th - 330th seats (excluding any gains off the SNP) start with Morley and Outwood (Con majority 11,267) and go up to Aylesbury (majority 17,373)
Tories seats lost for the no Conservative single-party Govt. are Wycombe to Altrincham range
Aylesbury? Wycombe?! No wonder anyone employable already checked out.
Wycombe and Altrincham are both eminently loseable for the Conservatives on current trends. It will just take some time.
Bit of gossip..... I heard of a comment from a senior member of May's Cabinet, who said they have never underestimated anyone more badly than they underestimated Boris.
A bit early for estimates of over-achievement or underachievement. All he has achieved so far is electoral ; the end of this year will show how much he can achieve politically.
This says it all - electorally : useless, politically: everything. Labour is brain dead
Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.
At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.
Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...
Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exagerrates to absurdity the flaws?
The first film in a trilogy establishes the characters and the conflict The second film clarifies them, discards what doesn't work and focusses things for resolution in the third The third film resolves the conflict and concludes the character arcs
The Last Jedi's problem is that it ignored the themes established in the first film, lost itself in side quests, and killed off, trivialised or misunderstood crucial characters. The third film (RoS) was almost entirely damage control, fixing TLJ's fuckups.
These decisions lost hundreds of millions of dollars, failed to penetrate crucial markets and may actually have killed the franchise.
Wasn't TLJ the highest grossing film of all time?
Didn't JJ Abrahams kill the Star Trek Franchise with that dreadful incoherent Mrs of a second film?
The highest grossing film of All time is now the Avengers Age of Ultron
Bit of gossip..... I heard of a comment from a senior member of May's Cabinet, who said they have never underestimated anyone more badly than they underestimated Boris.
***** Betting Post ***** This is an excellent thread for political bettors, like me, in terms of its sheer relevancy, even if the YouGov poll to which it refers dates back five months. The sure fire means of measuring each of the next potential Labour Party leaders popularity amongst its own membership is by reference to each candidate's net rating, i.e. (Would make a Good Leader ) minus (Would make a Poor Leader). This produces the following:
Surprisingly, this shows Starmer on 56% as being more than FOUR TIMES more popular then as the much fancied Long Bailey. Furthermore, if one discounts both McDonnell and Thornberry which I do, Starmer becomes the overwhelming favourite to win the Party leadership. As recently as 10 days ago, I backed him with Ladbrokes at odds of 18/1 to be the next Prime Minister.
As ever, DYOR.
How accurate were You Gov at the GE?. OGH says Labour rules might be used to stop Starmer.
DYOR is the right answer, Its like sticking a tail on a donkey. All of them are losers with serious questions over their capability.
The next Labour leader won't be PM either, they've got an absolutely huge job on their hands cleaning up the mess left by Corbynism, fixing Labour's institutions, and then working out what the party is for now that its traditional voting coalition has been torn asunder. It will also probably require a leader untainted by any association to the current awful regime to win voters round on the scale required. It's a huge repair job that needs doing before they earn the right to pitch themselves as a serious government again.
Some useful questions for bettors that could be answered pretty easily with the constituencies data: What do Labour's 310th-330th seats look like (effective single-party government)? What do the Conservatives' 305th-325th seats look like (no Conservative single-party government)? Does the remaining Parliamentary Labour Party look much more, or less, loyal to a Corbyn-type candidate after the election?
Assuming that Labour remain dead in Scotland (or marginal recovery)
Lab Seat No. (Vote majority/swing to win - last held)
305: Monmouth (10,000/10% - 2001)
310: Welwyn Hatfield (11,000/10.5% - 2001 - Grant Shapps)
314: Bournemouth West (10,150/11% - Never)
320: Thurrock (11,000/12% - 2005)
325: Somerset North East (14,700/13% - 2005)
330: Banbury (16,800/13.4% - Never)
360: Isle of Wight (23,700/16% - Never)
There's some ridiculously tough seats in there. Winning IoW, Banbury, and Thurrock at the same time will require one hell of a coalition.
The 13% swing Labour would need to take Somerset NE and Banbury to get a majority and 325 to 330 seats is bigger than Blair got in 1997 which suggests without SNP support or regaining its lost Scottish seats a Labour government is virtually impossible for the foreseeable future
Bit of gossip..... I heard of a comment from a senior member of May's Cabinet, who said they have never underestimated anyone more badly than they underestimated Boris.
A bit early for estimates of over-achievement or underachievement. All he has achieved so far is electoral ; the end of this year will show how much he can achieve politically.
More of a comment on the judgement of the person saying it rather than Boris......
***** Betting Post ***** This is an excellent thread for political bettors, like me, in terms of its sheer relevancy, even if the YouGov poll to which it refers dates back five months. The sure fire means of measuring each of the next potential Labour Party leaders popularity amongst its own membership is by reference to each candidate's net rating, i.e. (Would make a Good Leader ) minus (Would make a Poor Leader). This produces the following:
Surprisingly, this shows Starmer on 56% as being more than FOUR TIMES more popular then as the much fancied Long Bailey. Furthermore, if one discounts both McDonnell and Thornberry which I do, Starmer becomes the overwhelming favourite to win the Party leadership. As recently as 10 days ago, I backed him with Ladbrokes at odds of 18/1 to be the next Prime Minister.
As ever, DYOR.
How accurate were You Gov at the GE?. OGH says Labour rules might be used to stop Starmer.
DYOR is the right answer, Its like sticking a tail on a donkey. All of them are losers with serious questions over their capability.
Is there a winner in the Labour party? Tail on a donkey is easy peasy, you can't miss
***** Betting Post ***** This is an excellent thread for political bettors, like me, in terms of its sheer relevancy, even if the YouGov poll to which it refers dates back five months. The sure fire means of measuring each of the next potential Labour Party leaders popularity amongst its own membership is by reference to each candidate's net rating, i.e. (Would make a Good Leader ) minus (Would make a Poor Leader). This produces the following:
Surprisingly, this shows Starmer on 56% as being more than FOUR TIMES more popular then as the much fancied Long Bailey. Furthermore, if one discounts both McDonnell and Thornberry which I do, Starmer becomes the overwhelming favourite to win the Party leadership. As recently as 10 days ago, I backed him with Ladbrokes at odds of 18/1 to be the next Prime Minister.
As ever, DYOR.
How accurate were You Gov at the GE?. OGH says Labour rules might be used to stop Starmer.
DYOR is the right answer, Its like sticking a tail on a donkey. All of them are losers with serious questions over their capability.
The next Labour leader won't be PM either, they've got an absolutely huge job on their hands cleaning up the mess left by Corbynism, fixing Labour's institutions, and then working out what the party is for now that its traditional voting coalition has been torn asunder. It will also probably require a leader untainted by any association to the current awful regime to win voters round on the scale required. It's a huge repair job that needs doing before they earn the right to pitch themselves as a serious government again.
I agree. It's quite possible that Corbyn has killed off the Labour party. But Libdems are pathetic too - there must be a functioning opposition for democracy's sake..
***** Betting Post ***** This is an excellent thread for political bettors, like me, in terms of its sheer relevancy, even if the YouGov poll to which it refers dates back five months. The sure fire means of measuring each of the next potential Labour Party leaders popularity amongst its own membership is by reference to each candidate's net rating, i.e. (Would make a Good Leader ) minus (Would make a Poor Leader). This produces the following:
Surprisingly, this shows Starmer on 56% as being more than FOUR TIMES more popular then as the much fancied Long Bailey. Furthermore, if one discounts both McDonnell and Thornberry which I do, Starmer becomes the overwhelming favourite to win the Party leadership. As recently as 10 days ago, I backed him with Ladbrokes at odds of 18/1 to be the next Prime Minister.
As ever, DYOR.
A leadership poll of Labour List readers (Labour's equivalent of ConservativeHome) has Rebecca Long Bailey just ahead of Keir Starmer 14.4% to 13.8% with Angela Rayner third on 13.5%.
There is then a big gap to 4th placed Jess Phillips on 6.7%
Bit of gossip..... I heard of a comment from a senior member of May's Cabinet, who said they have never underestimated anyone more badly than they underestimated Boris.
A bit early for estimates of over-achievement or underachievement. All he has achieved so far is electoral ; the end of this year will show how much he can achieve politically.
More of a comment on the judgement of the person saying it rather than Boris......
***** Betting Post ***** This is an excellent thread for political bettors, like me, in terms of its sheer relevancy, even if the YouGov poll to which it refers dates back five months. The sure fire means of measuring each of the next potential Labour Party leaders popularity amongst its own membership is by reference to each candidate's net rating, i.e. (Would make a Good Leader ) minus (Would make a Poor Leader). This produces the following:
Surprisingly, this shows Starmer on 56% as being more than FOUR TIMES more popular then as the much fancied Long Bailey. Furthermore, if one discounts both McDonnell and Thornberry which I do, Starmer becomes the overwhelming favourite to win the Party leadership. As recently as 10 days ago, I backed him with Ladbrokes at odds of 18/1 to be the next Prime Minister.
As ever, DYOR.
A leadership poll of Labour List readers (Labour's equivalent of ConservativeHome) has Rebecca Long Bailey just ahead of Keir Starmer 14.4% to 13.8% with Angela Rayner third on 13.5%.
There is then a big gap to 4th placed Jess Phillips on 6.7%
My comment is probably best placed here rather than on the older thread (apologies for that):
Hello all. Some of you may recognise me as the current Administrator of the Vote UK Forum. It's been a while since my last visit here but I would like, if I may, to put in my tuppence worth about the events of two weeks ago.
I believe the success of the Conservatives in seats located in the North and Midlands is the start of something permanent. Labour has been benefiting from demographic change in London, Brighton, Bristol and so on inexorably since about 1992. Scores of seats such as Streatham and Brent North which were once reliably Tory have been lost forever. This was making the likelihood of a Conservative overall majority increasingly unlikely.
I don't believe this was a sustainable situation. Democracy was being stretched to its limits, and something had to give: those seats in the North and Midlands. I don't see Labour simply bouncing back there once the Brexit Party is gone. The new MPs will likely enjoy a double incumbency bounce, and in a fair proportion of them the Tory increases were greater than the Brexit Party share. There were also about 10 such seats where the Conservatives won over 50% of the vote.
I'm not saying Labour are finished forever in those seats the Tories gained, but it's going to be considerably harder for them going forward. Given that just under a quarter of Labour seats are now situated in London, Labour would be best off electing a northerner, such as Lisa Nandy as their leader. Wigan is close to Leigh, after all.
Some useful questions for bettors that could be answered pretty easily with the constituencies data: What do Labour's 310th-330th seats look like (effective single-party government)? What do the Conservatives' 305th-325th seats look like (no Conservative single-party government)? Does the remaining Parliamentary Labour Party look much more, or less, loyal to a Corbyn-type candidate after the election?
Assuming that Labour remain dead in Scotland (or marginal recovery)
Lab Seat No. (Vote majority/swing to win - last held)
305: Monmouth (10,000/10% - 2001)
310: Welwyn Hatfield (11,000/10.5% - 2001 - Grant Shapps)
314: Bournemouth West (10,150/11% - Never)
320: Thurrock (11,000/12% - 2005)
325: Somerset North East (14,700/13% - 2005)
330: Banbury (16,800/13.4% - Never)
360: Isle of Wight (23,700/16% - Never)
There's some ridiculously tough seats in there. Winning IoW, Banbury, and Thurrock at the same time will require one hell of a coalition.
The 13% swing Labour would need to take Somerset NE and Banbury to get a majority and 325 to 330 seats is bigger than Blair got in 1997 which suggests without SNP support or regaining its lost Scottish seats a Labour government is virtually impossible for the foreseeable future
Yep. National vote shares of Con 30%, Lab 46%, I.e. Cons static and Lab 3% up on 1997 as you identified. So what would have lead to a Lab majority of over 200 (433-147) in 1997 would result in a bare majority now. Labour need to wake up to this sharpish or they will be without a majority until at least 2034.
Some useful questions for bettors that could be answered pretty easily with the constituencies data: What do Labour's 310th-330th seats look like (effective single-party government)? What do the Conservatives' 305th-325th seats look like (no Conservative single-party government)? Does the remaining Parliamentary Labour Party look much more, or less, loyal to a Corbyn-type candidate after the election?
Assuming that Labour remain dead in Scotland (or marginal recovery)
Lab Seat No. (Vote majority/swing to win - last held)
305: Monmouth (10,000/10% - 2001)
310: Welwyn Hatfield (11,000/10.5% - 2001 - Grant Shapps)
314: Bournemouth West (10,150/11% - Never)
320: Thurrock (11,000/12% - 2005)
325: Somerset North East (14,700/13% - 2005)
330: Banbury (16,800/13.4% - Never)
360: Isle of Wight (23,700/16% - Never)
There's some ridiculously tough seats in there. Winning IoW, Banbury, and Thurrock at the same time will require one hell of a coalition.
The 13% swing Labour would need to take Somerset NE and Banbury to get a majority and 325 to 330 seats is bigger than Blair got in 1997 which suggests without SNP support or regaining its lost Scottish seats a Labour government is virtually impossible for the foreseeable future
Yep. National vote shares of Con 30%, Lab 46%, I.e. Cons static and Lab 3% up on 1997 as you identified. So what would have lead to a Lab majority of over 200 (433-147) in 1997 would result in a bare majority now. Labour need to wake up to this sharpish or they will be without a majority until at least 2034.
And these are of course, before boundary changes (which I dearly hope go back to 650 MPs), assuming that it decreases the Lab bias by about 20 seats, IoW (East and West) need to become a marginal for Labour. Answers on a postcard please.
My comment is probably best placed here rather than on the older thread (apologies for that):
Hello all. Some of you may recognise me as the current Administrator of the Vote UK Forum. It's been a while since my last visit here but I would like, if I may, to put in my tuppence worth about the events of two weeks ago.
I believe the success of the Conservatives in seats located in the North and Midlands is the start of something permanent. Labour has been benefiting from demographic change in London, Brighton, Bristol and so on inexorably since about 1992. Scores of seats such as Streatham and Brent North which were once reliably Tory have been lost forever. This was making the likelihood of a Conservative overall majority increasingly unlikely.
I don't believe this was a sustainable situation. Democracy was being stretched to its limits, and something had to give: those seats in the North and Midlands. I don't see Labour simply bouncing back there once the Brexit Party is gone. The new MPs will likely enjoy a double incumbency bounce, and in a fair proportion of them the Tory increases were greater than the Brexit Party share. There were also about 10 such seats where the Conservatives won over 50% of the vote.
I'm not saying Labour are finished forever in those seats the Tories gained, but it's going to be considerably harder for them going forward. Given that just under a quarter of Labour seats are now situated in London, Labour would be best off electing a northerner, such as Lisa Nandy as their leader. Wigan is close to Leigh, after all.
What is best for Labour electorally has long since stopped being the issue for Momentum Labour. Secure the Labour party for the cause is what matters.
Some useful questions for bettors that could be answered pretty easily with the constituencies data: What do Labour's 310th-330th seats look like (effective single-party government)? What do the Conservatives' 305th-325th seats look like (no Conservative single-party government)? Does the remaining Parliamentary Labour Party look much more, or less, loyal to a Corbyn-type candidate after the election?
Assuming that Labour remain dead in Scotland (or marginal recovery)
Lab Seat No. (Vote majority/swing to win - last held)
305: Monmouth (10,000/10% - 2001)
310: Welwyn Hatfield (11,000/10.5% - 2001 - Grant Shapps)
314: Bournemouth West (10,150/11% - Never)
320: Thurrock (11,000/12% - 2005)
325: Somerset North East (14,700/13% - 2005)
330: Banbury (16,800/13.4% - Never)
360: Isle of Wight (23,700/16% - Never)
There's some ridiculously tough seats in there. Winning IoW, Banbury, and Thurrock at the same time will require one hell of a coalition.
The 13% swing Labour would need to take Somerset NE and Banbury to get a majority and 325 to 330 seats is bigger than Blair got in 1997 which suggests without SNP support or regaining its lost Scottish seats a Labour government is virtually impossible for the foreseeable future
Yep. National vote shares of Con 30%, Lab 46%, I.e. Cons static and Lab 3% up on 1997 as you identified. So what would have lead to a Lab majority of over 200 (433-147) in 1997 would result in a bare majority now. Labour need to wake up to this sharpish or they will be without a majority until at least 2034.
OK, my updated 2019 summary of PB posters for the upcoming article looks like this:
The events (2019) @Big_G_North_Wales: Business partner died (December 2018) @BigRich: Got engaged and then married to a New Zealand woman @CasinoRoyale: Birth of daughter @Cyclefree: [details incorrectly dated and will not be submitted] @Dura_ace: Lost driving licence but did 102km/h on a bicycle descending the Col du Simplon. @ExiledInScotland: Brother with oesophageal cancer died in hospice @FF43: Father died @Floater: Son has a lump and kidney failure @Foxy: Son has gained financial independence from parents @Gallowgate: Law conversion course [location redacted] @Hyufd: Father had cancer (2018?) @isam: Birth of son @Jonathan: Mother died. [further details redacted and will not be submitted] @malcolmg: Visit to A&E @MarqueeMark: Mother died @MikeL: Mother died @NigelB: Parent with late stage Alzheimers @OldKingCole: Lumbar stenosis and wife with gall-bladder problems. Both have responded to treatment. A grandchild is beginning to consider university @RobinWiggs: Wife with breast cancer @Sandpit: Mother in law died @Stocky: Spinal cord injury (skiing) requiring neck brace and physio and has responded to prolonged treatment. @Sunil_Prasannan: Mum won Redbridge in Bloom for her front garden. @TheScreamingEagles: Thought he had stomach cancer but did not @Theuniondivvie: Will do welding class in 2020 @Tissue_Price: Was elected as MP @twistedfirestopper3: Wife with breast cancer
I couldn't track down the person who has ceased treatment and is now on palliative care only. @Theuniondivvie thinks @Sean_F is the person doing a military history degree but I can't confirm that.
I have redacted the details people have asked me to redact. I'll write up the article and get it to TSE by 23:57 Sunday. If anybody wants me to remove their personal info, please say before then and I'll happily remove or alter it as requested.
I believe the success of the Conservatives in seats located in the North and Midlands is the start of something permanent.
I'm not convinced there is anything certain in politics.
But let me suggest a counter-narrative.
Firstly, the Conservatives have relatively little local organisation and councillor-bases in many of their new seats. This means that - unless this is righted rapidly - then there will be a great many cases where the local council and is blaming the government for cuts. I think that's a tough situation for the government to be in.
Secondly, Brexit is now behind us. Labour was blamed (rightly) for being too in hock to its urban middle class professionals, and forgetting its more Eurosceptic heartlands. But with Brexit over (and rejoin off the agenda), it'll be hard for the Conservatives to keep milking this.
Thirdly, these places have been struggling economically. The Conservative government may have a plan for revitalising Stoke-on-Trent. But then again, it might not. Redcar has gone Labour to LibDem to Labour to Conservative in the course of the last nine years. If the Conservatives don't improve the lots of the locals, there's no residual "well, they looked after us in the past" vote.
Fourthly, it's now eleven years since the last recession. There hasn't been a fifteen year period without a recession since the immediate post-WW2 period. Irrespective of the actual cause of the next recession, the Conservative Party's handling of Brexit will get the blame. And even in a situation where Brexit is a net positive in the short term, there will still be losers, and they will be mad as hell.
Fifthly, Jeremy Corbyn was a voter repellent, and was a tactical voter repellent. One of the hidden stories of 2019 was that Conservative Remainers held their noses and voted Conservative over LibDem because they were scared they might be letting Jeremy Corbyn in. Now, it may be that the Labour Party elects someone as repellent again... but they might not.
My comment is probably best placed here rather than on the older thread (apologies for that):
Hello all. Some of you may recognise me as the current Administrator of the Vote UK Forum. It's been a while since my last visit here but I would like, if I may, to put in my tuppence worth about the events of two weeks ago.
I believe the success of the Conservatives in seats located in the North and Midlands is the start of something permanent. Labour has been benefiting from demographic change in London, Brighton, Bristol and so on inexorably since about 1992. Scores of seats such as Streatham and Brent North which were once reliably Tory have been lost forever. This was making the likelihood of a Conservative overall majority increasingly unlikely.
I don't believe this was a sustainable situation. Democracy was being stretched to its limits, and something had to give: those seats in the North and Midlands. I don't see Labour simply bouncing back there once the Brexit Party is gone. The new MPs will likely enjoy a double incumbency bounce, and in a fair proportion of them the Tory increases were greater than the Brexit Party share. There were also about 10 such seats where the Conservatives won over 50% of the vote.
I'm not saying Labour are finished forever in those seats the Tories gained, but it's going to be considerably harder for them going forward. Given that just under a quarter of Labour seats are now situated in London, Labour would be best off electing a northerner, such as Lisa Nandy as their leader. Wigan is close to Leigh, after all.
What is best for Labour electorally has long since stopped being the issue for Momentum Labour. Secure the Labour party for the cause is what matters.
If someone was 25-40 and a budding PM they could do a lot worse than join Labour. Run as an unapologetic centrist in a non-maomentum controlled constituency, spend the next decade getting elected and consolidating, join the top table for 2029. Then run in the leadership contest if it turns out to be a narrow loss, or else be perfectly positioned to be the protege a la Sunak.
I believe the success of the Conservatives in seats located in the North and Midlands is the start of something permanent.
I'm not convinced there is anything certain in politics.
But let me suggest a counter-narrative.
Firstly, the Conservatives have relatively little local organisation and councillor-bases in many of their new seats. This means that - unless this is righted rapidly - then there will be a great many cases where the local council and is blaming the government for cuts. I think that's a tough situation for the government to be in.
Secondly, Brexit is now behind us.
Thirdly, these places have been struggling economically.
Fourthly, it's now eleven years since the last recession. There hasn't been a fifteen year period without a recession since the immediate post-WW2 period. .
Fifthly, Jeremy Corbyn was a voter repellent, and was a tactical voter repellent.
Snipped for length
I'd agree with this in general, with the caveat that Labour are going to have to win swathes of rural England which have never been troubled by them previously, even on 1997.
However, to play devil's advocate I'll put forward the counter arguments for each point.
The first is very valid, but providing Corbyn either remains in place, or an uninspiring leader is elected the Conservatives have the chance to make sweeping gains in the Local elections (after 10 years of power(!!!). 2016 was more or less the Tory nadir up until last year, and a large amount of red wall seats are up. Boris may get a bonus for delivering Brexit.
Brexit will not be forgotten easily, once a habit is broken its' very hard to re-establish. Ffor a long time Labour have relied on the robot voters.
Agreed totally. However so far Cons seem to be putting forwards very do-able policies to improve the lot of poorer areas, such as the kinder investment rate of return stuff. Realistically the challenge of Labour to win in 2024 post-boundary changes is so great that Cummings and Johnson have at least a decade to improve these places' lots. Can it be done?
On this measure I've predicted an imminent recession for the past two years, which means that I've predicted 3 of the past 1 recessions, a SR better than most other economists. Without the positive side of the economic cycle it's quite hard to have the negative side. Personally my greatest concern is that the Euro is manifestly not fit for purpose, in the case of a big euro implosion (which could only be averted by the Germans paying for their economic pillaging) the party advocating more distance from the EU could come out of it well.
On number 5, I've decided for my sanity to stop speculating on the Labour membership's intentions. However I will say that Labour's best result of the night was losing NW Durham.
Some useful questions for bettors that could be answered pretty easily with the constituencies data: What do Labour's 310th-330th seats look like (effective single-party government)? What do the Conservatives' 305th-325th seats look like (no Conservative single-party government)? Does the remaining Parliamentary Labour Party look much more, or less, loyal to a Corbyn-type candidate after the election?
Assuming that Labour remain dead in Scotland (or marginal recovery)
Lab Seat No. (Vote majority/swing to win - last held)
305: Monmouth (10,000/10% - 2001)
310: Welwyn Hatfield (11,000/10.5% - 2001 - Grant Shapps)
314: Bournemouth West (10,150/11% - Never)
320: Thurrock (11,000/12% - 2005)
325: Somerset North East (14,700/13% - 2005)
330: Banbury (16,800/13.4% - Never)
360: Isle of Wight (23,700/16% - Never)
There's some ridiculously tough seats in there. Winning IoW, Banbury, and Thurrock at the same time will require one hell of a coalition.
The 13% swing Labour would need to take Somerset NE and Banbury to get a majority and 325 to 330 seats is bigger than Blair got in 1997 which suggests without SNP support or regaining its lost Scottish seats a Labour government is virtually impossible for the foreseeable future
Yep. National vote shares of Con 30%, Lab 46%, I.e. Cons static and Lab 3% up on 1997 as you identified. So what would have lead to a Lab majority of over 200 (433-147) in 1997 would result in a bare majority now. Labour need to wake up to this sharpish or they will be without a majority until at least 2034.
2034???? What tosh
Bear in mind boundary changes (which decimate the Welsh valleys) will be coming through, and Scotland is gone permanently. 532 constituencies are up for play in E/W
In 2019: 359 191, once you apply the reductions you get roughly 345 165 by my rough workings.
Labour need to not far off double their seat count in E+W for a majority, or in other terms, flip 1/3rd of E/W. It's a monumental task.
Providing no global financial crisis, and a decent leader a small gain is probably a pretty good result for Labour in 2024, maybe to 200/600. Then in 2029 there will be real opportunities to be had, but unless there's Blair in a mask there's no real prospect of going above 300 in E/W from 200 odd. Maybe a prospect of forcing the Tories into a coalition, but that's about it.
Mind you, the economy and the LDs are major wildcards.
I'd agree with this in general, with the caveat that Labour are going to have to win swathes of rural England which have never been troubled by them previously, even on 1997.
However, to play devil's advocate I'll put forward the counter arguments for each point.
The first is very valid, but providing Corbyn either remains in place, or an uninspiring leader is elected the Conservatives have the chance to make sweeping gains in the Local elections (after 10 years of power(!!!). 2016 was more or less the Tory nadir up until last year, and a large amount of red wall seats are up. Boris may get a bonus for delivering Brexit.
Brexit will not be forgotten easily, once a habit is broken its' very hard to re-establish. Ffor a long time Labour have relied on the robot voters.
Agreed totally. However so far Cons seem to be putting forwards very do-able policies to improve the lot of poorer areas, such as the kinder investment rate of return stuff. Realistically the challenge of Labour to win in 2024 post-boundary changes is so great that Cummings and Johnson have at least a decade to improve these places' lots. Can it be done?
On this measure I've predicted an imminent recession for the past two years, which means that I've predicted 3 of the past 1 recessions, a SR better than most other economists. Without the positive side of the economic cycle it's quite hard to have the negative side. Personally my greatest concern is that the Euro is manifestly not fit for purpose, in the case of a big euro implosion (which could only be averted by the Germans paying for their economic pillaging) the party advocating more distance from the EU could come out of it well.
On number 5, I've decided for my sanity to stop speculating on the Labour membership's intentions. However I will say that Labour's best result of the night was losing NW Durham.
My point is simply that the Conservatives can take nothing for granted.
Just on "habits". The voters may have gotten out of the habit of voting Labour, but they certainly haven't yet gotten into the habit of voting Conservative. (The fact that the last five years have seen Redcar as a LibDem, Labour and a Conservative seat should tell you something.)
Finally, I think it's easy to miss how weakened the UK economy has become in the last twenty-two years. When Tony Blair become Prime Minister in 1997, he was bequeathed a country with a massive net overseas holdings, minimal levels of government debt (well below Eurozone levels), only a small current account deficit, and relatively buoyant levels of household saving.
We now have negative net overseas holdings, worse government debt-to-GDP than the Eurozone, a large current account deficit, and record low levels of household savings. Now, we have our own currency, but on every measure, we're in a worse position than in 2008. We haven't fixed the roof when the sun was shining.
Trump is in direct violation of the law. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/ Lawyers debate whether the naming of the federal whistle-blower is in itself illegal. Federal law forbids inspectors general to disclose the names of whistle-blowers, but the law isn’t explicit about disclosure by anybody else in government.
What the law does forbid is retaliation against a whistle-blower. And a coordinated campaign of vilification by the president’s allies—and the president himself—surely amounts to “retaliation” in any reasonable understanding of the term...
Trump is in direct violation of the law. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/ Lawyers debate whether the naming of the federal whistle-blower is in itself illegal. Federal law forbids inspectors general to disclose the names of whistle-blowers, but the law isn’t explicit about disclosure by anybody else in government.
What the law does forbid is retaliation against a whistle-blower. And a coordinated campaign of vilification by the president’s allies—and the president himself—surely amounts to “retaliation” in any reasonable understanding of the term...
Unless they think they’ve got something on Trump that will convince a third of Republican Senators to vote against him, the Dems will be much better off spending their resources on defeating Trump via the ballot box.
Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.
At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.
Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...
Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exagerrates to absurdity the flaws?
The first film in a trilogy establishes the characters and the conflict The second film clarifies them, discards what doesn't work and focusses things for resolution in the third The third film resolves the conflict and concludes the character arcs
The Last Jedi's problem is that it ignored the themes established in the first film, lost itself in side quests, and killed off, trivialised or misunderstood crucial characters. The third film (RoS) was almost entirely damage control, fixing TLJ's fuckups.
These decisions lost hundreds of millions of dollars, failed to penetrate crucial markets and may actually have killed the franchise.
Wasn't TLJ the highest grossing film of all time?
Didn't JJ Abrahams kill the Star Trek Franchise with that dreadful incoherent Mrs of a second film?
The highest grossing film of All time is now the Avengers Age of Ultron
Unfortunately.
I finally got around to watching Avengers Endgame the other night. Presumably editors were especially selected by Thanos for his cull and did not return. What an appalling self indulgent mess of a movie. Just awful.
Comments
This is an excellent thread for political bettors, like me, in terms of its sheer relevancy, even if the YouGov poll to which it refers dates back five months.
The sure fire means of measuring each of the next potential Labour Party leaders popularity amongst its own membership is by reference to each candidate's net rating, i.e. (Would make a Good Leader ) minus (Would make a Poor Leader).
This produces the following:
Starmer ........... 56%
McDonnnnell .. 43%
Thornberry ..... 39%
Rayner ............ 21%
(Watson ........ -13%)
Long Bailey ..... 13%
Phillips ........... -5%
(Pidcock ......... 18%)
Surprisingly, this shows Starmer on 56% as being more than FOUR TIMES more popular then as the much fancied Long Bailey. Furthermore, if one discounts both McDonnell and Thornberry which I do, Starmer becomes the overwhelming favourite to win the Party leadership. As recently as 10 days ago, I backed him with Ladbrokes at odds of 18/1 to be the next Prime Minister.
As ever, DYOR.
The second film clarifies them, discards what doesn't work and focusses things for resolution in the third
The third film resolves the conflict and concludes the character arcs
The Last Jedi's problem is that it ignored the themes established in the first film, lost itself in side quests, and killed off, trivialised or misunderstood crucial characters. The third film (RoS) was almost entirely damage control, fixing TLJ's fuckups.
These decisions lost hundreds of millions of dollars, failed to penetrate crucial markets and may actually have killed the franchise.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html
Fairly representative, I think.
These people don't want to win over the electorate.
Didn't JJ Abrahams kill the Star Trek Franchise with that dreadful incoherent Mrs of a second film?
DYOR is the right answer, Its like sticking a tail on a donkey. All of them are losers with serious questions over their capability.
Tories seats lost for the no Conservative single-party Govt. are Wycombe to Altrincham range
I meant the Cameron films. I've no interest in the last Jedi.
Assuming that Labour remain dead in Scotland (or marginal recovery)
Lab Seat No. (Vote majority/swing to win - last held)
305: Monmouth (10,000/10% - 2001)
310: Welwyn Hatfield (11,000/10.5% - 2001 - Grant Shapps)
314: Bournemouth West (10,150/11% - Never)
320: Thurrock (11,000/12% - 2005)
325: Somerset North East (14,700/13% - 2005)
330: Banbury (16,800/13.4% - Never)
360: Isle of Wight (23,700/16% - Never)
There's some ridiculously tough seats in there. Winning IoW, Banbury, and Thurrock at the same time will require one hell of a coalition.
There is then a big gap to 4th placed Jess Phillips on 6.7%
https://labourlist.org/2019/12/long-bailey-and-rayner-picked-for-top-jobs-by-labourlist-readers/
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdown/sd2117858820/?ref_=bo_hm_sd
Hello all. Some of you may recognise me as the current Administrator of the Vote UK Forum. It's been a while since my last visit here but I would like, if I may, to put in my tuppence worth about the events of two weeks ago.
I believe the success of the Conservatives in seats located in the North and Midlands is the start of something permanent.
Labour has been benefiting from demographic change in London, Brighton, Bristol and so on inexorably since about 1992. Scores of seats such as Streatham and Brent North which were once reliably Tory have been lost forever. This was making the likelihood of a Conservative overall majority increasingly unlikely.
I don't believe this was a sustainable situation. Democracy was being stretched to its limits, and something had to give: those seats in the North and Midlands. I don't see Labour simply bouncing back there once the Brexit Party is gone. The new MPs will likely enjoy a double incumbency bounce, and in a fair proportion of them the Tory increases were greater than the Brexit Party share. There were also about 10 such seats where the Conservatives won over 50% of the vote.
I'm not saying Labour are finished forever in those seats the Tories gained, but it's going to be considerably harder for them going forward. Given that just under a quarter of Labour seats are now situated in London, Labour would be best off electing a northerner, such as Lisa Nandy as their leader. Wigan is close to Leigh, after all.
The events (2019)
@Big_G_North_Wales: Business partner died (December 2018)
@BigRich: Got engaged and then married to a New Zealand woman
@CasinoRoyale: Birth of daughter
@Cyclefree: [details incorrectly dated and will not be submitted]
@Dura_ace: Lost driving licence but did 102km/h on a bicycle descending the Col du Simplon.
@ExiledInScotland: Brother with oesophageal cancer died in hospice
@FF43: Father died
@Floater: Son has a lump and kidney failure
@Foxy: Son has gained financial independence from parents
@Gallowgate: Law conversion course [location redacted]
@Hyufd: Father had cancer (2018?)
@isam: Birth of son
@Jonathan: Mother died. [further details redacted and will not be submitted]
@malcolmg: Visit to A&E
@MarqueeMark: Mother died
@MikeL: Mother died
@NigelB: Parent with late stage Alzheimers
@OldKingCole: Lumbar stenosis and wife with gall-bladder problems. Both have responded to treatment. A grandchild is beginning to consider university
@RobinWiggs: Wife with breast cancer
@Sandpit: Mother in law died
@Stocky: Spinal cord injury (skiing) requiring neck brace and physio and has responded to prolonged treatment.
@Sunil_Prasannan: Mum won Redbridge in Bloom for her front garden.
@TheScreamingEagles: Thought he had stomach cancer but did not
@Theuniondivvie: Will do welding class in 2020
@Tissue_Price: Was elected as MP
@twistedfirestopper3: Wife with breast cancer
The deaths (2019 and before)
@PlatoSaid (aka Philippa): https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/profile/comments/PlatoSAID
@MarkSenior: https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/profile/comments/MarkSenior
@Calum: https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/profile/comments/calum
I couldn't track down the person who has ceased treatment and is now on palliative care only. @Theuniondivvie thinks @Sean_F is the person doing a military history degree but I can't confirm that.
I have redacted the details people have asked me to redact. I'll write up the article and get it to TSE by 23:57 Sunday. If anybody wants me to remove their personal info, please say before then and I'll happily remove or alter it as requested.
But let me suggest a counter-narrative.
Firstly, the Conservatives have relatively little local organisation and councillor-bases in many of their new seats. This means that - unless this is righted rapidly - then there will be a great many cases where the local council and is blaming the government for cuts. I think that's a tough situation for the government to be in.
Secondly, Brexit is now behind us. Labour was blamed (rightly) for being too in hock to its urban middle class professionals, and forgetting its more Eurosceptic heartlands. But with Brexit over (and rejoin off the agenda), it'll be hard for the Conservatives to keep milking this.
Thirdly, these places have been struggling economically. The Conservative government may have a plan for revitalising Stoke-on-Trent. But then again, it might not. Redcar has gone Labour to LibDem to Labour to Conservative in the course of the last nine years. If the Conservatives don't improve the lots of the locals, there's no residual "well, they looked after us in the past" vote.
Fourthly, it's now eleven years since the last recession. There hasn't been a fifteen year period without a recession since the immediate post-WW2 period. Irrespective of the actual cause of the next recession, the Conservative Party's handling of Brexit will get the blame. And even in a situation where Brexit is a net positive in the short term, there will still be losers, and they will be mad as hell.
Fifthly, Jeremy Corbyn was a voter repellent, and was a tactical voter repellent. One of the hidden stories of 2019 was that Conservative Remainers held their noses and voted Conservative over LibDem because they were scared they might be letting Jeremy Corbyn in. Now, it may be that the Labour Party elects someone as repellent again... but they might not.
I'd agree with this in general, with the caveat that Labour are going to have to win swathes of rural England which have never been troubled by them previously, even on 1997.
However, to play devil's advocate I'll put forward the counter arguments for each point.
The first is very valid, but providing Corbyn either remains in place, or an uninspiring leader is elected the Conservatives have the chance to make sweeping gains in the Local elections (after 10 years of power(!!!). 2016 was more or less the Tory nadir up until last year, and a large amount of red wall seats are up. Boris may get a bonus for delivering Brexit.
Brexit will not be forgotten easily, once a habit is broken its' very hard to re-establish. Ffor a long time Labour have relied on the robot voters.
Agreed totally. However so far Cons seem to be putting forwards very do-able policies to improve the lot of poorer areas, such as the kinder investment rate of return stuff. Realistically the challenge of Labour to win in 2024 post-boundary changes is so great that Cummings and Johnson have at least a decade to improve these places' lots. Can it be done?
On this measure I've predicted an imminent recession for the past two years, which means that I've predicted 3 of the past 1 recessions, a SR better than most other economists. Without the positive side of the economic cycle it's quite hard to have the negative side. Personally my greatest concern is that the Euro is manifestly not fit for purpose, in the case of a big euro implosion (which could only be averted by the Germans paying for their economic pillaging) the party advocating more distance from the EU could come out of it well.
On number 5, I've decided for my sanity to stop speculating on the Labour membership's intentions. However I will say that Labour's best result of the night was losing NW Durham.
In 2019: 359 191, once you apply the reductions you get roughly 345 165 by my rough workings.
Labour need to not far off double their seat count in E+W for a majority, or in other terms, flip 1/3rd of E/W. It's a monumental task.
Providing no global financial crisis, and a decent leader a small gain is probably a pretty good result for Labour in 2024, maybe to 200/600. Then in 2029 there will be real opportunities to be had, but unless there's Blair in a mask there's no real prospect of going above 300 in E/W from 200 odd. Maybe a prospect of forcing the Tories into a coalition, but that's about it.
Mind you, the economy and the LDs are major wildcards.
Just on "habits". The voters may have gotten out of the habit of voting Labour, but they certainly haven't yet gotten into the habit of voting Conservative. (The fact that the last five years have seen Redcar as a LibDem, Labour and a Conservative seat should tell you something.)
Finally, I think it's easy to miss how weakened the UK economy has become in the last twenty-two years. When Tony Blair become Prime Minister in 1997, he was bequeathed a country with a massive net overseas holdings, minimal levels of government debt (well below Eurozone levels), only a small current account deficit, and relatively buoyant levels of household saving.
We now have negative net overseas holdings, worse government debt-to-GDP than the Eurozone, a large current account deficit, and record low levels of household savings. Now, we have our own currency, but on every measure, we're in a worse position than in 2008. We haven't fixed the roof when the sun was shining.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50936816
Trump is in direct violation of the law.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/
Lawyers debate whether the naming of the federal whistle-blower is in itself illegal. Federal law forbids inspectors general to disclose the names of whistle-blowers, but the law isn’t explicit about disclosure by anybody else in government.
What the law does forbid is retaliation against a whistle-blower. And a coordinated campaign of vilification by the president’s allies—and the president himself—surely amounts to “retaliation” in any reasonable understanding of the term...