Howdy, Stranger!

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

It looks like there’s Major Mispricing in the Majority Market – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited March 22 in General
imageIt looks like there’s Major Mispricing in the Majority Market – politicalbetting.com

In 2019 the Conservatives won an 80 seat majority with an 11.5% popular vote lead. Since then their polling lead has floated between 20% to around 0%. Right now it is mid to high single digits, though polls are a bit all over the place at the moment.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • First and thanks Pip.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    I’m disappointed, I assumed this was from TUD about an SNP majority now being nailed on.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,273
    So basically, to win the next election, Starmer needs to be as good a leader as Ted Heath. Tough ask!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 11,012
    I agree. From where we stand now the Tories ought to win.
    But will it be downhill from here?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 16,321
    4th like LDs in number of MPs
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    On topic, this is good stuff but equally I’m not sure I fully agree. True, no party has lost a majority of this size since Wilson in 1970 (although due to by-election defeats Labour’s majority had been reduced to below 80 by 1970). Equally, no party since 1832 has won an election after fourteen or more years in office. And only one party has done it after ten.

    1945 may be a parallel, albeit an inexact one. An exhausted and discredited government that had just about coped with one crisis but was considered unequal to the next lost a huge majority to concede an equally huge one the other way.

    And that was after 14 years...
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,357
    I feel the header is right.

    "Ultimately there isn’t any deep analysis in this article." No need to worry about that when the obvious is staring you in the face.

    However this clearly has been a crisis, and there's the rather strange example of Churchill losing in 1945. There's also the sense of cycles in these things. Add to that the fact that many of those that might bet actually have self-interest in a Tory win then I think it explains most of the price.

    For me the Churchill example is why I'm only dabbling - I backed the Tories in very modest stakes at 3.4ish.

  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 3,387
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, this is good stuff but equally I’m not sure I fully agree. True, no party has lost a majority of this size since Wilson in 1970 (although due to by-election defeats Labour’s majority had been reduced to below 80 by 1970). Equally, no party since 1832 has won an election after fourteen or more years in office. And only one party has done it after ten.

    1945 may be a parallel, albeit an inexact one. An exhausted and discredited government that had just about coped with one crisis but was considered unequal to the next lost a huge majority to concede an equally huge one the other way.

    And that was after 14 years...

    I personally think that both those records will likely be broken if I am honest. I am fully expecting labour to lose a few seats at the next general election.
  • Frank_BoothFrank_Booth Posts: 63
    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,599
    Why would he have been an advisor to the SNP? That would have involved spending their own money, not the taxpayers'.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 53,035

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    @TSE needs to update his barchart.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, this is good stuff but equally I’m not sure I fully agree. True, no party has lost a majority of this size since Wilson in 1970 (although due to by-election defeats Labour’s majority had been reduced to below 80 by 1970). Equally, no party since 1832 has won an election after fourteen or more years in office. And only one party has done it after ten.

    1945 may be a parallel, albeit an inexact one. An exhausted and discredited government that had just about coped with one crisis but was considered unequal to the next lost a huge majority to concede an equally huge one the other way.

    And that was after 14 years...

    I personally think that both those records will likely be broken if I am honest. I am fully expecting labour to lose a few seats at the next general election.
    Well, it should be noted he has already broken two longstanding records. He’s the first PM to increase a majority after more than 8 years in power and the first PM in the age of universal suffrage to return to power with an increased majority following a previous election with a reduced majority.

    Equally however, I’m not sure how many bets I would take on him still being PM in three years.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092
    I've dipped my toe in with a lab majority lay for small beer on Betfair
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    The Wilson Government was in many important respects to the right of Tony Blair.

    So either update your idea of ‘left of centre’ or go back to 1945.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,370
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, this is good stuff but equally I’m not sure I fully agree. True, no party has lost a majority of this size since Wilson in 1970 (although due to by-election defeats Labour’s majority had been reduced to below 80 by 1970). Equally, no party since 1832 has won an election after fourteen or more years in office. And only one party has done it after ten.

    1945 may be a parallel, albeit an inexact one. An exhausted and discredited government that had just about coped with one crisis but was considered unequal to the next lost a huge majority to concede an equally huge one the other way.

    And that was after 14 years...

    I think this is entirely plausible, and I do think time hurts the governing party (i.e. it's not just a pattern we are reading into the data, but long periods in office are an actual disadvantage). However, for whatever reason, it seems the Tories' attempts to reinvent themselves in office rather than opposition is quite effective so I think the other factors outweigh this one.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,261
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, this is good stuff but equally I’m not sure I fully agree. True, no party has lost a majority of this size since Wilson in 1970 (although due to by-election defeats Labour’s majority had been reduced to below 80 by 1970). Equally, no party since 1832 has won an election after fourteen or more years in office. And only one party has done it after ten.

    1945 may be a parallel, albeit an inexact one. An exhausted and discredited government that had just about coped with one crisis but was considered unequal to the next lost a huge majority to concede an equally huge one the other way.

    And that was after 14 years...

    I personally think that both those records will likely be broken if I am honest. I am fully expecting labour to lose a few seats at the next general election.
    Well, it should be noted he has already broken two longstanding records. He’s the first PM to increase a majority after more than 8 years in power and the first PM in the age of universal suffrage to return to power with an increased majority following a previous election with a reduced majority.

    Equally however, I’m not sure how many bets I would take on him still being PM in three years.
    The Remainer Parliament gave Boris the ability to run on the basis of running *against* the current group in power (in effect).

    To a certain extent, the clock was reset.
  • Frank_BoothFrank_Booth Posts: 63
    ydoethur said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    The Wilson Government was in many important respects to the right of Tony Blair.

    So either update your idea of ‘left of centre’ or go back to 1945.
    Wilson to the right of Blair? Hmmm. I'd need you to enlighten me on that (not saying you're wrong). Did many people refer to Wilson as a Tory?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 9,422
    ydoethur said:

    I’m disappointed, I assumed this was from TUD about an SNP majority now being nailed on.

    Yep, I thought the same. Group think has been that Nippy has been found out. I think (sadly for us LDs) that she's now going to walk that majority.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 3,387
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, this is good stuff but equally I’m not sure I fully agree. True, no party has lost a majority of this size since Wilson in 1970 (although due to by-election defeats Labour’s majority had been reduced to below 80 by 1970). Equally, no party since 1832 has won an election after fourteen or more years in office. And only one party has done it after ten.

    1945 may be a parallel, albeit an inexact one. An exhausted and discredited government that had just about coped with one crisis but was considered unequal to the next lost a huge majority to concede an equally huge one the other way.

    And that was after 14 years...

    I personally think that both those records will likely be broken if I am honest. I am fully expecting labour to lose a few seats at the next general election.
    Well, it should be noted he has already broken two longstanding records. He’s the first PM to increase a majority after more than 8 years in power and the first PM in the age of universal suffrage to return to power with an increased majority following a previous election with a reduced majority.

    Equally however, I’m not sure how many bets I would take on him still being PM in three years.
    Nor do I think he will be however factors why I think labour will actually lose seats in the next election:

    1) There seems to be a fair proportion of youngsters heading from labour to the green party, not enough to give the green party more seats but enough to reduce labours vote

    2) I expect the vaccine row with the eu to escalate and spill into next year

    3) There has been a lot of comment that the red wall seats getting funded projects have been those that flipped tories. If I was a voter there I would be thinking we elected labour in 2019 and even in government we never got any help from them. Those people flipped the seat tory and got rewarded with funding projects. Maybe we should try it.

    4) The shrill loonier part of the plp are going to continue to sound off and make it seem like Starmer hasn't really cleaned the party that much like the one today

    5) I think given all that the tories will call an election early 2023
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,599
    FPT:
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Not really. Viewing this as a detached outsider I had little doubt about the essential conclusion. Some cock up and confusion? Yes. Some less than ideal processes and comms? Yes. But a conspiracy to nail and jail Salmon and pervert the course of justice? No. Not for me. Not in a million years.
    But Hamilton was not investigating the conspiracy charge, was he? I thought he was looking at Ministerial misconduct, which would not necessarily require conspiracy.
    Yes, I don't mean just this Hamilton Report. The "conspiracy", I think fails on every level. That's one for Sturgeon haters within the SNP and Sindy haters both north and south of the border.
    You don't 'think' that, you've refused to look into the matter because it's thuddingly obvious what the evidence wold point you to. Even TUD hasn't had the cojones to mount an actual defense of Sturgeon's behaviour, wisely sticking to firing pot shots at 'Yoons' instead. Hanging on to your own ignorance like a barnacle isn't an actual contribution to the debate.
    I have great judgement. I trust it.
    Nothing wrong with being low information about something if it doesn't interest you, it just means your verdict will be given the weight it deserves.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,402
    edited March 22

    Why would he have been an advisor to the SNP? That would have involved spending their own money, not the taxpayers'.
    x x

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,357
    ydoethur said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.


    "The Wilson Government was in many important respects to the right of Tony Blair."

    What do you have in mind here?

    I was very young then, but my recollection of Wilson is that he was hopeless. Only Callaghan was worse, but admittedly Heath gave it his best shot of being rubbish too.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,273
    edited March 22

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
  • StockyStocky Posts: 5,439
    Header: I agree. I tipped it here last week at 9/4 with W Hill.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,065
    The header is factually incorrect in that the Tories have been behind in quite a few polls since the last election - despite now having regained a lead. This government has performed less well re-polling than Macmillan's 1959 and Thatcher's 1987 governments at the same stage.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 53,035
    justin124 said:

    The header is factually incorrect in that the Tories have been behind in quite a few polls since the last election - despite now having regained a lead. This government has performed less well re-polling than Macmillan's 1959 and Thatcher's 1987 governments at the same stage.

    I think they are referring to the average lead, not the lead in any single poll. The gap between the thick lines match their 0-20% claim.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,599
    edited March 22

    Why would he have been an advisor to the SNP? That would have involved spending their own money, not the taxpayers'.
    x x

    :lol: It really is. Well said. Bitterness is a terrible blight - and it begets bitterness and bitter results for the sufferer.

    I do hope you take your own timely wisdom on bitterness on board as much as I have. You'll be so much happier.

    -And thanks!

    xx
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,065
    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    The header is factually incorrect in that the Tories have been behind in quite a few polls since the last election - despite now having regained a lead. This government has performed less well re-polling than Macmillan's 1959 and Thatcher's 1987 governments at the same stage.

    I think they are referring to the average lead, not the lead in any single poll. The gap between the thick lines match their 0-20% claim.
    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    The header is factually incorrect in that the Tories have been behind in quite a few polls since the last election - despite now having regained a lead. This government has performed less well re-polling than Macmillan's 1959 and Thatcher's 1987 governments at the same stage.

    I think they are referring to the average lead, not the lead in any single poll. The gap between the thick lines match their 0-20% claim.
    Even so - in the 1959 Parliament Labour did not take the lead at all until Autumn 1961. Similarly , it took almost two years - May 1989 - for Labour to see a poll lead in the 1987 Parliament.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 53,035
    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    The header is factually incorrect in that the Tories have been behind in quite a few polls since the last election - despite now having regained a lead. This government has performed less well re-polling than Macmillan's 1959 and Thatcher's 1987 governments at the same stage.

    I think they are referring to the average lead, not the lead in any single poll. The gap between the thick lines match their 0-20% claim.
    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    The header is factually incorrect in that the Tories have been behind in quite a few polls since the last election - despite now having regained a lead. This government has performed less well re-polling than Macmillan's 1959 and Thatcher's 1987 governments at the same stage.

    I think they are referring to the average lead, not the lead in any single poll. The gap between the thick lines match their 0-20% claim.
    Even so - in the 1959 Parliament Labour did not take the lead at all until Autumn 1961. Similarly , it took almost two years - May 1989 - for Labour to see a poll lead in the 1987 Parliament.
    I'm just countering the claim that the header is factually incorrect.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,370
    edited March 22
    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    The header is factually incorrect in that the Tories have been behind in quite a few polls since the last election - despite now having regained a lead. This government has performed less well re-polling than Macmillan's 1959 and Thatcher's 1987 governments at the same stage.

    I think they are referring to the average lead, not the lead in any single poll. The gap between the thick lines match their 0-20% claim.
    This is indeed what I meant. You could argue the Tories fell behind in the average around new years but it was by a negligible amount. Labour have never had 'clear blue water' in their favour for a sustained period.

    EDIT: Hey, this post took me past 3,333 posts.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 39,928

    ydoethur said:

    I’m disappointed, I assumed this was from TUD about an SNP majority now being nailed on.

    Yep, I thought the same. Group think has been that Nippy has been found out. I think (sadly for us LDs) that she's now going to walk that majority.
    It looks certain to be an independence v union election and today has helped Sturgeon

    However, there is still a SNP civil war going on, the EU are becoming more toxic by the day, and if I was still living in Scotland I would tactically vote for the union party, with the one with the best chance of beating the SNP be it Conservative, Labour or LibDems
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639
    edited March 22

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,065
    To be honest , I suspect that it is particularly unwise to read much into polling during an extended Pandemic with normal party politics being in abeyance.. Voters are simply not interested or tuned in to other issues.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 13,012
    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 39,928
    justin124 said:

    To be honest , I suspect that it is particularly unwise to read much into polling during an extended Pandemic with normal party politics being in abeyance.. Voters are simply not interested or tuned in to other issues.

    Lot of truth in that Justin
  • RobDRobD Posts: 53,035
    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Given how they view the vaccine, the only possible reason they could want this is to hurt the UK.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    edited March 22

    ydoethur said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    The Wilson Government was in many important respects to the right of Tony Blair.

    So either update your idea of ‘left of centre’ or go back to 1945.
    Wilson to the right of Blair? Hmmm. I'd need you to enlighten me on that (not saying you're wrong). Did many people refer to Wilson as a Tory?
    Many on the Labour left did. Shelving the nationalisation of steel, refusing to oppose America over Vietnam, his attempts at wage and price freezes, his determination to have balanced budgets without raising taxes causing swingeing cuts including to welfare programmes, tense and suspicious relationships with the unions - sound familiar?

    You may find these links of interest:

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/foot-paul/1968/xx/wilson.htm - an attack on Wilson from the Left by Paul Foot

    https://history.blog.gov.uk/2017/11/17/whats-the-context-18-november-1967-devaluation-of-sterling/ - a brief evaluation of Wilson’s government leading up to the devaluation of sterling in 1967.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/lifeinfocus/obituary-life-focus-harold-wilson-prime-minister-labour-britain-elections-a8888971.html - a detailed obituary and assessment.

    A strange, complex and tortured individual. And, of course, a Labour’s most successful leader in terms of elections. But if he was left wing, Blair definitely was too. And if Blair wasn’t- go back to Attlee.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 13,012
    RobD said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Given how they view the vaccine, the only possible reason they could want this is to hurt the UK.
    That and to slow us down
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 9,422
    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    "The Vaccine War" - sounds like a fabulous bit of sci-fi.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 1,075
    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Ah yes. The french who discredit the very vaccine they seek to ban from exporting.

    What. The. Actual
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796
    justin124 said:

    To be honest , I suspect that it is particularly unwise to read much into polling during an extended Pandemic with normal party politics being in abeyance.. Voters are simply not interested or tuned in to other issues.

    Exactly. It's like polling from 1943-4 when the election is in 1945
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 36,860
    RobD said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Given how they view the vaccine, the only possible reason they could want this is to hurt the UK.
    France is the EU country where public opinion is most disposed to thinking the UK got the better of the EU in the Brexit negotiations.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376

    ydoethur said:

    I’m disappointed, I assumed this was from TUD about an SNP majority now being nailed on.

    Yep, I thought the same. Group think has been that Nippy has been found out. I think (sadly for us LDs) that she's now going to walk that majority.
    It looks certain to be an independence v union election and today has helped Sturgeon

    However, there is still a SNP civil war going on, the EU are becoming more toxic by the day, and if I was still living in Scotland I would tactically vote for the union party, with the one with the best chance of beating the SNP be it Conservative, Labour or LibDems
    But you’re not living in Scotland. Nor am I. Nor is Hyufd. Most actual Scottish voters seem to feel rather differently.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    edited March 22
    IanB2 said:

    justin124 said:

    To be honest , I suspect that it is particularly unwise to read much into polling during an extended Pandemic with normal party politics being in abeyance.. Voters are simply not interested or tuned in to other issues.

    Exactly. It's like polling from 1943-4 when the election is in 1945
    Which showed a huge Labour landslide incoming.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1945_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,732

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    In a parallel universe there has.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 53,035
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    justin124 said:

    To be honest , I suspect that it is particularly unwise to read much into polling during an extended Pandemic with normal party politics being in abeyance.. Voters are simply not interested or tuned in to other issues.

    Exactly. It's like polling from 1943-4 when the election is in 1945
    Which showed a huge Labour landslide incoming.
    Check out that Tory surge though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1945_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 1,034
    Floater said:

    RobD said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Given how they view the vaccine, the only possible reason they could want this is to hurt the UK.
    That and to slow us down
    Yes. But.

    As we discussed yesterday, the EU screwed up contracting for vaccines, messaging, and to extent logistics. It’s created political pressure. Their antics is driven by the pressure.

    Some people this side of channel think it’s not a problem for us, or more than that it is actually quite nice and juicy. 🤤

    But, alternatively, if we foresee this pressure, that’s not our fault at all, certainly not stoked by government rhetoric our side of channel, can become an issue for us too, what can we practically suggest to make the current pressure on EU and EU commission lessen - iE change the current PR game they feel pressed into playing?

    I’ve never suggested giving away all our vaccine stocks to them and rest of the world, like St Francis on Bingo Root. And there is also argument it’s politically impossible to sell that to UK electorate.

    However.

    We share a land border with Irish Republic, it couldn’t be impossible politically to explain sharing our oxozen with them is not also very much in UK interest?

    Where part of pressure on EU commission is where they are judged in relation to UK roll out, and where roll out is more than just a jab, it’s ongoing logistics, ongoing commissioning, ongoing comms, is there anything other than vails of the good stuff we can share?

    What about offering some mutual commissioning from now with suppliers?

    What about as the vaccine is made from components, some from UK to EU and back again in vaccine, what about offering joint investment that’s going to speed up the production of components?

    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 39,928
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’m disappointed, I assumed this was from TUD about an SNP majority now being nailed on.

    Yep, I thought the same. Group think has been that Nippy has been found out. I think (sadly for us LDs) that she's now going to walk that majority.
    It looks certain to be an independence v union election and today has helped Sturgeon

    However, there is still a SNP civil war going on, the EU are becoming more toxic by the day, and if I was still living in Scotland I would tactically vote for the union party, with the one with the best chance of beating the SNP be it Conservative, Labour or LibDems
    But you’re not living in Scotland. Nor am I. Nor is Hyufd. Most actual Scottish voters seem to feel rather differently.
    Yes but I did live in Scotland and know Scotland and my Scots family and tactical voting will happen
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,357
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    The Wilson Government was in many important respects to the right of Tony Blair.

    So either update your idea of ‘left of centre’ or go back to 1945.
    Wilson to the right of Blair? Hmmm. I'd need you to enlighten me on that (not saying you're wrong). Did many people refer to Wilson as a Tory?
    Many on the Labour left did. Shelving the nationalisation of steel, refusing to oppose America over Vietnam, his attempts at wage and price freezes, his determination to have balanced budgets without raising taxes causing swingeing cuts including to welfare programmes, tense and suspicious relationships with the unions - sound familiar?

    You may find these links of interest:

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/foot-paul/1968/xx/wilson.htm - an attack on Wilson from the Left by Paul Foot

    https://history.blog.gov.uk/2017/11/17/whats-the-context-18-november-1967-devaluation-of-sterling/ - a brief evaluation of Wilson’s government leading up to the devaluation of sterling in 1967.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/lifeinfocus/obituary-life-focus-harold-wilson-prime-minister-labour-britain-elections-a8888971.html - a detailed obituary and assessment.

    A strange, complex and tortured individual. And, of course, a Labour’s most successful leader in terms of elections. But if he was left wing, Blair definitely was too. And if Blair wasn’t- go back to Attlee.
    Undoubtedly Wilson was viewed by some on the left as towards the right. The idea that he could be viewed retrospectively as to the right of Blair is a struggle.

    I hope we've moved on from a place where having a lovely workers camp cap such as Corbyn sported was aspirational.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639
    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    justin124 said:

    To be honest , I suspect that it is particularly unwise to read much into polling during an extended Pandemic with normal party politics being in abeyance.. Voters are simply not interested or tuned in to other issues.

    Exactly. It's like polling from 1943-4 when the election is in 1945
    Which showed a huge Labour landslide incoming.
    Check out that Tory surge though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1945_United_Kingdom_general_election
    That's a weird graph. The red and yellow lines flatline while the blue surges. Was it from the undecided (who then turned out on the day for Labour!)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 53,035
    gealbhan said:


    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?

    Not stealing vaccines would be a start.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    In a parallel universe there has.
    Are we back to Boris Johnson being a closet Corbynite?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 53,035
    Foxy said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    justin124 said:

    To be honest , I suspect that it is particularly unwise to read much into polling during an extended Pandemic with normal party politics being in abeyance.. Voters are simply not interested or tuned in to other issues.

    Exactly. It's like polling from 1943-4 when the election is in 1945
    Which showed a huge Labour landslide incoming.
    Check out that Tory surge though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1945_United_Kingdom_general_election
    That's a weird graph. The red and yellow lines flatline while the blue surges. Was it from the undecided (who then turned out on the day for Labour!)
    That, or perhaps the SNP were doing well. Can't see any Scottish subsamples though.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,065
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    The Wilson Government was in many important respects to the right of Tony Blair.

    So either update your idea of ‘left of centre’ or go back to 1945.
    Wilson to the right of Blair? Hmmm. I'd need you to enlighten me on that (not saying you're wrong). Did many people refer to Wilson as a Tory?
    Many on the Labour left did. Shelving the nationalisation of steel, refusing to oppose America over Vietnam, his attempts at wage and price freezes, his determination to have balanced budgets without raising taxes causing swingeing cuts including to welfare programmes, tense and suspicious relationships with the unions - sound familiar?

    You may find these links of interest:

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/foot-paul/1968/xx/wilson.htm - an attack on Wilson from the Left by Paul Foot

    https://history.blog.gov.uk/2017/11/17/whats-the-context-18-november-1967-devaluation-of-sterling/ - a brief evaluation of Wilson’s government leading up to the devaluation of sterling in 1967.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/lifeinfocus/obituary-life-focus-harold-wilson-prime-minister-labour-britain-elections-a8888971.html - a detailed obituary and assessment.

    A strange, complex and tortured individual. And, of course, a Labour’s most successful leader in terms of elections. But if he was left wing, Blair definitely was too. And if Blair wasn’t- go back to Attlee.
    But Wilson did renationalise steel in the 1966 Parliament - having been constrained prior to that by a tiny majority and the opposition of Desmond Donnelly and Woodrow Wyatt. He also said 'No' to LBJ re- intervention in Vietnam - unlike Blair who was only too happy to toady along to Bush and his war of aggression against Iraq in 2003.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’m disappointed, I assumed this was from TUD about an SNP majority now being nailed on.

    Yep, I thought the same. Group think has been that Nippy has been found out. I think (sadly for us LDs) that she's now going to walk that majority.
    It looks certain to be an independence v union election and today has helped Sturgeon

    However, there is still a SNP civil war going on, the EU are becoming more toxic by the day, and if I was still living in Scotland I would tactically vote for the union party, with the one with the best chance of beating the SNP be it Conservative, Labour or LibDems
    But you’re not living in Scotland. Nor am I. Nor is Hyufd. Most actual Scottish voters seem to feel rather differently.
    Yes but I did live in Scotland and know Scotland and my Scots family and tactical voting will happen
    I’m sure it will, Big G, but the fact is unless it’s happening at a much larger level than the polls are currently picking up it is most unlikely to make a significant difference.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    Even NZ getting a bit Covid stressed. Stuck on their remote archipelago for a year. No one gets in, no one gets out

    https://twitter.com/newsroomnz/status/1374028239711051780?s=21
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    edited March 22
    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 39,928
    edited March 22
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’m disappointed, I assumed this was from TUD about an SNP majority now being nailed on.

    Yep, I thought the same. Group think has been that Nippy has been found out. I think (sadly for us LDs) that she's now going to walk that majority.
    It looks certain to be an independence v union election and today has helped Sturgeon

    However, there is still a SNP civil war going on, the EU are becoming more toxic by the day, and if I was still living in Scotland I would tactically vote for the union party, with the one with the best chance of beating the SNP be it Conservative, Labour or LibDems
    But you’re not living in Scotland. Nor am I. Nor is Hyufd. Most actual Scottish voters seem to feel rather differently.
    Yes but I did live in Scotland and know Scotland and my Scots family and tactical voting will happen
    I’m sure it will, Big G, but the fact is unless it’s happening at a much larger level than the polls are currently picking up it is most unlikely to make a significant difference.
    I expect the SNP to win a small majority after today but let's see
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, this is good stuff but equally I’m not sure I fully agree. True, no party has lost a majority of this size since Wilson in 1970 (although due to by-election defeats Labour’s majority had been reduced to below 80 by 1970). Equally, no party since 1832 has won an election after fourteen or more years in office. And only one party has done it after ten.

    1945 may be a parallel, albeit an inexact one. An exhausted and discredited government that had just about coped with one crisis but was considered unequal to the next lost a huge majority to concede an equally huge one the other way.

    And that was after 14 years...

    I personally think that both those records will likely be broken if I am honest. I am fully expecting labour to lose a few seats at the next general election.
    Well, it should be noted he has already broken two longstanding records. He’s the first PM to increase a majority after more than 8 years in power and the first PM in the age of universal suffrage to return to power with an increased majority following a previous election with a reduced majority.

    Equally however, I’m not sure how many bets I would take on him still being PM in three years.
    Nor do I think he will be however factors why I think labour will actually lose seats in the next election:

    1) There seems to be a fair proportion of youngsters heading from labour to the green party, not enough to give the green party more seats but enough to reduce labours vote

    2) I expect the vaccine row with the eu to escalate and spill into next year

    3) There has been a lot of comment that the red wall seats getting funded projects have been those that flipped tories. If I was a voter there I would be thinking we elected labour in 2019 and even in government we never got any help from them. Those people flipped the seat tory and got rewarded with funding projects. Maybe we should try it.

    4) The shrill loonier part of the plp are going to continue to sound off and make it seem like Starmer hasn't really cleaned the party that much like the one today

    5) I think given all that the tories will call an election early 2023
    There's certainly something to be said in favour of a more complete demolition of the Red Wall (another wave of seats going, and the existing marginals becoming safe.) We saw this happen with Theresa May's five narrow gains from Labour at GE2017 all promoting to five-figure Tory majorities in 2019.

    It's not at all inconceivable that the Conservatives might knock over another two or three dozen red dominoes in the Midlands and North, whilst three or four Tory-held Con/Lab marginals in London, and possibly a few of the Welsh seats, travel in the opposite direction.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    Senor, I regret the caballo has not merely bolted but he took the stable door with him.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 3,387
    RobD said:

    gealbhan said:


    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?

    Not stealing vaccines would be a start.
    If they had come to us and said can you help us understand how we can ramp up production in a spirit of mutual respect we probably would have shared our expertise.

    Instead they came in swinging like a ham fisted bully making it impossible for us to help them as they would just see it as those tactics working and we would see them again next time.

    The eu and its national governments made its bed now it has to lie in it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,261
    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    gealbhan said:


    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?

    Not stealing vaccines would be a start.
    If they had come to us and said can you help us understand how we can ramp up production in a spirit of mutual respect we probably would have shared our expertise.

    Instead they came in swinging like a ham fisted bully making it impossible for us to help them as they would just see it as those tactics working and we would see them again next time.

    The eu and its national governments made its bed now it has to lie in it.
    It is my understanding the a team from the UK is currently working at the AZN plant in Belgium, to help increase production there.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,065

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
    It also had a majority May 2015 - June 2017.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    gealbhan said:


    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?

    Not stealing vaccines would be a start.
    If they had come to us and said can you help us understand how we can ramp up production in a spirit of mutual respect we probably would have shared our expertise.

    Instead they came in swinging like a ham fisted bully making it impossible for us to help them as they would just see it as those tactics working and we would see them again next time.

    The eu and its national governments made its bed now it has to lie in it.
    The tragedy is the EU and the governments have made the bed, but it is the people of the EU that will have to lie in it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639
    edited March 22

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
    Yes, that is arguable too, but there was a clear break at May 2015.

    I don't think a further re-invention is possible though.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    The Vaccine Hokey Cokey in full swing on the continent...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    justin124 said:

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
    It also had a majority May 2015 - June 2017.
    No, Cameron then May had a majority then.

    This is a different Government.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,370

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 1,075

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’m disappointed, I assumed this was from TUD about an SNP majority now being nailed on.

    Yep, I thought the same. Group think has been that Nippy has been found out. I think (sadly for us LDs) that she's now going to walk that majority.
    It looks certain to be an independence v union election and today has helped Sturgeon

    However, there is still a SNP civil war going on, the EU are becoming more toxic by the day, and if I was still living in Scotland I would tactically vote for the union party, with the one with the best chance of beating the SNP be it Conservative, Labour or LibDems
    But you’re not living in Scotland. Nor am I. Nor is Hyufd. Most actual Scottish voters seem to feel rather differently.
    Yes but I did live in Scotland and know Scotland and my Scots family and tactical voting will happen
    I’m sure it will, Big G, but the fact is unless it’s happening at a much larger level than the polls are currently picking up it is most unlikely to make a significant difference.
    I expect the SNP to win a small majority after today but let's see
    Na. I think we’re looking at SNP with the support of the greens
  • stodgestodge Posts: 8,257

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
    I see.

    The Conservatives have been in Government for the past 11 years, partly in coalition with another party, partly with the support of another party and partly as a majority.

    In that period, there have been three Prime Ministers, two of whom won elections with majorities.

    I know Johnson tried to argue he was the LOTO in 2019 (successfully I might add) but as he served as Foreign Secretary in the May Government, it was a curious position to take. At least MacMillan didn't try to argue that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
    Yes, that is arguable too, but there was a clear break at May 2015.

    I don't think a further re-invention is possible though.
    There was a clear break in 2019 too. Two related but clear breaks.

    So of course it is possible. Whenever Boris goes, whoever replaces him has the possible to do a further regeneration. Whether they will succeed or not is another question, but it is possible.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,065

    justin124 said:

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
    It also had a majority May 2015 - June 2017.
    No, Cameron then May had a majority then.

    This is a different Government.

    justin124 said:

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
    It also had a majority May 2015 - June 2017.
    No, Cameron then May had a majority then.

    This is a different Government.
    They were still majority Tory Governments - otherwise it might be claimed that the Tories had only been in office foe one year prior to the October 1964 election . ie when Alec Douglas-Home replaced Macmillan in October 1963.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    Interesting take on expanding US statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, and.... Cuba

    https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/1374060110713126912?s=21

    I have the feeling he hasn’t been to Cuba
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    edited March 22
    stodge said:

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
    I see.

    The Conservatives have been in Government for the past 11 years, partly in coalition with another party, partly with the support of another party and partly as a majority.

    In that period, there have been three Prime Ministers, two of whom won elections with majorities.

    I know Johnson tried to argue he was the LOTO in 2019 (successfully I might add) but as he served as Foreign Secretary in the May Government, it was a curious position to take. At least MacMillan didn't try to argue that.
    Macmillan was far more loyal to Eden than Johnson was to May. When Eden screwed up a policy Macmillan had argued for, he didn’t resign in a huff and sulk on the backbenches.

    I’m not sure what he actually did was more helpful, but at least he wasn’t wilfully and overtly disloyal.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,108
    Leon said:

    Interesting take on expanding US statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, and.... Cuba

    https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/1374060110713126912?s=21

    I have the feeling he hasn’t been to Cuba

    “As soon as it’s free, let’s take it over like the good old days”.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,273

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    And what is often overlooked is the fact that, prior to 1983, the Liberals did not contest anywhere near a full slate of Westminster seats, and a varying number at that, which makes direct comparisons difficult.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,732
    ydoethur said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    In a parallel universe there has.
    Are we back to Boris Johnson being a closet Corbynite?
    Who knows, anything is possible...
  • glwglw Posts: 7,199

    The Vaccine Hokey Cokey in full swing on the continent...
    Short of coming out and saying "it's deadly poison" they really couldn't have done much more to undermine the AZ vaccine and vaccination in general. There must be medics in the EU who get the bigger picture, they must be tearing their hair out about what has been going on.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    stodge said:

    Foxy said:

    Amazing to think that no left of centre party has won a working majority since 1966.

    According to many Tories, there was a left of centre government between 2010 -2015.
    This current one is already reversing their policies. (e.g. overseas aid and FTPA)
    Indeed, I would argue that the Tories haven't been in power for 11 years, but actually for 6. The Coalition was a very different beast to the Tories as a solo government after 2015. The Tories may well still have a working majority after the next GE, but I would expect it to be much reduced, and NOC very possible. A majority Labour government is a vanishingly small possibility.

    I am no Starmer fan, and say he is far too wooden and over cautious, but I do think he has the skillset to chair a potentially rather fractious rainbow coalition. So does Ed Davey, indeed both would have been better leaders of their parties in the last NOC Parliament.
    This Government has been in power for just under 2 years, not 6 or 11. About 16 months as a majority government.
    I see.

    The Conservatives have been in Government for the past 11 years, partly in coalition with another party, partly with the support of another party and partly as a majority.

    In that period, there have been three Prime Ministers, two of whom won elections with majorities.

    I know Johnson tried to argue he was the LOTO in 2019 (successfully I might add) but as he served as Foreign Secretary in the May Government, it was a curious position to take. At least MacMillan didn't try to argue that.
    Its not a curious position, there were two very clear breaks in 2019.

    The First Johnson ministry began 24/07/19: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Johnson_ministry
    The Second Johnson ministry began 13/12/19: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Johnson_ministry

    Both were very different to what came before.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    gealbhan said:

    Floater said:

    RobD said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Given how they view the vaccine, the only possible reason they could want this is to hurt the UK.
    That and to slow us down
    Yes. But.

    As we discussed yesterday, the EU screwed up contracting for vaccines, messaging, and to extent logistics. It’s created political pressure. Their antics is driven by the pressure.

    Some people this side of channel think it’s not a problem for us, or more than that it is actually quite nice and juicy. 🤤

    But, alternatively, if we foresee this pressure, that’s not our fault at all, certainly not stoked by government rhetoric our side of channel, can become an issue for us too, what can we practically suggest to make the current pressure on EU and EU commission lessen - iE change the current PR game they feel pressed into playing?

    I’ve never suggested giving away all our vaccine stocks to them and rest of the world, like St Francis on Bingo Root. And there is also argument it’s politically impossible to sell that to UK electorate.

    However.

    We share a land border with Irish Republic, it couldn’t be impossible politically to explain sharing our oxozen with them is not also very much in UK interest?

    Where part of pressure on EU commission is where they are judged in relation to UK roll out, and where roll out is more than just a jab, it’s ongoing logistics, ongoing commissioning, ongoing comms, is there anything other than vails of the good stuff we can share?

    What about offering some mutual commissioning from now with suppliers?

    What about as the vaccine is made from components, some from UK to EU and back again in vaccine, what about offering joint investment that’s going to speed up the production of components?

    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?
    It would not be that politically difficult, or that deleterious to the UK rollout, to plug the RoI into the UK's supplies and to make a tacit agreement not to touch the output from the Dutch AZ plant. In return the Commission and the more belligerent member states could back off and stop talking about export bans, which would provide the necessary reassurance that the UK's Pfizer pipeline is safe.

    That sounds sensible. Whether this situation can be resolved sensibly is a different matter. President Macron and the German governing party are both in a lot of trouble. Who's to say that they don't want to keep a fight going with the UK as a means to try to deflect blame/shore up domestic support?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,784
    gealbhan said:

    Floater said:

    RobD said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Given how they view the vaccine, the only possible reason they could want this is to hurt the UK.
    That and to slow us down
    Yes. But.

    As we discussed yesterday, the EU screwed up contracting for vaccines, messaging, and to extent logistics. It’s created political pressure. Their antics is driven by the pressure.

    Some people this side of channel think it’s not a problem for us, or more than that it is actually quite nice and juicy. 🤤

    But, alternatively, if we foresee this pressure, that’s not our fault at all, certainly not stoked by government rhetoric our side of channel, can become an issue for us too, what can we practically suggest to make the current pressure on EU and EU commission lessen - iE change the current PR game they feel pressed into playing?

    I’ve never suggested giving away all our vaccine stocks to them and rest of the world, like St Francis on Bingo Root. And there is also argument it’s politically impossible to sell that to UK electorate.

    However.

    We share a land border with Irish Republic, it couldn’t be impossible politically to explain sharing our oxozen with them is not also very much in UK interest?

    Where part of pressure on EU commission is where they are judged in relation to UK roll out, and where roll out is more than just a jab, it’s ongoing logistics, ongoing commissioning, ongoing comms, is there anything other than vails of the good stuff we can share?

    What about offering some mutual commissioning from now with suppliers?

    What about as the vaccine is made from components, some from UK to EU and back again in vaccine, what about offering joint investment that’s going to speed up the production of components?

    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?
    According to a report on Yahoo, the head of WHO is very scathing about rich countries vaccinating their own less at risk people before all the most at risk people worldwide are jabbed.

    Sorry I can't post a link, I'm on my smartphone and don't know how.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,065
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 19,861

    FPT:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Not really. Viewing this as a detached outsider I had little doubt about the essential conclusion. Some cock up and confusion? Yes. Some less than ideal processes and comms? Yes. But a conspiracy to nail and jail Salmon and pervert the course of justice? No. Not for me. Not in a million years.
    But Hamilton was not investigating the conspiracy charge, was he? I thought he was looking at Ministerial misconduct, which would not necessarily require conspiracy.
    Yes, I don't mean just this Hamilton Report. The "conspiracy", I think fails on every level. That's one for Sturgeon haters within the SNP and Sindy haters both north and south of the border.
    You don't 'think' that, you've refused to look into the matter because it's thuddingly obvious what the evidence wold point you to. Even TUD hasn't had the cojones to mount an actual defense of Sturgeon's behaviour, wisely sticking to firing pot shots at 'Yoons' instead. Hanging on to your own ignorance like a barnacle isn't an actual contribution to the debate.
    I have great judgement. I trust it.
    Nothing wrong with being low information about something if it doesn't interest you, it just means your verdict will be given the weight it deserves.
    Times I get worried is when you agree with me. Happened the other week if you recall. Caused some soul searching at this end. Maybe at your end too. But it appears we're both in the clear on this one. You are very welcome to believe that Nicola Sturgeon conspired to pervert the course of justice and bang up Alex Salmond for fabricated crimes. I assess it with a reasonable amount of confidence to be bollocks.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 2,448

    Leon said:

    Interesting take on expanding US statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, and.... Cuba

    https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/1374060110713126912?s=21

    I have the feeling he hasn’t been to Cuba

    “As soon as it’s free, let’s take it over like the good old days”.
    Examples of the relative successes of capitalism and socialism are often limited to N vs S Korea, E vs W Germany - but the example of Puerto Rico vs Cuba is just as interesting. Puerto Rico is what Cuba could have been without Castro.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,562

    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.
  • justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Nah, Tory private polling (as did Labour's) showed that Sheffield Rally had no impact on the result.

    Remember that Major led Kinnock on leader ratings every time since he became PM, and the Tories led Labour on the economy pretty much since Major took over and consistently had substantial leads closer we got to the election.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Interesting take on expanding US statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, and.... Cuba

    https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/1374060110713126912?s=21

    I have the feeling he hasn’t been to Cuba

    “As soon as it’s free, let’s take it over like the good old days”.
    Examples of the relative successes of capitalism and socialism are often limited to N vs S Korea, E vs W Germany - but the example of Puerto Rico vs Cuba is just as interesting. Puerto Rico is what Cuba could have been without Castro.
    Maybe, but the Cubans are fiercely patriotic and justifiably proud they kicked the Yankees out, even if many of them hate the regime. It’s like saying let’s take back Vietnam
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,065


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Not in the Pandemic context. Last Spring we were seeing Tory leads of 20% - 25%.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 2,935
    The clear break is a significant argument in favour of Tories going the distance; there was a clear break in 1990 but it wasn't a populist one and ran out of steam for ever after 1992. Brown was a clear break from Blair, but again not a populist one but the reverse. After several years of relatively non populist Tory (because of coalition, because of Cameron backing remain and because TM was whatever is the opposite of populist) a populist Tory government feels like one that has been in power and in office for about a year.

    Having said that the more likely result feels like NOM simply because of a mixture of events and (gamblers fallacy here) Boris's run of extraordinary luck must run out sometime. It'll be like watching Nijinsky lose when it does. Or is Boris really Frankel?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    justin124 said:

    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    Quincel said:

    All these "never happened", "rarely happened" or "not since 1970" remarks ... xkcd applies: https://xkcd.com/1122/

    There simply aren't enough elections often enough to form hard and fast rules. What's happened in the past is history, but no rule for the future.

    Obviously we can't form hard and fast rules, but we can and should form forecasts of how likely different outcomes are - and precedents can help. Clearly a government with a majority of 100 is more likely to hold it than one with a majority of 10, all else being equal. Likewise with mid-term polling. Obviously being ahead a couple of years before an election doesn't mean you'll win it - but you are more likely to than if you are 10 points behind.
    In 1992 the Tory majority fell from 102 to 21. Had it not been for Kinnock's campaign cock ups -'We're all right etc' - a Hung Parliament similar to 2017 would have been likely. Moreover, had Thatcher still been Leader with the Poll Tax still in place Labour could well have won that election.
    Although in 1992 the first signs of tactical voting were important. Butler and Kavanaugh calculated that had UNS held good there would have been a Tory majority of 77. In which case it’s not hard to imagine history would have been rather different, given many of Major’s travails stemmed from his relatively small majority.

    Equally, of course, tactical voting more efficiently organised in another 30-40 seats and Kinnock would have been in charge on Black Wednesday. Which Smith, to judge from his public pronouncements, would have mishandled even more spectacularly.

    So all Labour supporters should be very glad they lost in 1992.
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,583
    RobD said:
    Despite all of the nonsense back and forth this is actually good news for us oldies living in Spain!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 13,012
    gealbhan said:

    Floater said:

    RobD said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1374069429143752710

    France leading the charge eh?

    Shocked I tell you.

    Given how they view the vaccine, the only possible reason they could want this is to hurt the UK.
    That and to slow us down
    Yes. But.

    As we discussed yesterday, the EU screwed up contracting for vaccines, messaging, and to extent logistics. It’s created political pressure. Their antics is driven by the pressure.

    Some people this side of channel think it’s not a problem for us, or more than that it is actually quite nice and juicy. 🤤

    But, alternatively, if we foresee this pressure, that’s not our fault at all, certainly not stoked by government rhetoric our side of channel, can become an issue for us too, what can we practically suggest to make the current pressure on EU and EU commission lessen - iE change the current PR game they feel pressed into playing?

    I’ve never suggested giving away all our vaccine stocks to them and rest of the world, like St Francis on Bingo Root. And there is also argument it’s politically impossible to sell that to UK electorate.

    However.

    We share a land border with Irish Republic, it couldn’t be impossible politically to explain sharing our oxozen with them is not also very much in UK interest?

    Where part of pressure on EU commission is where they are judged in relation to UK roll out, and where roll out is more than just a jab, it’s ongoing logistics, ongoing commissioning, ongoing comms, is there anything other than vails of the good stuff we can share?

    What about offering some mutual commissioning from now with suppliers?

    What about as the vaccine is made from components, some from UK to EU and back again in vaccine, what about offering joint investment that’s going to speed up the production of components?

    You have to have a mindset to want to help them out a hole, whether you feel it might prove in our interest later or not. these are just my cardboard cut out suggestions, but with the brilliant hive mind of PB, what ideas can we suggest to turn a friends PR disaster around?
    Well, they could act like friends, admit their mistakes and ask for help rather than threatening us.

    I for one react better to people asking for help rather than threatening me
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    For those who think that party only matters, not changes in PM, its worth thinking that while a Tory majority existed from 2015-17 and 2019 to date; Cameron's second ministry (15-16) had more in common with his first than Johnson's second.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,317
    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Nandy, Cooper, David Miliband.

    Ah. I see the problem.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,562
    ydoethur said:


    It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.

    Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.

    He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.

    So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.

    Labour have plenty better options.

    Really? Name three.
    Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.

    Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Sign In or Register to comment.