Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

This week’s most important polling analysis on the White House race – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,328
    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    Johnson is Brown if he had held the election that never was.
    He might have been more like May with a GE2017 result: Brown would almost certainly have lost his majority had he held that election in 2007 and his weaknesses would have become apparent during the campaign.

    The zeitgeist was simply moving away from Labour by then (and the signs were clearly visible in England in GE2005).

    Bottling it gave him an extra 2 1/2 years in office he wouldn't have otherwise had.
    He might have lost his majority, but I doubt he'd have lost power (without being ousted by Labour). Would Cameron have survived?
    If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

    It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

    It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

    If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.
  • Of course Labour won't vote for any Brexit deal Boris gets, the reaction of Remain to Brexit has always been like Columbo...just one more thing.

    Also, they have nothing to lose if they don't. They can say it was a bad deal. If everything goes ok, nobody will remember, if it is a disaster, they will just say told you so.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,150

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    I think the most interesting part of the counterfactual is how Blair's second term would have been different if he thought the Tories were breathing down his neck.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,328
    Andy_JS said:

    "Hammersmith and Fulham council bans all staff from smoking at their desks while working from home"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752965/Hammersmith-Fulham-council-BANS-staff-smoking-desks-working-home.html

    I don't see how that survives the most basic legal challenge, if an employee can afford/ be bothered to bring one.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,652
    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,819
    That is bad and doubtless will get worse. Macron will be up the creek without a paddle politically. France worries me.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,150

    If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

    It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

    It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

    If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

    How would it have settled anything?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,328

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 8,005

    That is bad and doubtless will get worse. Macron will be up the creek without a paddle politically. France worries me.
    How come their strict rules don't seem to be working?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,652


    And still Labour 5 seats short. Just goes to show the scale of the problem. Though ironically if Scotland were independent Labour would have a majority in that scenario.

    Oddly enough, in a system with two strong blocs, it's possible to get big changes in seat numbers on small changes in vote shares.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    edited September 20

    That's a bigger swing than Tony Blair achieved in 1997 (!)

    And still Labour 5 seats short. Just goes to show the scale of the problem. Though ironically if Scotland were independent Labour would have a majority in that scenario.
    The Tories are not going to fall to 30% without Scotland, they got 47% in England last year, even Major in 1997 got 34% in England.

    Labour picking up 20 SNP seats gets Starmer to a majority more easily than a Westminster without Scotland would
  • The big thing about COVID is that effects everybody in massive ways and means everybody is paying close attention all the time and we are all having our lives directly effected each and every day.

    If you screw this up, everybody sees it and hard to shake that.

    Normal government incomponent of delays in passports, some stupid new regulations on a particular sector or tax changes, only effect a subset of the population and lots of people don't really take that much notice e.g. think how much middle income earners got hit by fiscal drag under Brown, or the pension changes, and many had little to no awareness.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 8,005
    "Parliament surrendered role over Covid emergency laws, says Lady Hale
    Former supreme court president criticises manner in which controls were enacted"

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/20/parliament-surrendered-role-over-covid-emergency-laws-says-lady-hale
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,328

    If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

    It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

    It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

    If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

    How would it have settled anything?
    There would have been a referendum. We'd have voted "No". There would have been more concessions. We'd then have renegotiated and signed a looser version, which would have included opt-outs from ever closer union. It might even have precipitated the rejection of the whole treaty across the EU, and to start again, as the French rejection of the EU constitution did in 2005.

    This would have lanced the boil.

    Brown is a classic example of a politician using their arithmetical advantage to ram through something the UK didn't really want, without a vote, and thus sowed the wind - and ended up reaping the whirlwind.

    Johnson should take note of this for his strategy on the way out. Same applies.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,819
    stodge said:

    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.

    I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

    A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.
  • tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
    2010 Hague would have been. I'm not convinced 2001 Hague would have been.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,150

    If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

    It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

    It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

    If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

    How would it have settled anything?
    There would have been a referendum. We'd have voted "No". There would have been more concessions. We'd then have renegotiated and signed a looser version, which would have included opt-outs from ever closer union. It might even have precipitated the rejection of the whole treaty across the EU, and to start again, as the French rejection of the EU constitution did in 2005.

    This would have lanced the boil.

    Brown is a classic example of a politician using their arithmetical advantage to ram through something the UK didn't really want, without a vote, and thus sowed the wind - and ended up reaping the whirlwind.

    Johnson should take note of this for his strategy on the way out. Same applies.
    So in effect you think it would have been a pathway to us voting for something like Dave's Deal in a referendum...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,819

    If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

    It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

    It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

    If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

    How would it have settled anything?
    There would have been a referendum. We'd have voted "No". There would have been more concessions. We'd then have renegotiated and signed a looser version, which would have included opt-outs from ever closer union. It might even have precipitated the rejection of the whole treaty across the EU, and to start again, as the French rejection of the EU constitution did in 2005.

    This would have lanced the boil.

    Brown is a classic example of a politician using their arithmetical advantage to ram through something the UK didn't really want, without a vote, and thus sowed the wind - and ended up reaping the whirlwind.

    Johnson should take note of this for his strategy on the way out. Same applies.
    Nice argument!

    I am not sure that is the way it would have worked out. It would have been nonetheless nice to have seen that parallel universe rather than our own.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    edited September 20
    stodge said:

    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.

    Starmer is not going to win a majority next time, most likely if he becomes PM it will be cobbling together a deal with the LDs as Cameron did in 2010 in a hung parliament maybe even with the SNP too if he cannot make inroads in Scotland.

    Even Labour gaining 75 seats would see Starmer gain only 6 more seats than the 271 Kinnock got in 1992
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,652


    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.

    Maybe in 2010 - not in 2001.

    In many ways, 2001 was a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. On a dismal turnout (60%) which you would have thought would have helped the normally motivated Conservative core vote, they made virtually no headway and indeed lost ground in parts of the south.

    I was living in Tom Brake's seat at the time and we thought it was going to be a really tough fight to hold on. The Conservatives had been working areas of the seat in 1999 and 2000 but in the end Tom's vote was numerically very close to 1997, the Conservatives lost 2,500 votes and Labour 4,000 votes and in the end the hold was comfortable.

    Yes, some of the more outlandish Labour gains from 1997 (Upminster and Romford) were recaptured. I wasn't too surprised Hague quit the next day - like many, I thought Portillo would probably win the leadership election (lucky I didn't bet on that).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 30,035

    Can I just point out, that a Labour majority likely means Boris Johnson loses his seat.

    That would be quite comical

    We’re beyond comical; it would be just desserts.

    There isn’t, of course, any super injunction.

    But if the circumstances ever arose, you can absolutely see why he might seek one. His reputation cannot take any more damage without becoming irretrievable.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,639
    IanB2 said:

    Can I just point out, that a Labour majority likely means Boris Johnson loses his seat.

    That would be quite comical

    We’re beyond comical; it would be just desserts.
    That's a trifle uncalled-for.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,819
    Andy_JS said:

    That is bad and doubtless will get worse. Macron will be up the creek without a paddle politically. France worries me.
    How come their strict rules don't seem to be working?
    I don't know. I am not an Epidemiologist. I can only guess at underwhelming testing and tracing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
    Had Hague won the 2001 election I expect his friendship with George W Bush would seen us still go to war in Iraq and of course we stayed out of the Euro anyway, the 2005 election would then have been close between Hague and Brown
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    edited September 20

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
    2010 Hague would have been. I'm not convinced 2001 Hague would have been.
    Yes, Hague should not have run in 1997 for leader but backed Howard as he was originally going to do, then Howard would have lost in 2001 and he could have taken his place as leader at election 2005, made gains and been young enough to run again in 2010 and IDS would never have won or probably even stood for leader in 2001 either. The main reason IDS stood after Hague resigned as leader was to stop Portillo or Clarke becoming leader
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 30,035
    edited September 20

    Of course Labour won't vote for any Brexit deal Boris gets, the reaction of Remain to Brexit has always been like Columbo...just one more thing.

    Also, they have nothing to lose if they don't. They can say it was a bad deal. If everything goes ok, nobody will remember, if it is a disaster, they will just say told you so.

    Colombo always nailed his adversary, in the end.;)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,819

    IanB2 said:

    Can I just point out, that a Labour majority likely means Boris Johnson loses his seat.

    That would be quite comical

    We’re beyond comical; it would be just desserts.
    That's a trifle uncalled-for.
    A real Eton mess.
    A sweet treat to be savoured!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 30,035
    Andy_JS said:

    That is bad and doubtless will get worse. Macron will be up the creek without a paddle politically. France worries me.
    How come their strict rules don't seem to be working?
    My observation, based anecdotally on one town, was that they were only being observed where they were being enforced.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    edited September 20

    stodge said:

    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.

    I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

    A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.
    However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

    There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too
  • tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
    Post of the day. I’m still chuckling 15 minutes after originally reading it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    edited September 20

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
    Post of the day. I’m still chuckling 15 minutes after originally reading it.
    Hague would certainly have been one of our brightest PMs, probably the most intelligent PM we have had since Wilson however his judgement was not great
  • The question is, will Sunak match 2019 performance? Or is this the high water mark.

    I think Sunak is where Johnson was a few months ago, at the top - now it's all downhill from here
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,652
    HYUFD said:


    Yes, Hague should not have run in 1997 for leader but backed Howard as he was originally going to do, then Howard would have lost in 2001 and he could have taken his place as leader at election 2005, made gains and been young enough to run again in 2010 and IDS would never have won or probably even stood for leader in 2001 either. The main reason IDS stood after Hague resigned as leader was to stop Portillo or Clarke becoming leader

    Howard was also damaged by Ann Widdecombe's infamous "something of the night" comment in 1997.

    Whether Hague decided he needed to leave the sinking ship and set sail alone or not I'm unsure but his candidature finished Howard and Lilley.

    The endorsement he received from Margaret Thatcher was also a huge influence but I would argue his win was the product of the scale of the 1997 defeat. Most Conservatives reasoned it would like a minimum two terms to regain office and Hague, who was only 36, had time on his side.

    Had the Conservatives won 260 seats in 1997 and been within spitting distance of winning power with just one election, Hague would never have won.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 30,035
    Rawnsley:

    The expression on the face of Number 10 is that of a man who never looks where he is going and is then constantly surprised to find that he has stepped in dog excrement. There is an ever lengthening list of things that they could be reasonably expected to have anticipated and yet didn’t.

    Multiple debacles, rebellions and reverses have even some of those who were once Boris Johnson’s most fervent cheerleaders in despair. This persistent blundering has flowed from a fundamental inability to read the public mood or get on top of events. Throughout the coronavirus crisis, the government has been constantly behind the curve.

    In normal times, this inability to anticipate the consequences of its own decisions would be an embarrassing trait in a government. In the context of the Covid catastrophe, it is a deadly characteristic.

    The testing chaos, coming in the wake of so many other fiascos, has the Tory press beginning to wonder whether Mr Johnson is fit to be in Number 10.

    This echoes the wail of Tory backbenchers that the prime minister needs to “get a grip” and “rediscover his mojo” and “give us a sense of direction”. The implication is that the remedy for a wretched performance is for Mr Johnson to impose more of his personality on the government. This has it precisely the wrong way round. His character is the central source of the repeated inability to anticipate and address challenges.

    His flaws as a prime minister are a revelation only to those who wilfully ignored his biography and his record.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,819
    HYUFD said:
    I must confess I haven't been paying as much attention to France as I should. I fear RN, but from your graphs not as worry some as they might be.

    Thanks.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,819

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
    Post of the day. I’m still chuckling 15 minutes after originally reading it.
    I remember the "Save the Pound" campaign. It was less than awesome. Hague? To quote the Special AKA "Too much, too young".
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,713
    Alistair said:
    Well, its not as if anything has happened in those 6 months...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Yes, Hague should not have run in 1997 for leader but backed Howard as he was originally going to do, then Howard would have lost in 2001 and he could have taken his place as leader at election 2005, made gains and been young enough to run again in 2010 and IDS would never have won or probably even stood for leader in 2001 either. The main reason IDS stood after Hague resigned as leader was to stop Portillo or Clarke becoming leader

    Howard was also damaged by Ann Widdecombe's infamous "something of the night" comment in 1997.

    Whether Hague decided he needed to leave the sinking ship and set sail alone or not I'm unsure but his candidature finished Howard and Lilley.

    The endorsement he received from Margaret Thatcher was also a huge influence but I would argue his win was the product of the scale of the 1997 defeat. Most Conservatives reasoned it would like a minimum two terms to regain office and Hague, who was only 36, had time on his side.

    Had the Conservatives won 260 seats in 1997 and been within spitting distance of winning power with just one election, Hague would never have won.
    Howard would still have won with Hague's backing in 1997, Widdecombe was a Ken Clarke supporter back then and Howard would have beaten Clarke in the last 2 as Hague did.

    Thatcher would also have endorsed Howard over Clarke as she endorsed Hague in 1997 and IDS in 2001 over Clarke.


  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,713
    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
    Post of the day. I’m still chuckling 15 minutes after originally reading it.
    Hague would certainly have been one of our brightest PMs, probably the most intelligent PM we have had since Wilson however his judgement was not great
    Like Ed Miliband.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    edited September 20

    HYUFD said:
    I must confess I haven't been paying as much attention to France as I should. I fear RN, but from your graphs not as worry some as they might be.

    Thanks.
    If the centre right Les Republicains candidate got to the run off they could probably beat Macron after 10 years out of the Elysee in 2022, however assuming it is Le Pen in the run off with him most first round centre right voters will then vote Macron as they did in 2017 to keep her out
  • Alistair said:
    As a previous pb thread noted, and as 538 and also the (paywalled) WSJ suggest if that tweet is any guide, the significance of the Supreme Court issue is that it gives the Trump campaign something to talk about besides what a clusterfuck it has made of Covid-19. Tbh I am doubtful it will make much difference to voters because the ones who care are already determined to vote (though in the event of a contested election as in 2000 it may be the next President is chosen by the three Justices appointed by Trump, so watch your bets!) but we should keep an eye on the polls.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,682

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
    Post of the day. I’m still chuckling 15 minutes after originally reading it.
    I remember the "Save the Pound" campaign. It was less than awesome. Hague? To quote the Special AKA "Too much, too young".
    Seems to have worked though.

    Perhaps a mixed blessing - We'd never have had a viable Brexit if we'd been in the Euro. It'll be Grecian 3000 before they get out for example.

    Hague was always too young until he became too old.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 263
    The low number of undecideds in the vast majority of the US polling highlights the deep polarization there . The big difference between this election and the last is Biden constantly scores over 50 in national polling including the undecideds , in much of the state polling he is over 50 in some of the key swing states. Clinton never managed that . If Trump pulls out a win then I don’t think it will be some hidden vote , polling companies have tried to tackle the issue of education in their sampling . The GOP are on the defence in states that he carried in 2016 so Biden’s route to 270 EC votes is wider than Clinton’s .

    The current furore over the SC nomination won’t necessarily help him as this is now going to mean there’s more attention on healthcare . A weak point for the GOP which cost them in the 2018 mid terms.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 12,553

    So apparently October lockdown might be announced this week

    More October Fester than Octoberfest.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 12,553
    Andy_JS said:

    "Hammersmith and Fulham council bans all staff from smoking at their desks while working from home"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752965/Hammersmith-Fulham-council-BANS-staff-smoking-desks-working-home.html

    What next? Banning people from knocking one out during conference calls?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,819
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.

    I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

    A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.
    However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

    There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too
    Farage is a busted flush. Don't worry about him.

    It is between Labour and the Conservatives, but Labour need help from the LDs.

    Johnson is starting to lose out to Starmer's Labour in the South East. The LDs could also benefit in the South and South West as Johnson loses the plot. Sunak/Hunt get these back, at least in the short term.

    Despite polls which I do not believe suggesting that Labour are clawing back the Red Wall in the North and Midlands. I believe Johnson retains the Red Wall. Sunak/ Hunt will lose it, simply because they are not working class hero, Johnson.

    I do believe Johnson is a very poor Prime Minister, and the longer he remains in office, the worse it gets for the party. After a point, I can't even see an exteral event like a Falklands War pulling it back for him and the Conservatives. You need to get him out of Downing Street, out of Uxbridge and back on the after dinner circuit where he belongs. The sooner you do this the better the long term prospects for your party. But I would say that wouldn't I?
  • HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.

    I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

    A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.
    However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

    There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too
    You are right about the Conservative Party except I think it quite likely Boris himself will want a way out. He does not seem to be enjoying the job; he still seems unwell; and as has been mentioned in the press but was discussed here months ago, Boris is not a wealthy man.

    But Farage may be a busted flush. First, most voters have no clearer idea than the Cabinet what a successful Brexit is supposed to look like so will just be confused by arguments about subclauses in the Withdrawal Agreement; second, Farage's electoral success came at the European elections which of course no longer involve Britain. At Westminster, Farage's vehicles have crashed and burned.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,682

    Alistair said:
    As a previous pb thread noted, and as 538 and also the (paywalled) WSJ suggest if that tweet is any guide, the significance of the Supreme Court issue is that it gives the Trump campaign something to talk about besides what a clusterfuck it has made of Covid-19. Tbh I am doubtful it will make much difference to voters because the ones who care are already determined to vote (though in the event of a contested election as in 2000 it may be the next President is chosen by the three Justices appointed by Trump, so watch your bets!) but we should keep an eye on the polls.
    I still can't get past the Biden as a straw man theme. 'Straw man' is the wrong phrase, but it's closest. In the UK it's absolutely fine and accepted that you're voting mostly for the party - I'm not sure how that'll feel t US voters when they make their marks. The question becomes though who will actually be the power behind the Biden presidency - we know it won't be Biden.

    (Apart from all of the other reasons that made Corbyn unelectable I think this or along these lines was the simplest, even though we all accept this sort of thing in the UK. Frothing loon clearly being a close second, but some people like them.)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
    Post of the day. I’m still chuckling 15 minutes after originally reading it.
    Hague would certainly have been one of our brightest PMs, probably the most intelligent PM we have had since Wilson however his judgement was not great
    Like Ed Miliband.
    Though Ed Miliband got a 2.1, Hague got a 1st
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    nico679 said:

    The low number of undecideds in the vast majority of the US polling highlights the deep polarization there . The big difference between this election and the last is Biden constantly scores over 50 in national polling including the undecideds , in much of the state polling he is over 50 in some of the key swing states. Clinton never managed that . If Trump pulls out a win then I don’t think it will be some hidden vote , polling companies have tried to tackle the issue of education in their sampling . The GOP are on the defence in states that he carried in 2016 so Biden’s route to 270 EC votes is wider than Clinton’s .

    The current furore over the SC nomination won’t necessarily help him as this is now going to mean there’s more attention on healthcare . A weak point for the GOP which cost them in the 2018 mid terms.

    Biden's national poll average has now fallen below 50% to 49.4%
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 10,534

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    I believe that the boundary changes implemented in 2010 produced a few notional Tory gains so that on a like for like basis the Tories entered that election on circa 210 seats.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.

    I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

    A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.
    However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

    There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too
    Farage is a busted flush. Don't worry about him.

    It is between Labour and the Conservatives, but Labour need help from the LDs.

    Johnson is starting to lose out to Starmer's Labour in the South East. The LDs could also benefit in the South and South West as Johnson loses the plot. Sunak/Hunt get these back, at least in the short term.

    Despite polls which I do not believe suggesting that Labour are clawing back the Red Wall in the North and Midlands. I believe Johnson retains the Red Wall. Sunak/ Hunt will lose it, simply because they are not working class hero, Johnson.

    I do believe Johnson is a very poor Prime Minister, and the longer he remains in office, the worse it gets for the party. After a point, I can't even see an exteral event like a Falklands War pulling it back for him and the Conservatives. You need to get him out of Downing Street, out of Uxbridge and back on the after dinner circuit where he belongs. The sooner you do this the better the long term prospects for your party. But I would say that wouldn't I?
    Farage won't be a busted flush if a new Tory leader shifts to EEA, free movement and full EU access to our fishing waters, he will have the biggest comeback since Lazarus.

    You are also right on the Red Wall, Labour has a much smaller lead against Boris now in the north than London and the Tories still lead in the Midlands.

    The Tories are still at 40%, most Tory leaders would kill for that after 10 years of the party in power, Boris stays until that changes
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.

    I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

    A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.
    However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

    There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too
    You are right about the Conservative Party except I think it quite likely Boris himself will want a way out. He does not seem to be enjoying the job; he still seems unwell; and as has been mentioned in the press but was discussed here months ago, Boris is not a wealthy man.

    But Farage may be a busted flush. First, most voters have no clearer idea than the Cabinet what a successful Brexit is supposed to look like so will just be confused by arguments about subclauses in the Withdrawal Agreement; second, Farage's electoral success came at the European elections which of course no longer involve Britain. At Westminster, Farage's vehicles have crashed and burned.
    Most Leave voters know enough they want to end free movement and regain control of fishing, fail to do that and it will not be Brexit as far as they are concerned and Farage will stand Brexit candidates at council seats and by elections across the country as UKIP did from 2010 to 2015
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.

    I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

    A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.
    However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

    There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too
    Farage is a busted flush. Don't worry about him.

    It is between Labour and the Conservatives, but Labour need help from the LDs.

    Johnson is starting to lose out to Starmer's Labour in the South East. The LDs could also benefit in the South and South West as Johnson loses the plot. Sunak/Hunt get these back, at least in the short term.

    Despite polls which I do not believe suggesting that Labour are clawing back the Red Wall in the North and Midlands. I believe Johnson retains the Red Wall. Sunak/ Hunt will lose it, simply because they are not working class hero, Johnson.

    I do believe Johnson is a very poor Prime Minister, and the longer he remains in office, the worse it gets for the party. After a point, I can't even see an exteral event like a Falklands War pulling it back for him and the Conservatives. You need to get him out of Downing Street, out of Uxbridge and back on the after dinner circuit where he belongs. The sooner you do this the better the long term prospects for your party. But I would say that wouldn't I?
    Farage won't be a busted flush if a new Tory leader shifts to EEA, free movement and full EU access to our fishing waters, he will have the biggest comeback since Lazarus.

    You are also right on the Red Wall, Labour has a much smaller lead against Boris now in the north than London and the Tories still lead in the Midlands.

    The Tories are still at 40%, most Tory leaders would kill for that after 10 years of the party in power, Boris stays until that changes
    Why do you think another Tory is going to do this? You mention this daily but I can't see why
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.

    I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

    A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.
    However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

    There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too
    Farage is a busted flush. Don't worry about him.

    It is between Labour and the Conservatives, but Labour need help from the LDs.

    Johnson is starting to lose out to Starmer's Labour in the South East. The LDs could also benefit in the South and South West as Johnson loses the plot. Sunak/Hunt get these back, at least in the short term.

    Despite polls which I do not believe suggesting that Labour are clawing back the Red Wall in the North and Midlands. I believe Johnson retains the Red Wall. Sunak/ Hunt will lose it, simply because they are not working class hero, Johnson.

    I do believe Johnson is a very poor Prime Minister, and the longer he remains in office, the worse it gets for the party. After a point, I can't even see an exteral event like a Falklands War pulling it back for him and the Conservatives. You need to get him out of Downing Street, out of Uxbridge and back on the after dinner circuit where he belongs. The sooner you do this the better the long term prospects for your party. But I would say that wouldn't I?
    Farage won't be a busted flush if a new Tory leader shifts to EEA, free movement and full EU access to our fishing waters, he will have the biggest comeback since Lazarus.

    You are also right on the Red Wall, Labour has a much smaller lead against Boris now in the north than London and the Tories still lead in the Midlands.

    The Tories are still at 40%, most Tory leaders would kill for that after 10 years of the party in power, Boris stays until that changes
    Why do you think another Tory is going to do this? You mention this daily but I can't see why
    To avoid No Deal
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 10,534

    So, I think if Starmer won around 320 seats, he could probably Govern with the LDs providing confidence and supply, completely sidestepping the SNP.

    They therefore need to win 118+ seats, preferably more like 124.

    The 124th target seat is Glasgow North West, held by the SNP. Majority 8359, swing required: 10.52%.

    Of course as I have said before, if the Lib Dems would become relevant again, the challenge becomes easier.

    He would only need SDLP , Alliance, Greens and Plaid. However, if Labour is close to 320 , I would expect circa 20 seats in Scotland.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,547
    Panorama a must view watch tomorrow evening!

    Nothing new as many think the big banks are the biggest criminals of all.

    Please support the ICIJ who carry out these investigations on a shoestring.

    https://www.icij.org/donate/


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    So what? There is no quarantine for UK travellers to Italy
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    edited September 20
    Most Tory members and supporters believe illegal immigrants should not be able to become asylum seekers

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 30,035
    The same period that he had that bad WiFi connection that kept going down during his zoom with Tory MPs
  • HYUFD said:

    Most Tory members and voters believe illegal immigrants should not be able to become asylum seekers

    How on Earth would that work? To claim asylum you are an illegal immigrant
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717

    HYUFD said:

    Most Tory members and voters believe illegal immigrants should not be able to become asylum seekers

    How on Earth would that work? To claim asylum you are an illegal immigrant
    You can apply from where you are coming from based on persecution etc
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 4,487
    Patrick O'Flynn thinks Boris could pack it in.
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-boris-quit-
  • @HYUFD why do you think Sunak would sign up for EEA though? To get a deal doesn't mean going for EEA, even though I support that.

    Just seems to have no upside for the Tories, that's all
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,360
    Foxy said:
    "Perhaps they'll have a big celebration whenever they get married."
    Miaow.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 44,704
    edited September 20

    HYUFD said:

    Most Tory members and voters believe illegal immigrants should not be able to become asylum seekers

    How on Earth would that work? To claim asylum you are an illegal immigrant
    Not necessarily. I can't find the statistics right now but from memory a great number of UK asylum seekers didn't enter the country illegally, though of course a great many did.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717

    @HYUFD why do you think Sunak would sign up for EEA though? To get a deal doesn't mean going for EEA, even though I support that.

    Just seems to have no upside for the Tories, that's all

    It certainly means concessions on fishing and state aid though unless Barnier backs down and that would hit Tory support in fishing ports and ex industrial Red Wall seats
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 4,509

    Andy_JS said:

    "Hammersmith and Fulham council bans all staff from smoking at their desks while working from home"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752965/Hammersmith-Fulham-council-BANS-staff-smoking-desks-working-home.html

    What next? Banning people from knocking one out during conference calls?
    :lol:
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,150
    HYUFD said:

    Farage won't be a busted flush if a new Tory leader shifts to EEA, free movement and full EU access to our fishing waters, he will have the biggest comeback since Lazarus.

    If the Tories are incapable of carrying a policy in the interests of the national economy, what is the point of them?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 5,804

    So apparently October lockdown might be announced this week

    Doesn't seem necessary or right to me. If there is to be one though then it should have a good lead time to allow people to manage stock accordingly.

    I like Prof Carl Heneghan's (sp?) suggestion that if there were to be a lockdown like that it'd be better timed as an extended Christmas/New Year break. That's not a bad idea if there has to be one.
    Agreed. Would have the distinct advantage of having a relatively low impact on the economy - sod all office business is done between 15 Dec and 10 January. Hospitality industry would still be hard hit however.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,362
    Shadsy is having a think about this market.

  • HYUFD said:

    Farage won't be a busted flush if a new Tory leader shifts to EEA, free movement and full EU access to our fishing waters, he will have the biggest comeback since Lazarus.

    If the Tories are incapable of carrying a policy in the interests of the national economy, what is the point of them?
    The EEA isn't in the interests of the national economy. An FTA is and that is what the UK is seeking.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,752
    This piece by Dr Michael Yeadon is absolutely devastating, if correct. It utterly blows the current covid panic and crisis completely and utterly out of the water. We are being deluged with case figures and scary graphs showing huge leaps and seeing demands for lockdown 2.0, when

    "The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89-94%, or near-certainty."

    https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/


    I'm really hoping some other scientists can show the flaw in his workings, because if not then we are living through easily the biggest public policy disaster since the War. We are about to cause more untold misery, mental health breakdowns, smashing our economy to pieces and killing many through neglect and lack of normal NHS treatment based on numbers that are a false. Not by a bit, but massively, massively wrong.


    What tests are they using in other countries?

    I want to see a public debate on this next week. I want MPs demanding answers from Hancock on this.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,717
    edited September 20

    HYUFD said:

    Farage won't be a busted flush if a new Tory leader shifts to EEA, free movement and full EU access to our fishing waters, he will have the biggest comeback since Lazarus.

    If the Tories are incapable of carrying a policy in the interests of the national economy, what is the point of them?
    Historically it is a mistake to see the Tories as the party simply of free market economics, the Liberals have a longer history of that than the Tories who have on occasion eg in the mid to late 19th century and 1930s and probably in the next year or two when we likely go to WTO terms with the EU supported tariffs, the Tories are the party of the landed classes and nation state and the monarchy above all
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,819
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

    Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

    And yet...

    Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

    Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

    Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

    Or perhaps not.

    From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

    Starmer will have to walk that same line.

    I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

    A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.
    However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

    There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too
    Farage is a busted flush. Don't worry about him.

    It is between Labour and the Conservatives, but Labour need help from the LDs.

    Johnson is starting to lose out to Starmer's Labour in the South East. The LDs could also benefit in the South and South West as Johnson loses the plot. Sunak/Hunt get these back, at least in the short term.

    Despite polls which I do not believe suggesting that Labour are clawing back the Red Wall in the North and Midlands. I believe Johnson retains the Red Wall. Sunak/ Hunt will lose it, simply because they are not working class hero, Johnson.

    I do believe Johnson is a very poor Prime Minister, and the longer he remains in office, the worse it gets for the party. After a point, I can't even see an exteral event like a Falklands War pulling it back for him and the Conservatives. You need to get him out of Downing Street, out of Uxbridge and back on the after dinner circuit where he belongs. The sooner you do this the better the long term prospects for your party. But I would say that wouldn't I?
    Farage won't be a busted flush if a new Tory leader shifts to EEA, free movement and full EU access to our fishing waters, he will have the biggest comeback since Lazarus.

    You are also right on the Red Wall, Labour has a much smaller lead against Boris now in the north than London and the Tories still lead in the Midlands.

    The Tories are still at 40%, most Tory leaders would kill for that after 10 years of the party in power, Boris stays until that changes
    The general trajectory is still in descent, although yes, you have stubbornly remained in the 40s. The Tories may bobble up and down a shade but they are still heading South.

    It can only get worse as the economic climate chills. A new leader can turn this around for a short time,, particularly seeing sense when it comes to a trade deal with the EU, but with or without this, the worst is yet to come. I would be genuinely surprised if the Conservatives don't get an absolute pasting at the next election.

    I don't dispute I could be very, very wrong.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 15,646
    geoffw said:

    Patrick O'Flynn thinks Boris could pack it in.
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-boris-quit-

    I hope not.

    I have to admit I quite like Boris Johnson

    Despite all his faults primarily laziness, he has a likability factor.

    More so than SKS IMO

    Of course i would never vote for him and would always want to see a Lab Govt but still.....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,752
    10pm embargo on papers tonight. Ohhh!


  • 2010 Hague would have been. I'm not convinced 2001 Hague would have been.

    I'd agree. But in 'our timeline', you only get to 2010 Hague by having him lose in 2001. Defeat does something to good politicians (Portillo, Hague, Miliband) that can make them great.

    I can't see a route to having Hague win an election and become Prime Minister.
    Had Cameron had an accident in 2010-2015, then that's his time. But that was never likely.

    Best way for Hague to win a GE might've been for a Ken Clarke 'win' in 1997. Hague then can come forward as a leader either in 2001 or 2005 depending on the breaks.

    But this is a very different Britain in this case.

  • This piece by Dr Michael Yeadon is absolutely devastating, if correct. It utterly blows the current covid panic and crisis completely and utterly out of the water. We are being deluged with case figures and scary graphs showing huge leaps and seeing demands for lockdown 2.0, when

    "The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89-94%, or near-certainty."

    https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/


    I'm really hoping some other scientists can show the flaw in his workings, because if not then we are living through easily the biggest public policy disaster since the War. We are about to cause more untold misery, mental health breakdowns, smashing our economy to pieces and killing many through neglect and lack of normal NHS treatment based on numbers that are a false. Not by a bit, but massively, massively wrong.


    What tests are they using in other countries?

    I want to see a public debate on this next week. I want MPs demanding answers from Hancock on this.

    That makes no sense given the change in positive rates in recent weeks in the ONS survey and elsewhere.

    Yes false positives may be an issue, but why would the positivity rate have gone up? That is the question that needs answering.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,328

    If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

    It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

    It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

    If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

    How would it have settled anything?
    There would have been a referendum. We'd have voted "No". There would have been more concessions. We'd then have renegotiated and signed a looser version, which would have included opt-outs from ever closer union. It might even have precipitated the rejection of the whole treaty across the EU, and to start again, as the French rejection of the EU constitution did in 2005.

    This would have lanced the boil.

    Brown is a classic example of a politician using their arithmetical advantage to ram through something the UK didn't really want, without a vote, and thus sowed the wind - and ended up reaping the whirlwind.

    Johnson should take note of this for his strategy on the way out. Same applies.
    So in effect you think it would have been a pathway to us voting for something like Dave's Deal in a referendum...
    No.

    Cameron was in a weak position in 2015/16. He was trying to eek concessions out of a new European Union that had already been established by the Lisbon Treaty solely to satisfy a domestic mandate.

    Had the UK been the whole obstacle to the whole Lisbon Treaty being ratified (remember: unanimity was required) then far more fundamental options would have been on the table.

    They'd have had to be.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,752
    What if the virus isn't weaker, nor are our bodies better at coping with it as we've had some exposure. What if the low numbers need hospital compared to the huge spike in the cases is because of the false positives?

  • HYUFD said:

    @HYUFD why do you think Sunak would sign up for EEA though? To get a deal doesn't mean going for EEA, even though I support that.

    Just seems to have no upside for the Tories, that's all

    It certainly means concessions on fishing and state aid though unless Barnier backs down and that would hit Tory support in fishing ports and ex industrial Red Wall seats
    Okay but why do you think Sunak is against No Deal?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 14,658
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

    96 seats gained in one election.

    My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.
    But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

    Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.
    One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

    Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

    So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?
    If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.
    Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

    IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.
    Hague would have been a fantastic PM.
    Post of the day. I’m still chuckling 15 minutes after originally reading it.
    Hague would certainly have been one of our brightest PMs, probably the most intelligent PM we have had since Wilson however his judgement was not great
    Like Ed Miliband.
    Though Ed Miliband got a 2.1, Hague got a 1st
    Cameron got a 1st but he still wasn't bright enough to avoid the disaster that is Brexit.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 263
    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    The low number of undecideds in the vast majority of the US polling highlights the deep polarization there . The big difference between this election and the last is Biden constantly scores over 50 in national polling including the undecideds , in much of the state polling he is over 50 in some of the key swing states. Clinton never managed that . If Trump pulls out a win then I don’t think it will be some hidden vote , polling companies have tried to tackle the issue of education in their sampling . The GOP are on the defence in states that he carried in 2016 so Biden’s route to 270 EC votes is wider than Clinton’s .

    The current furore over the SC nomination won’t necessarily help him as this is now going to mean there’s more attention on healthcare . A weak point for the GOP which cost them in the 2018 mid terms.

    Biden's national poll average has now fallen below 50% to 49.4%
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
    I didn’t say he scored over 50 in every poll. But he’s a lot higher than Clinton on average. Still 6 weeks to go so things can change . I’m certainly not ruling out a Trump win .
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,150

    If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

    It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

    It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

    If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

    How would it have settled anything?
    There would have been a referendum. We'd have voted "No". There would have been more concessions. We'd then have renegotiated and signed a looser version, which would have included opt-outs from ever closer union. It might even have precipitated the rejection of the whole treaty across the EU, and to start again, as the French rejection of the EU constitution did in 2005.

    This would have lanced the boil.

    Brown is a classic example of a politician using their arithmetical advantage to ram through something the UK didn't really want, without a vote, and thus sowed the wind - and ended up reaping the whirlwind.

    Johnson should take note of this for his strategy on the way out. Same applies.
    So in effect you think it would have been a pathway to us voting for something like Dave's Deal in a referendum...
    No.

    Cameron was in a weak position in 2015/16. He was trying to eek concessions out of a new European Union that had already been established by the Lisbon Treaty solely to satisfy a domestic mandate.

    Had the UK been the whole obstacle to the whole Lisbon Treaty being ratified (remember: unanimity was required) then far more fundamental options would have been on the table.

    They'd have had to be.
    They wouldn't have had to be. As the experience of the last few years should have shown beyond doubt, the other member states have a limit to how far they will go to accommodate the UK.
  • If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

    It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

    It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

    If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

    How would it have settled anything?
    There would have been a referendum. We'd have voted "No". There would have been more concessions. We'd then have renegotiated and signed a looser version, which would have included opt-outs from ever closer union. It might even have precipitated the rejection of the whole treaty across the EU, and to start again, as the French rejection of the EU constitution did in 2005.

    This would have lanced the boil.

    Brown is a classic example of a politician using their arithmetical advantage to ram through something the UK didn't really want, without a vote, and thus sowed the wind - and ended up reaping the whirlwind.

    Johnson should take note of this for his strategy on the way out. Same applies.
    So in effect you think it would have been a pathway to us voting for something like Dave's Deal in a referendum...
    No.

    Cameron was in a weak position in 2015/16. He was trying to eek concessions out of a new European Union that had already been established by the Lisbon Treaty solely to satisfy a domestic mandate.

    Had the UK been the whole obstacle to the whole Lisbon Treaty being ratified (remember: unanimity was required) then far more fundamental options would have been on the table.

    They'd have had to be.
    Indeed we could have vetoed the entire Lisbon Treaty unless they made us happy.

    It was vandalism by Blair and Brown to throw that opportunity away and just sneak off to sign it behind our backs. That led to everything which has followed.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,752

    This piece by Dr Michael Yeadon is absolutely devastating, if correct. It utterly blows the current covid panic and crisis completely and utterly out of the water. We are being deluged with case figures and scary graphs showing huge leaps and seeing demands for lockdown 2.0, when

    "The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89-94%, or near-certainty."

    https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/


    I'm really hoping some other scientists can show the flaw in his workings, because if not then we are living through easily the biggest public policy disaster since the War. We are about to cause more untold misery, mental health breakdowns, smashing our economy to pieces and killing many through neglect and lack of normal NHS treatment based on numbers that are a false. Not by a bit, but massively, massively wrong.


    What tests are they using in other countries?

    I want to see a public debate on this next week. I want MPs demanding answers from Hancock on this.

    That makes no sense given the change in positive rates in recent weeks in the ONS survey and elsewhere.

    Yes false positives may be an issue, but why would the positivity rate have gone up? That is the question that needs answering.
    What are the ONS saying the rate is on their latest figures?
This discussion has been closed.