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

System

It 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

TheScreamingEagles

First and thanks Pip.

ydoethur

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

No_Offence_Alan

So basically, to win the next election, Starmer needs to be as good a leader as Ted Heath. Tough ask!

dixiedean

I agree. From where we stand now the Tories ought to win.
But will it be downhill from here?

bigjohnowls

4th like LDs in number of MPs

ydoethur

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...

Theuniondivvie

https://twitter.com/ross_greer/status/1374058048789024769?s=21

Omnium

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.

Pagan2

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_Booth

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

Luckyguy1983

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/ross_greer/status/1374058048789024769?s=21

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

RobD

Frank_Booth said:

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

@TSE needs to update his barchart.

ydoethur

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.

Pulpstar

I've dipped my toe in with a lab majority lay for small beer on Betfair

ydoethur

Frank_Booth 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.

Quincel

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.

Malmesbury

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_Booth

ydoethur said:

Frank_Booth 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?

RochdalePioneers

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.

Pagan2

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

Luckyguy1983

FPT:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

No breach, apparently: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/independent-report/2021/03/independent-report-by-james-hamilton-on-the-first-ministers-self-referral-under-the-scottish-ministerial-code/documents/the-independent-report-by-james-hamilton-on-the-first-ministers-self-referral-under-the-scottish-ministerial-code/the-independent-report-by-james-hamilton-on-the-first-ministers-self-referral-under-the-scottish-ministerial-code/govscot:document/Referral+-+report+-++redacted+version.pdf

So you pays your money and takes your choice - Hamilton, or the MSPs......

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.

Theuniondivvie

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/ross_greer/status/1374058048789024769?s=21

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

x x

Omnium

ydoethur said:

Frank_Booth 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_Alan

Frank_Booth 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)

Stocky

Header: I agree. I tipped it here last week at 9/4 with W Hill.

justin124

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.

RobD

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.

Luckyguy1983

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/ross_greer/status/1374058048789024769?s=21

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

x x

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

justin124

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.

RobD

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.

Quincel

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_NorthWales

RochdalePioneers 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

Foxy

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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.

justin124

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.

Floater

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

France leading the charge eh?

Shocked I tell you.

Big_G_NorthWales

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

RobD

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.

ydoethur

Frank_Booth said:

ydoethur said:

Frank_Booth 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.

Floater

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

RochdalePioneers

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.

Razedabode

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

IanB2

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

williamglenn

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.

ydoethur

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers 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.

ydoethur

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

squareroot2

Frank_Booth said:

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

In a parallel universe there has.

RobD

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

gealbhan

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_NorthWales

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers 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_Thompson

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.

Omnium

ydoethur said:

Frank_Booth said:

ydoethur said:

Frank_Booth 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.

Foxy

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!)

RobD

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.

ydoethur

squareroot2 said:

Frank_Booth 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?

RobD

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.

justin124

ydoethur said:

Frank_Booth said:

ydoethur said:

Frank_Booth 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.

ydoethur

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers 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.

Leon

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

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1374085471614144514

Philip_Thompson

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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_NorthWales

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers 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

RobD

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1374085471614144514

Despite the EMA's advice.

Black_Rook

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.

ydoethur

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1374085471614144514

Senor, I regret the caballo has not merely bolted but he took the stable door with him.

Pagan2

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.

Malmesbury

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.

justin124

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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.

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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.

ydoethur

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.

Foxy

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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_Rook

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1374085471614144514

The Vaccine Hokey Cokey in full swing on the continent...

Philip_Thompson

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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.

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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.

Quincel

Philip_Thompson 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.

Razedabode

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers 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

stodge

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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_Thompson

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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.

justin124

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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.

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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.

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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.

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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.

Leon

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

ydoethur

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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_Leave

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_Alan

Philip_Thompson 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.

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.

squareroot2

ydoethur said:

squareroot2 said:

Frank_Booth 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...

glw

Black_Rook said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1374085471614144514

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_Thompson

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Frank_Booth 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_Rook

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?

AnneJGP

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.

justin124

Quincel said:

Philip_Thompson 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:

Philip_Thompson 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.

kinabalu

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

No breach, apparently: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/independent-report/2021/03/independent-report-by-james-hamilton-on-the-first-ministers-self-referral-under-the-scottish-ministerial-code/documents/the-independent-report-by-james-hamilton-on-the-first-ministers-self-referral-under-the-scottish-ministerial-code/the-independent-report-by-james-hamilton-on-the-first-ministers-self-referral-under-the-scottish-ministerial-code/govscot:document/Referral+-+report+-++redacted+version.pdf

So you pays your money and takes your choice - Hamilton, or the MSPs......

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.

Cookie

Time_to_Leave 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.

YBarddCwsc

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.

TheScreamingEagles

justin124 said:

Quincel said:

Philip_Thompson 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:

Philip_Thompson 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.

Leon

Cookie said:

Time_to_Leave 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

justin124

YBarddCwsc 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.

Not in the Pandemic context. Last Spring we were seeing Tory leads of 20% - 25%.

algarkirk

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?

ydoethur

justin124 said:

Quincel said:

Philip_Thompson 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:

Philip_Thompson 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.

felix

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1374085471614144514

Despite the EMA's advice.

Despite all of the nonsense back and forth this is actually good news for us oldies living in Spain!

ydoethur

YBarddCwsc 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.

Floater

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_Thompson

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.

Endillion

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc 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.

YBarddCwsc

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc 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.